Anti-Western sentiments, disinformation and the reactions to Russia’s war on Ukraine in the Global South

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The basic aim of the article is to address a question about the consequences of the crisis in Ukraine to the security policy of the United States in Europe. In order to fulfill this goal, the article analysis key elements of United States’ foreign policy towards NATO members and Russian Federation. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: This paper employs concepts of grand strategy; deterrence and security dilemma in order to explain the current strategic choices of the United States in Europe. It is based in the newest secondary sources as well as on primary ones including official speeches and documents of the Obama administration. THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The article is divided into three parts: first, explains terminology and necessary concepts applied in the paper; state of research and overview of subject literature. Second, summarizes United States foreign and security policies towards Europe and Russia till the break out of conflict in Ukraine in February 2014. The third, presents key strategic dilemmas US has faced since the beginning of the conflict. RESEARCH RESULTS: Conflict in Ukraine created the biggest diplomatic rift between US and Russia since the end of the Cold War and resulted in tightening of defense cooperation between NATO member states. The United States returned to the strategy of deterring Russia and reassuring its European allies. CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: There are at least three strategic dilemmas the United States faces in Europe: How to implement American interests in Europe with the heralded strategic rebalancing towards Asia-Pacific region; How to balance a need for more robust defense of NATO European members and a need to normalize relations with Russia; And how to keep NATO’s relevance as an defense alliance in the times of financial austerity and threat diffusion.

Contents: Introduction, Robert J. Pauly Jr Section I Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on US Foreign Policy: America's emergence as a global power, Robert J. Pauly Jr US foreign policy during the Cold War, Robert J. Pauly Jr An era of global change: the post-Cold War years, Brian Anderson International relations theory and US foreign policy, Bohdan S. Sawycky Containment, neo-realism and US foreign policy during the Cold War, Daniel Graeber Alternative theoretical perspectives on US foreign policy, Melodee Baines 'Constructing' US foreign policy: past, present and future, Jack Covarrubias. Section II Regional Perspectives on US Foreign Policy: Europe, Tom Lansford The greater Middle East, Clayton Chun China and the Far East, B.J. Jordan Latin America, Russell W. Ramsey Africa, Jack Kalpakian. Section III US Foreign Policy During the Post-Cold War Era: US foreign policy in the post-9/11 world, Robert J. Pauly Jr The globalization of US foreign policy, Shahdad Naghshpour and Joseph J. St Marie A nexus of terrorism: security, globalization and political economy, Shahdad Naghshpour and Joseph J. St Marie Nation/state building, democratization and US foreign policy, Robert J. Pauly Jr Conclusions, Robert J. Pauly Jr Bibliography Index.

US Foreign Policy in World History is a survey of US foreign relations and its perceived crusade to spread liberty and democracy in the two hundred years since the American Revolution. David Ryan undertakes a systematic and material analysis of US foreign policy, whilst also explaining the policymakers' grand ideas, ideologies and constructs that have shaped US diplomacy.US Foreign Policy explores these arguments by taking a thematic approach structured around central episodes and ideas in the history of US foreign relations and policy making, including:* The Monroe Doctrine, its philisophical goals and impact* Imperialism and expansionism* Decolonization and self-determination* the Cold War* Third World development* the Soviet 'evil empire', the Sandinistas and the 'rogue' regime of Saddam Hussein* the place of goal for economic integration within foreign affairs.

US Foreign Policy in World History is a survey of US foreign relations and its perceived crusade to spread liberty and democracy in the two hundred years since the American Revolution. David Ryan undertakes a systematic and material analysis of US foreign policy, whilst also explaining the policymakers' grand ideas, ideologies and constructs that have shaped US diplomacy.US Foreign Policy explores these arguments by taking a thematic approach structured around central episodes and ideas in the history of US foreign relations and policy making, including:* The Monroe Doctrine, its philisophical goals and impact* Imperialism and expansionism* Decolonization and self-determination* the Cold War* Third World development* the Soviet 'evil empire', the Sandinistas and the 'rogue' regime of Saddam Hussein* the place of goal for economic integration within foreign affairs.

