| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
154184
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
178100
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
151251
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
172734
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
182025
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
During his four years in office, President Trump repeatedly called on NATO allies to increase their defense spending, and threatened to leave the alliance if the situation did not improve. This article examines how three long standing members – Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany – responded to the challenge of the Trump presidency. It will reveal that all three did increase spending, modestly in the cases of Canada and the United Kingdom, more substantively for Germany. While the Trump presidency is now over, his insults and threats have done lasting damage, and thus whether NATO survives is increasingly an open question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
189442
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article highlights the convergence and divergence between US and India regarding Iran during the Trump administration and makes the following arguments. First, as Trump’s hard line on Iran was viewed negatively by India, New Delhi took measures to assert its longheld tradition of “strategic autonomy” in foreign policy which could not be ignored by the U.S. establishment despite Trump’s personal choices. Second, as Iran responded to the Trump’s hardening policies by gravitating toward China, the Trump administration became slightly more sensitive toward the complexities of IranChina bonhomie for Indian diplomacy. Third, although India was forced to cut back on importing Iranian oil due to sanctions in mid-2019, American officials began to view India-Iran-Afghanistan collaboration on the Chabahar port project as an opportunity to boost the Afghan economy, and exempted the project from sanctions. The article concludes that despite strong divergences on Iran, the Trump administration came to pursue a combination of pressure and engagement with India to reduce divergence on Iran.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
178144
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
155031
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Alpha Editions, 2017.
|
| Description |
vii, 280p.hbk
|
| Standard Number |
9789386423948
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 059186 | 327.47073/SCH 059186 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
165864
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
To many observers across the political spectrum, American democracy appears under threat. What does the Trump presidency portend for American politics? How much confidence should we have in the capacity of American institutions to withstand this threat? We argue that understanding what is uniquely threatening to democracy requires looking beyond the particulars of Trump and his presidency. Instead, it demands a historical and comparative perspective on American politics. Drawing on insights from the fields of comparative politics and American political development, we argue that Trump’s election represents the intersection of three streams in American politics: polarized two-party presidentialism; a polity fundamentally divided over membership and status in the political community, in ways structured by race and economic inequality; and the erosion of democratic norms. The current political circumstance threatens the American democratic order because of the interactive effects of institutions, identity, and norm-breaking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
165857
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
How much of politics is specific to its actors and how much is the reflection of an established structure is a perennial concern of political analysts, one that becomes especially intense with the candidacy and then the presidency of Donald Trump. In order to have a template for assigning the outcomes of politics to structure rather than idiosyncrasy, we begin with party balance, ideological polarization, substantive content, and a resulting process of policy-making drawn from the immediate postwar period. The analysis then jumps forward with that same template to the modern world, dropping first the Trump candidacy and then the Trump presidency into this framework. What emerges is a modern electoral world with increased prospects for what might be called off-diagonal candidacies and a policy-making process that gathers Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump together as the modern presidents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
191746
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the Trump administration's policy on Russian aggression in Ukraine and the problem of incoherence in Trump's foreign policy. It argues that the Trump administration's policy on Russia–Ukraine was characterized by incoherence, an absence of clear relationships between the views of senior administration members and official policy, and an unprecedented lack of transparency. Its policy on Russian aggression in Ukraine highlights the unconventional behaviour of the Trump administration as a foreign policy-making body, something which limits the ability of the foreign policy analysis (FPA) field to explain Trump policy. It argues that assumptions about foreign policy and the methods for researching it need to be rethought when administration practices fall so far outside US foreign policy-making norms, particularly in an era when changes in United States domestic politics mean that the Trump administration may not remain a unique case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|