The ‘Pacific’ President's agenda forTransatlantica

From today's viewpoint, 2016 may well represent the end of the post‐Cold War era and the general assumptions that are associated with it. These include the beliefs that the United States remains a European power, guaranteeing the territorial integrity of its European NATO allies, that liberal democracy represents the political system widely seen as the only legitimate normative reference point, and that the future of the European Union will be defined by continued integration into an ‘ever closer Union’. These assumptions have been shaken to the core.

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.

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.

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.

The article describes and analyses the policy of the Trump administration towards Ukraine. Traditionally, the election of a new US President has some impact on the Washington’s position on Ukrainian issues, and the end of the presidential tenure serves as a reason to take stock of the results. Donald Trump’s presidency has not been marked by profound changes in the US foreign policy towards Ukraine, as it was inertially in line, for the most part, with the previous years. The American political establishment primarily views Ukraine through the prism of the security paradigm as a bulwark of deterring its global opponents, particularly Russia. Thus, the article deals with the challenges and prospects of the modern US policy towards Ukraine. The priorities of the US foreign policy towards Ukraine traditionally consist of the issues enshrined in the 2008 U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership. The article focuses on defence, security, and energy cooperation. In this regard, the United States remains the major guarantor of the territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine. In deterring the Russian aggression, the Trump administration generally follows the approach of the imposition of economic sanctions, launched during the presidency of Barack Obama. It is important to stress that the United States focuses not only on the problem of the armed conflict in Donbas but also on the attempted illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia. At the same time, the focus on security issues has its negative repercussions, as it leads to certain limitations in bilateral relations, as evidenced by the lack of large-scale joint projects and weak trade and economic cooperation that impacts Ukraine’s position in the US foreign policy priorities. In the meantime, regardless of the name of the future US President, Washington’s support for Ukraine will be maintained. The close involvement of the United States in the negotiation process for the settlement of the conflict in Donbas and de-occupation of Crimea would significantly influence the course of events, but it is difficult to predict whether this prospect will become a reality. Keywords: US foreign policy towards Ukraine, Trump administration, strategic partnership, U.S.-Ukraine bilateral relations, process of impeachment.

In this article, the author uses Afrocentricity in order to provide an African point of view in respect of the analysis of the United States (US) foreign policy towards Africa. Given the dominance of mainstream thinking about the US foreign policy that takes for granted US as a prominent and primary in defining the relations, this article employs historical sensibility in order to trace the US relationship with Ghana and Tanzania using Afrocentric lens. This discourse is often partially understood due to the lack of an Afrocentric perspective on the existing literature in this aspect of Strategic Studies. History is crucial in this regard because the past provides a sound basis for understanding the present and future. This helps challenge the thinking overly informed by mainstream theories in Strategic Studies. As it shall be seen below, such a paradigm remains critical in highlighting the peculiarity of the US relationship with Ghana and Tanzania and in providing a deeper understanding of underlying dynamics in US foreign policy towards Africa. To realise the purpose of this article, the author relies methodologically on interdisciplinary critical discourse and conversations in their widest forms.

Over the past few decades, the world has experienced considerable change. Most momentous was the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism throughout Eastern Europe. Will the twenty-first century witness the triumph of capitalism, democracy, and 'Westernization' throughout the world? Or will it see a clash of civilizations and coming anarchy? And what of the United States, the pre-eminent power at the turn of the century. What leadership role will it play in the twenty-first century? Many assume that it will, indeed that it should, assume a strong leadership role. Disagreement is usually about which goals an activist United States should pursue abroad and whether United States leadership should be unilateral or multilateral. The debate often revolves around the opportunities for and constraints on United States leadership posed by the international system. Questions have been raised about the extent to which the United States is capable of exercising global leadership, given the relative decline of American power in recent years. Some argue in favour of American renewal. Yet the dialogue largely ignores the role of internal politics in the making of United States foreign policy -- and herein lies the key to the future of American leadership in the post-Cold War world. Most Americans believe that foreign policy is the purview of the president. This perception is reinforced by the majority of commentators and analysts of global affairs, who tend to simplify the American political process by equating 'the president' with 'United States foreign policy,' and in the process understate and ignore the 'politics' of United States foreign policy. The key question for the twenty-first century may very well have to do with the extent to which the United States can occupy a leadership role. Or, more accurately, the extent to which a president can govern and lead United States foreign policy into the future. The answer is critical and more complex then most realize. It is embedded in politics and is the focus of this article. THE DOMESTIC POLITICAL LANDSCAPE The president is the most powerful political actor in the United States. He has many constitutional roles and holds many positions that contribute to his power. Among the most important of these are commander-in-chief, chief diplomat, chief administrator, chief-of-state, chief legislator, voice of the people, and chief judicial officer.(f.1) However, the president also faces many constraints and uncertainties that limit his power. In the constant struggle to exercise power successfully, the president is limited by time (too little) and information (too much and too little). Institutional constraints include an entrenched bureaucracy, an independent Congress, state and local governments, political parties, and interest groups and social movements. Other uncertain elements -- the courts, public opinion, the media, and the larger global environment -- at times may enhance his power and at other times may act to constrain it. Because of these constraints and uncertainties the president often finds that he has great difficulty in successfully implementing his policies. When all is said and done, presidents face a 'paradox of power': on the one hand, the president is an extremely powerful actor; on the other hand, relative to the rest of government, the society, and the environment, he faces many constraints on successfully exercising power.(f.2) Clearly, the president is not nearly as powerful as many people assume. President John F. Kennedy understood this when he said that the president 'is rightly described as a man of extraordinary powers. Yet it is also true that he must wield those powers under extraordinary limitations.'(f.3) It is also important to remember that the presidency usually has its own 'life cycle': presidents are strongest when they enter office and their power tends to decline over time.(f.4) Thus, although the president of the United States is powerful, his power is not so great as the popular stereotype would have it, even in the area of foreign policy. …