Foreign policy is an integral part of international relations. This study examines the United States (US) foreign policy towards Jordan from 1990 to 2017 since the period witnessed important regional and international political events that significantly impacted the US foreign policy. These events have the greatest impact on the development of relations between the two countries in terms of political and security aspects. The study looks at four political events and their impacts on Jordanian-American relations from the political and security aspects. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to examine the US foreign policy towards Jordan from the political and security aspects. This study adopted the qualitative approach. The primary data were collected from interviews while the secondary data were obtained from books, journals, theses, newspapers, seminar papers, articles and other documents. In this study, 16 respondents from political, economic and security experts in Jordan and the US were selected for semi-structured interviews. The study employed Thematic Analysis in analysing the data obtained. This study adopted the neo-realism theory as a theoretical framework. This study found that the US foreign policy recognizes Jordan as a close ally and considers its stability very important. The US foreign policy was seen slightly negative towards Jordan during the Iraqi War on Kuwait in 1990. However, the Wadi Araba peace treaty between Jordan and Israel in 1994 had promoted positive US foreign policy towards Jordan. This policy was slightly weakened in 2017 due to the transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Certain political events play an important role in the US foreign policy regarding security aid towards Jordan. The study found that the US foreign policy provides security support to Jordan to protect Israel, spread American ideology and fight against its enemy. This research also found that Jordan has a suitable location to defend Israel because the country is surrounded by important Arab countries. The US links its aids to Jordan due to political events. Accordingly, the study recommends the necessity for the Jordanian state to increase its influential economic alliances at the international level. In addition, Jordanian policy must be redrawn in line with international realities to pressure the US to make Jordan play an active role in the region and international arena. Jordan should better use its geographical location to achieve international cooperation and enhance Arab security as a barrier against Israel.

1.Interpreting US Foreign Policy in Colombia 2. US Objectives in Latin America during the Cold War?, Orthodox interpretations of US Cold War foreign policy: East versus West, Revisionist historiography and US Cold War foreign policy: North versus South, What was the US containing in Latin America during the Cold War?, The case of Guatemala, The case of Cuba, The case of Chile, The case of Nicaragua, Soviet policy in Latin America 3. US objectives in Latin America after the Cold War, US foreign and security policy objectives after the Cold War: the discontinuity thesis, US post-Cold War foreign policy: the continuity thesis 4. Installing State Terror in Colombia, US sponsored counterinsurgency in Latin America, US CI strategy and the legitimation of state terrorism, Antecedents to US counterinsurgency in Colombia : La Violencia US policy, Plan Lazo and paramilitarism, The Colombian peace process and the democratic opening 5. From Communism to Narco-terrorism, The 'War on Drugs', From Bush to Clinton: the decertification of Colombia, Clinton's legacy: 'Plan Colombia', From narco-guerrillas to narco-terrorists: The Andean Regional Initiative and the US's new 'war on terror' 6. Counter-insurgency, Capital and Crude Bibliography Index

The paper examines the allocation of economic as well as military aid from the United States (US) to Israel and investigates whether the US has ever linked its aid to human rights performance in case of the Jewish State. In doing so, the paper explores US foreign aid policies in the light of US Congressional legislation enacted in 1974, which aimed at linking the provision of US aid to human rights performance of aid recipient governments. An assessment of US foreign aid policies illustrates that the US has rarely acted upon such legislation in letter and spirit to terminate or restrict aid to governments involved in violation of the globally recognized human rights. Focusing on US bilateral aid policies during three distinct periods: the Cold War, the post-Cold War and the ‘war on terror’; this study shows that instead of linking aid to respect for human rights in the case of Israel, the US has rather authorized more aid to the Jewish State despite the latter's dismal record of human rights performance. The paper illustrates that the provision of US aid is not inspired by the promotion of democracy, liberty and human rights in aid-receiving states. The study concludes that when US foreign policy goals including political, security and geo-strategic interests are at stake, human rights are not significant dynamics behind US aid distribution to Israel or any other US strategic partners.

