| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
122326
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
146403
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
111937
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
"THE FUTURE OF POLITICS will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated in her article which appeared in the November 2011 issue of Foreign Policy under a powerful title "America's Pacific Century." The Editors were even more explicit when they put "Our Pacific Century" on the cover.
The American diplomat has gone much further than mere statements of the region's impressive economic growth which shifted the center of world economy to Asia. She has made it clear that America intends to dominate the APR. Diplomatically the formula "America's Pacific Century" is highly ambiguous; placed in the context of the coming presidential elections it looks like a gauntlet thrown down to that part of the American opposition that talks about "coming home" to address the economic crisis and financial instability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
113160
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The announcement of a reformed US defence strategy by President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in early January 2012 confirmed a pivot towards the Asia-Pacific as commitments to war fighting in the Middle East and Central Asia subside. Obama, Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed reporters on 5 January on America's new strategic guidance document, 'Sustaining US Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense'. The product of a review of US defence priorities 'at a moment of transition' for the nation, the document notes that the United States will 'of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region'. The principle of the Asia pivot was also signalled by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a November 2011 Foreign Policy article in which she noted that 'one of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will … be to lock in a substantially increased investment - diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise - in the Asia-Pacific region'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
113902
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
154175
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
152677
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
THIS ARTICLE is a logical continuation of my previous essay, "Barack Obama: Preliminary Results of Presidency"1 that I ended with: "Obama has several months to go down to history not as the president of numerous conflicts and the state of international relations close to the Cold War but as the president who gave the world a slim hope of positive changes." Today, we can say that he has missed his chance to be remembered as a peacemaker and a realistically minded president who knew how to defuse international tension rather than fan it to worldwide dimensions. Indeed, he did all he could to leave behind a wasteland of American-Russian relations and not the slightest hope of positive changes any time soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
153425
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The bureaucratic politics model of foreign policy decision making is predicated in large part by Miles' Law, which states that “where you stand depends upon where you sit.” That is, an actor's policy preferences can be predicted from his or her governmental position or role within the bureaucracy. Consequently, secretaries of state in the U.S. foreign policy decision-making process are then presumed to favor policy options emphasizing diplomacy and civilian efforts. However, Hillary Clinton has proved to be a consistent hawk during her tenure as secretary of state. Specifically, she was one of the strongest advocates of the use of military force in both Afghanistan and Libya. This paper examines Clinton's policy preferences in the context of the Afghanistan troop surge and the U.S. role in the international military operation in Libya to probe whether the secretary's failure to conform to Miles' Law is an anomaly or presents important questions regarding the possible disjunction between institutional and individual interests and their respective influences on actors' policy preferences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
105085
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The last 20 years -- so blandly labeled the "post-Cold War era" -- might as well be known as the "Age of Failed States." After decades of confronting Soviet power, successive U.S. administrations suddenly became embroiled in and bedeviled by the world's most dysfunctional countries. Although great-power competition persists, it is often the world's basket cases -- from Somalia to Afghanistan, Haiti to Liberia, and Pakistan to Yemen -- that dominate the U.S. foreign-policy agenda. This trend began in the early 1990s, when a shocking outbreak of state collapse and internal violence, including but by no means limited to episodes of genocide in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, seemed to herald a "new world disorder," in the words of British diplomat David Hannay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
106560
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
110926
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Last August, the Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney performed what has become a quadrennial rite of passage in American presidential politics: he delivered a speech to the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. His message was rooted in another grand American tradition: hyping foreign threats to the United States. It is "wishful thinking," Romney declared, "that the world is becoming a safer place. The opposite is true. Consider simply the jihadists, a near-nuclear Iran, a turbulent Middle East, an unstable Pakistan, a delusional North Korea, an assertive Russia, and an emerging global power called China. No, the world is not becoming safer."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
119663
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton helped restore America's standing in the world, but she left office with no signature achievement. If she gets her way, her tenure as the country's top diplomat will come to be seen simply as a stepping-stone to the presidency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
150415
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
113294
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Realism tells us that states are unitary actors and foreign policy ends at the water's edge. This essay questions this view in the context of recent US policy on Afghanistan. In early 2008, Senator Barack Obama won several early primary victories and gained a substantial lead in the Democratic presidential nomination contest. Both Democratic senator Hillary Clinton and to a lesser extent the apparent Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, questioned Obama's leadership ability. The future president responded in part by announcing his intent to expand the US military presence in Afghanistan. The policy of increased militarization crystallized publically in response to domestic campaign pressure rather than because of events on the ground in South Asia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
152678
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
IT SEEMS that the West is gradually turning to conservatism. At least this is how Donald Trump's victory at the 2016 presidential elections can be interpreted together with Brexit and the much stronger positions of the right-wing parties in Europe. The left liberal forces that fell into the trap of their own ideology and propaganda proved unable to adequately assess the developments in their own countries and elsewhere in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
100566
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Israelis and the Palestinians will never find peace if they are left to negotiate on their own. As has been the case throughout history, great-power leadership is the missing ingredient. Washington must lead the way in enforcing a final-status settlement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
109771
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Does Pakistan figure in the face-saving deal that the US is trying to thrash out with the Taliban in Doha?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
104788
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
100517
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
112988
|
|
|