Purpose This paper aims to scrutinize and analyze the continuity and change in US foreign policy toward the Gulf region, with a comparison between the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. Also, it explores the nature of the changes in US foreign policy toward the Gulf region to explain the factors that lead to change and when this change occurs. Policymakers were one of the most important factors that led to the occurrence of change in US policy. Therefore, the study also focuses on decision-makers as an engine of change in foreign policy. In this vein, the study seeks to answer the following question: what is the extent of continuity and change in US foreign policy toward the Gulf region under both Bush and Obama administrations? Design/methodology/approach The study seeks to answer its research question by using the rational choice approach. This approach explains that foreign policy does not change because of change of leadership. Therefore, this approach is suitable to study the research question. Findings The study reached several points of results, the most important of which are as follows: there is continuity within US foreign policy toward the Gulf countries under the two Bush and Obama administrations. Despite the difference of mechanisms of implementing this foreign policy under both administrations, the objectives of the US foreign policy are still constant and continuous. For example, although the events of September led to the occurrence of tensions between the USA and the Gulf region, the repercussions of the events of September were ostensible where the effects were confined to a change in tactical objectives. Also, successive American administrations have recognized the USA’s enduring and salient interests in the Gulf region. Research limitations/implications The region is important as a source of US energy supplies as a strategic military base of operations and also as a site of US foreign policy influence through relationship with individual nations such as Saudi Arabia and the smaller states of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Practical implications This paper adds to the existing literature which charts the effects of US foreign policy on the Gulf region.

The endless struggle between two seemingly incompatible but occasionally convergent concepts, namely liberal values and national interests, has determined United States (US) foreign policy and its implementation throughout the nation’s history. Based on the neoclassical realist assumptions shored up by the methodological insights offered by the five-dimensional pre-theory of foreign policy, this article reveals a persistent dichotomy in US foreign policy through the analysis of Washington’s response to the Arab Spring uprisings in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Throughout history, US foreign policy has had a pendular behavioral pattern, swinging across a policy spectrum ranging from moralpolitik to realpolitik. While the inherent values-interests dilemma lies at the root of the inveterate oscillation of US foreign policy, the interplay of international stimulus and societal factors stands out as the principal source of its ambivalence, if not inconsistency, in the face of the upheavals that swept across the Middle East.

This book provides a descriptive and analytical narrative of the evolution of US foreign policy towards Iraq at the supra-national (global), national (Arab Iraq) and sub-national (Iraqi Kurdistan) levels. The book is unique in that it presents a sophisticated insight into the two major components of US Iraq policy. To achieve this, it addresses US foreign policy towards both Arab Iraq and an entirely original analysis on US policy towards the Iraqi Kurds as components of a larger US Iraq policy, dictated by the supreme US Grand Strategy. The book also examines whether US foreign policy towards Iraq has been one of continuity or change – a dimension that has not been illustrated in any other publication. The book deals intelligently and at great length with the events surrounding US Iraq policy in three distinct phases, going back to, 1979 with regard to Arab Iraq, and 1961 in respect to the Kurdish liberation movement, covering all subsequent US administrations including the Obama presidency. It provides a thorough examination of US interests in Iraq and reasons for the 2003 invasion and its aftermath. It also engages with the intellectual roots of US foreign policy, presenting an intricate reaction of views, objectives and agendas. This work will be of interest to students and scholars of Middle East studies, US Foreign Policy and Security studies.

What were they thinking? Think tanks, the Bush presidency and US foreign policy

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 book explores the relationship between American presidential elections and US foreign policy. It argues that analysis of this relationship is currently underdeveloped (indeed, largely ignored) in the academic literature and among historians in particular and is part of a broader negligence of the influence of US politics and the public on foreign policy. It is usually taken as being axiomatic that domestic factors, especially the economy, are the most influential when people enter the voting booth. This may often be the case, but foreign policy undoubtedly also plays an important part for some people, and, crucially, it is seen to do so by presidential candidates and their advisers. Therefore, while foreign policy issues influence some voters in the way they choose to vote, the perception that voters care about certain foreign policy issues can also have a profound effect on the way in which presidents craft their foreign policies. Although we agree with those scholars who argue that it is difficult to discern the impact of domestic politics on foreign policy making, this complex relationship is one that, we feel, requires further exploration. This collection therefore seeks to understand the relative importance of US foreign policy on domestic elections and electoral positions and the impact of electoral issues on the formation of foreign policy.

U.S.-Middle East Foreign Relations Needs a Vital Reset

A comprehensive account of ideology and its role in the foreign policy of the United States of America, this book investigates the way United States foreign policy has been understood, debated and explained in the period since the US emerged as a global force, on its way to becoming the world power. Starting from the premise that ideologies facilitate understanding by providing explanatory patterns or frameworks from which meaning can be derived, the authors study the relationship between ideology and foreign policy, demonstrating the important role ideas have played in US foreign policy. Drawing on a range of US administrations, they consider key speeches and doctrines, as well as private conversations, and compare rhetoric to actions in order to demonstrate how particular sets of ideas – that is, ideologies – from anti-colonialism and anti-communism to neo-conservatism mattered during specific presidencies and how US foreign policy was projected, explained and sustained from one administration to another. Bringing a neglected dimension into the study of US foreign policy, this book will be of great interest to students and researchers of US foreign policy, ideology and politics.