This dissertation aims to investigate the sources of United States (US) foreign policy toward Azerbaijan by examining the relative impact of domestic, geostrategic and structural factors in explaining US foreign policy toward the country. Azerbaijan is one of the newly independent states that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Despite its small size, the country’s strategic location, vast oil and natural gas reserves, and its conflict with Armenia over the Nagorno- Karabakh region elevated its importance and made Azerbaijan the center of interest for great powers. As the sole superpower after the end of the Cold War, the US has largely followed a unilateral foreign policy agenda. US foreign policy toward the South Caucasus in general, and Azerbaijan in particular, has been marked by inconsistencies, and by a lack of coordination and an unwillingness to take the initiative in crucial issue areas. Most importantly, experts have observed several important shifts in US policy toward Azerbaijan. These shifts can be conceptualized as critical junctures as they represent fundamental changes in the orientation of US policy. The dissertation is focused on these critical junctures as they relate to four main issue areas: the political economy of oil, the security partnership, economic reforms, and human rights. Why did the US disengage from Caspian energy issues after the successful completion of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline? Why did the US lose its commitment to Azerbaijani security, including the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Why did the US grow unhappy about the investment climate in Azerbaijan in the 2000s? Why did the Obama administration decide to shift to a “human rights policy” toward Baku, despite two decades of neglect of such issues by the Clinton and Bush Administrations? This dissertation follows a chronological format and analyzes the sources of US foreign policy towards Azerbaijan in three time periods: 1991-2001, 2002-2007, and 2008-2015.

The leaders who formulated and implemented United States (US) foreign policy during the two decades following World War II had witnessed the bitter consequences of post-Versailles isolationism, of beggar-thy-neighbor international economic policies, of military restraint in the face of rearmament by those committed to destruction of the existing international order, and of efforts to conciliate expansionist dictatorships by offering concessions. The picture that emerges from these data, then, is neither unquestioning acceptance nor wholesale rejection of the cold war axioms. Beliefs about the international system are closely related to images of adversaries and their intentions. Cold war beliefs about US opponents centered on the expansionist motivations harbored in Moscow and Peking. The post-Vietnam debate on US foreign policy has not been limited to the substance or content of policy. The foregoing results reveal a mixed pattern of support for important elements of both the cold war and post-cold war axioms.

Introduction: The study's relevance lies in its focus on analysing the international legal aspects of foreign policy, emphasising the research of balancing social welfare and strategic interests in diverse state models. To analyse the transformation of foreign policy in modern conditions, to evaluate the impact of international law on foreign policy and the impact of foreign policy strategies of states on international law, and to examine the leading international legal issues of foreign policy in modern conditions. Objectives: The article aims to analyse the transformation of foreign policy in modern conditions, assess the impact of international law on foreign policy, and examine the influence of states' foreign policy strategies on international law. Methods: The study combines complementary general scientific theoretical methods, including analysis, synthesis, and abstraction. The integration of analysis and synthesis ensured an objective and comprehensive examination of aspects of foreign policy relations in the context of the dynamics of international law. Results: The essay analyses European foreign policy's main prospects and threats. International legal issues related to foreign policy strategies are examined, which is significant as contemporary processes are shaping the formation of a new system of international relations. It is argued that this allows for a fresh perspective on the role of welfare states in the context of their foreign policy and international law. The European Union's foreign policy is analysed and implemented either through the Common Foreign and Security Policy under the leadership of the European Council or via international economic negotiations conducted by the European Commission. A new type of relations among major powers, particularly under Xi Jinping, is characterised. It is identified that the "Belt and Road Initiative" is the main, though not the sole, programme launched by China, one of whose primary objectives is to create an environment of cooperation among states. Conclusions: The EU's enlargement is an integral part of the development of European integration, and the new wave of EU enlargement will serve as an investment in the continent's security. The doctrine of US foreign policy aims to achieve a safer, more democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the country, its citizens, and the international community.

Going by appearances, foreign policy is a pretty foreign subject to most Americans. We're told that the public is ignorant about the world beyond its borders, and largely indifferent to distant problems. US politicians generally give foreign policy questions a low priority; during elections they seem to ignore them outright. The practice of US foreign policy confirms other stereotypes. The United States, the world's sole remaining superpower, appears increasingly unwilling to except the constraints imposed by multilateral institutions and international law. In recent years, the United States has displayed an alarming tendency toward unilateralism. It has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the international land mine treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This paper examines the values that underpin US foreign policy and the bonds that tie us to those two nations. It surveys American public opinion generally—both before and after the terrorist attacks on September 11—and then looks at American views of the US alliances with Japan and Korea. It concludes by exploring the key issues in those two relationships and offers suggestions about ways to ensure that they continue to be relevant and resilient in the years ahead.

