| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
175750
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
From its inception, the Trump administration has had three objectives in relation to Israel and the Palestinians. The most important of these has been to “change the paradigm” of peacemaking. U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman indicated this in a February 11, 2020 presentation at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs,1 and this has been a theme in many of the public pronouncements by Trump’s advisors. Their view, echoing that of the president, has been that all previous peace efforts have failed and that they know best how to make a good deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
175754
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Yes, of course it should. Donald Trump is the most powerful political actor in the most powerful state on earth, and even if every other country lines up against him, he can impact the future course of events like no other contemporary figure. His puerile tweets and reckless directives may be risible — even derisible — but he has a matchless capacity to bully and bribe and is not averse to using it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
157759
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Does President Donald J. Trump have a coherent statecraft? Can we find a
consistent grand strategy in this new administration, worth calling the “Trump
Doctrine”? Mainly supported by angry Jacksonian folks who have been frustrated
with economic polarization and racial anxiety, Trump’s foreign policy idea
resonates well with European realism. Considering the fact that realist theory has
been confined to the margins of public discourse in post–Cold War America, this
unexpected return of the realist doctrine on the U.S. political scene needs to be
explained. Why are we suddenly approaching realism’s moment in foreign policy?
What makes prominent realists express their best wishes to President Trump?
In this article, we focus on the historical parallel between two maverick presidents
in modern U.S. history, Richard Nixon and Donald Trump. In particular, it is argued
that the realities of the United States’ relative decline induced the Nixon and Trump
administrations to embark on an unconventional course of realpolitik in world
politics. The U.S. leadership in the early 1970s strived to adjust to a condition in
which U.S. dominance was no longer as certain as in the early years of the postwar
times by adopting unorthodox statecraft amid profound political polarization.
Seemingly, the same story applies to the present administration. By attacking the
liberal consensus of the establishment, domestic and international, the Trump
government tries to “make America great again” in another era of increased stress.
Confronting an emerging multipolar international system and the collapse of the
existing national consensus, dramatic shifts in policies have been implemented to
ensure that the United States will remain a hegemonic power on the world scene.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
169233
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper seeks to examine U.S.-Vietnam relations under the Trump administration. It will concentrate on the political, economic and security dimensions of the relationship. It will demonstrate that the Trump administration's policy towards Vietnam has many elements of Obama's policy towards Vietnam. Though President Trump has focused on the trade deficit with Vietnam, the Trump administration has worked closely with the Vietnamese government to intensify the partnership with Vietnam. It should be noted that in the context of China's growing assertiveness in the South China Sea, Hanoi and Washington see that it is in their mutual interests to advance their security cooperation. The last two years have witnessed the increasing partnership between Vietnam and the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|