| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
100536
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
121569
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
VISITING MOSCOW during his first international trip as China's new president in March, Xi Jinping told his counterpart, Vladimir Putin, that Beijing and Moscow should "resolutely support each other in efforts to protect national sovereignty, security and development interests." He also promised to "closely coordinate in international regional affairs." Putin reciprocated by saying that "the strategic partnership between us is of great importance on both a bilateral and global scale." While the two leaders' summit rhetoric may have outpaced reality in some areas, Americans should carefully assess the Chinese-Russian relationship, its implications for the United States and our options in responding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
110320
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the last issue of The National Interest, we ran a cover story by Nikolas K. Gvosdev and Ray Takeyh positing that America's military role in helping bring down Libyan president Muammar el-Qaddafi represented a significant new era in the country's foreign policy-the ascendancy of a doctrine that placed far greater emphasis on humanitarian considerations as a rationale for military interventions overseas. This was a provocative thesis, and the authors' probing analysis and tight argumentation rendered it one that we were proud to display prominently in our journal. But it occurred to us that it certainly didn't represent the last word on the subject of the future of American foreign policy. And so we invited three prominent international-relations thinkers-Leslie H. Gelb, Patrick J. Buchanan and Marc Lynch-to weigh in with their own thoughts on the subject. Their musings follow, along with a final response from Gvosdev and Takeyh, who get the last word as a reward for introducing the subject in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
099375
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
089225
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The United States is declining as a nation and a world power, with mostly sighs and shrugs to mark this seismic event. Astonishingly, some people do not appear to realize that the situation is all that serious. A few say it is serious and hopeless. I count myself among those who think it is most serious yet reversible, if Americans are clear-eyed about the causes and courageous about implementing the cures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
135212
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Even President Obama’s dwindling residue of faithfuls and retainers should not wager on his rewriting the history books in his closing two years. A presidency that began with lofty expectations has devolved into steadily defining them down, at home and abroad. The result has been prolonged paralysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
119750
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
055051
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
May-Jun 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
110686
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
UPON HIS departure as secretary of defense, none other than Washington's latest living legend Robert Gates cautioned those he was leaving behind to cherish and nurture bipartisanship. "When we have been successful in national security and foreign affairs, it has been because there has been bipartisan support." To drive the point home, he added: "No major international problem can be solved on one president's watch. And so, unless it has bipartisan support, unless it can be extended over a period of time, the risks of failure [are] high."
Contrary to Gates's Holy Grail sentiments and to most homilies to bipartisanship, Dean Acheson tagged the practice a "magnificent fraud." As President Truman's secretary of state and thus one of its earliest practitioners, he knew of what he spoke. In a 1971 interview at the Truman Library, Acheson offered a taste of his usual rough-and-tumble candor:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|