FRIENDLY FIRE Losing Friends and Making Enemies in the Anti-American Century Julia Sweig New York: Public Affairs, 2006. xvii, 25ipp, US$25.00 cloth.UBERPOWER The Imperial Temptation of America Josef Joffe New York: W. W. Norton, 2006. 271pp, US$24.95 cloth.AMERICA AGAINST THE WORLD How We Are Different and Why We Are Disliked Andrew Kohut and Bruce Stokes New York: Times Books/Henry Holt, 2006. xix, 259pp, US$25.00 cloth.Walter McDougall began his magisterial 1997 study of US foreign policy, Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World Since /776, by quoting some lines from Randy Newman's satirical song, Political Science, in which the singer highlights the unerring ability of allies to, as McDougall puts it, get our goat with their criticism of Washington's policies. For sure, there is nothing new about the tendency of American allies (either their leaders or their publics, or both) to criticize particular aspects of US foreign and domestic policies. Regularly during the Cold War, Washington seemed to be at odds with many of its friends and allies, so much so that one US defence secretary during the late 19705 was heard to query, apropos the receipt of news that the alliance had fallen into disarray, When has NATO ever been in array?As we know, these intra-alliance tensions, however grave they may have appeared at the time, proved ultimately to be less than fatal from the point of view of America's (and, it must be said, its allies') overriding interest during the Cold War, namely the containment of the Soviet Union and the safeguarding of transatlantic security. The Soviets were held in check until they finally collapsed; and the western Europeans never did experience either a Soviet invasion or, nearly as bad, a relapse into the kind of internecine, interstate bloodletting that had so frequently been their lot ever since the dawn of the Westphalian order in the mid-i7th century.Today, it has become an article of widespread conviction that opposition globally to what America does and even what it stands for has swelled to unprecedented proportions, with the obvious implication being that, unless abated, the current and rising tide of will be bound to have sinister implications for the United States, as well as, presumably, for the entire west. This time it seems to be much more a question of America's getting its allies' goats than of the reverse, for many now insist that it is the emanating from within the west, rather than from outside it, that will prove to be the most consequential as the Cold War recedes from collective memory. In their own way, the three books under review here offer a perspective on what might be termed-to adopt the imagery suggested by the first of our authors, Julia Sweig-friendly fire anti-Americanism (sometimes referred to as lite to distinguish it from the sort of throat-slitting, head-lopping antiAmericanism associated with America's jihadist enemies). But the softness of the modifier to the contrary notwithstanding, neither Sweig's book nor the other two minimize the potential consequences that could ensue, more for Washington than for its traditional allies, should there be no respite from the current miasma attending America's image abroad.As might be expected from someone who is the Nelson and David Rockefeller senior fellow for Latin American studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Sweig allocates a significant portion of her book to Latin America (Mexico excepted), which she sees as a kind of seedbed for much of today's anti-Americanism. Indeed, she leaves the reader with the impression that had the US been able to develop a more Latinofriendly foreign policy, it would have gone a great distance along the road to remedying the legitimacy crisis from which it is now said to be suffering in international affairs. In this respect, she challenges two of the major contemporary arguments surrounding friendly-fire anti-Americanism, namely that it is primarily a European phenomenon, and that is has at least as much-perhaps more-to do with what America /5 than with what America does. …

The official history of US foreign policy, published by the State Department as the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), has profoundly changed how historians of foreign relations can conduct research and prepare students to do the same. This primary source amalgam, compiled by professional historians, operates under a statutory requirement to ‘include all records needed’ for comprehensive documentation of all ‘major’ and ‘significant’ US diplomatic activity and foreign policy decisions. FRUS is an easily accessible, digestible resource – a veritable simulacrum of US foreign policy – that profoundly alters research methodology. This article utilises FRUS to conduct a comparative analysis of seemingly similar US-backed military coup d’états in Brazil in 1964 and Indonesia in 1965. Both nations were the largest, most powerful countries in their respective regions and critical to US foreign policy – Brazil by proximity, Indonesia by geopolitical strategy. Both nations also became targets of covert operations, which resulted in military coups that installed governments closely aligned with US foreign policy. Nevertheless, each coup was conducted under differing circumstances that required varying levels of direct US intervention. Regime change in Indonesia, as FRUS so clearly highlights, required a considerably more substantial amount of time, money, and effort than that of Brazil. This case study highlights the stark contrast between the relative ease of system maintenance in a region already subordinated to US hegemony and the painstaking process of drawing a new area of the globe into the American sphere of influence.

Journal Article The Uncertain Giant: 1921–1941. American Foreign Policy Between the Wars and From Yalta to Vietnam: American Foreign Policy in the Cold War Get access The Uncertain Giant: 1921–1941. American Foreign Policy Between the Wars. By Selig Adler. New York: Collier Books; London: Collier-Macmillan. 1969. 340 pp. Bibliog. Index. (American Diplomatic History Series. Gen. ed.: Armin Rappaport.) 18s.From Yalta to Vietnam: American Foreign Policy in the Cold War. By David Horowitz. 4th ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 1969. 465 pp. Bibliog. Index. (A Pelican Book 140211470.) 10s. A$1.70. NZ$1.45. S. Africa R.1.20. C$2.15. John D. Lees John D. Lees Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Affairs, Volume 46, Issue 3, July 1970, Pages 629–630, https://doi.org/10.2307/2613311 Published: 01 July 1970

This thesis seeks to advance understandings of why states’ foreign policy decisions vary when the material and social conditions underpinning their interests have not changed. It focuses on American foreign policy, and specifically on US decisions on whether to use military force abroad. It works to show that variation in these types of decisions can best be explained through an emphasis on the different types of ideas that emerge in debates within presidential administrations, rather than through adopting rationalist approaches making generalised presumptions of state self-interest. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has remained a great power and enjoyed relative stability in coalitional alignments. Despite this relative stability in material and relational conditions, however, decisions to use military force abroad have varied considerably across cases, including in humanitarian crises in the Balkans in the early 1990s, the War on Terror from 2001, and more recent conflicts in Libya and Syria. But what explains this variation? Existing rationalist theoretical approaches in International Relations have often pointed to crises and “exogenous shocks” to explain variation in foreign policy interests. In doing so, they have emphasised rational self-interest, presuming that agents use information efficiently in efforts to pursue either material or ideational bases of state interests. Yet, realist, liberal, and constructivist scholars have struggled to explain variation in state interests in the absence of either a change in the international distribution of material capabilities or in the face of ideational change. For example, in regard to possible intervention in Bosnia in the early 1990s, President George H.W. Bush urged restraint, arguing that the conflict was fuelled by “ancient, ethnic animosities”, and that the US “did not have a dog in the fight”. His successor, Bill Clinton, initially adopted the same approach. Yet, following the massacre at Srebrenica in 1995, it became clear that the existing approach to conflict in Bosnia had become a “cancer” in US foreign policy. As such, Clinton demanded a new policy which ultimately led the US intervene and bring the Bosnian War to an end through Operation Deliberate Force. Similarly, despite professing a foreign policy of restraint, President Barack Obama would become drawn into intervention in Libya in 2011 despite their being “no vital security interests” at stake. An approach focussing on a states’ rational pursuit of self-interest would face severe challenges in seeking to explain the decisions ultimately made in either case. Overall, such approaches tend to underrate uncertainty and overrate interpretive efficiency in foreign policy decision-making. This thesis develops an alternate theoretical framework focussed on the role of ideas in influencing the interpretations by states’ principal foreign policy decision-makers of foreign policy interests. Building on Vivien Schmidt’s discursive institutionalist framework, it highlights how agents use different types of ideas — principled or cognitive — as “weapons” as they contest the meaning of events. It focuses on two key mechanisms — narrative displacement and repressive conversion — through which agents come to rely on these different types of ideas as they either repress or displace different sources of information. In doing so, it provides an explanation of how decisions to use force vary as agents come to rely on principled or cognitive types of ideas in their interpretations of foreign policy interests.