American Interests Research Articles

Расширение присутствия КНР и РФ в Латинской Америке как вызов американским интересам

Introduction. The Trump administration defined China and Russia as a “revisionist powers”, which challenge to American power, influence and interests. Such a perception affected the U.S. policy in Latin America. Major alarmist sentiments come from the U.S. military, which regularly notes the growth of foreign presence in the region. Methods and materials. The author conducted a critical analysis of Chinese and Russian footprint aspects in Latin America, which cause U.S. establishment concerns. Information was gathered from doctrinal documents, economic statistics and indicators of arms exports. Analysis. President Trump administration hasn’t created a credible barrier against the rise of foreign influence in this region. The causes lie in the specifics of the current U.S. foreign policy, which lacks positive incentives and representativeness. As a result, foreign influence is constrained by three main factors. First, the investment climate in Latin America continues to deteriorate. Second, most governments of the Latin American countries don`t intend to spoil relations with the United States. Thirdly, today there are no alternatives to the United States in the military-strategic aspect. Results. Washington involuntarily promotes expanding and strengthening of other world powers’ footprint in Latin America. It happens not just because of Trump administrations’ protectionism and its skepticism about multilateral formats. Latin American continue to be considered in the context of Monroe Doctrine. American establishment doesn’t seek to invest its political capital in expanding the U.S. influence in the region. That’s why a high level of representativeness in promoting initiatives and new formats of cooperation has become an advantage of foreign actors.

Beyond the Synagogue: Jewish Nostalgia as Religious Practice by Rachel B. Gross

Reviewed by: Beyond the Synagogue: Jewish Nostalgia as Religious Practice by Rachel B. Gross Cara Rock-Singer Rachel B. Gross, Beyond the Synagogue: Jewish Nostalgia as Religious Practice (New York: New York University Press, 2021) Rachel B. Gross’s Beyond the Synagogue: Jewish Nostalgia as Religious Practice is a crucial intervention into what can best be described as doggedly normative narratives of religious authenticity that have dominated the scholarship, and popular understandings, of American Jewish religion. Within religious studies and Jewish studies, the problematic fit of Judaism into the white, Protestant-inflected category of religion is well-established. Historians of American religion have drawn out the extent to which narratives of religious declension are predicated on androcentric and racialized assumptions about what religion is and where, how, and by whom it is practiced. Nevertheless, in American Jewish studies, these narratives persist. Beyond the Synagogue draws on lived religion methodology to rethink the divide between Jewish religion and culture as well as history and memory. Gross defines religion “as meaningful relationships and the practices, narratives, and emotions that create and support these relationships,” adapting Robert Orsi’s and Kathryn Lofton’s emphases on “relationships and structures” that bind people to kin and community, both living and ancestral (6). In turn, Gross sets her sights on “the mundane practices” and seemingly secular institutions engaged in “buying and selling certain items [that] connect[] people to religious networks through [End Page 138] affective norms” (7). The book argues that practices of “nostalgia for Eastern European Jewish pasts function[] as a mitzvah (literally, commandment),” a term she uses expansively to reflect the way the category is invoked in Jewish law (halakha) as well as colloquially to refer to “good deed[s]” (7–8). Based on ethnographic participant-observation, interviews, and close readings of material culture and digital media, Gross tells a new story of American Judaism as it has developed from the 1970s to the present that privileges emotional rather than textual claims to Jewish authenticity. In doing so, Gross paints a more inclusive picture of the landscape of American Jewish religion. The first chapter positions American Jewish religion within twentieth- and twenty-first-century social scientific and historical narratives about the decline of religious institutions, rise of the “nones,” and secularism and assimilation. Gross also historicizes nostalgia within modern gendered histories of Protestant piety, the white ethnic revivals of the 1960s, and US public history’s increasingly affective engagement with the past. She identifies the 1970s as a period of transformation in “how [American Jewish nostalgia] has been organized and standardized and how it has become a central way of being Jewish” (32). After laying out her methodological intervention and theorizing the category of nostalgia, the book proceeds through a series of four chronologically organized and thematically overlapping case studies. Chapter two examines Jewish participation in a popular American pastime, family genealogical research. Gross’s analysis reveals how the “shared religious framework of intimate and authoritative nostalgia,” whether drawn from family lore, ship manifests, or DNA evidence, is interpellated into Jewish “memorial activities, literary forms, and historical accounts” (43). In chapter three, Gross moves beyond the synagogue as such to examine synagogue restoration projects that gained momentum in the 1980s and 1990s. The chapter argues that heritage spaces are carefully curated to produce ambivalent “elegiac nostalgia” that celebrates financial progress out of poverty as it romanticizes spiritually rich bygone eras. At synagogues-turned-museums, which are haunted by ghosts of the past, docents, tourists, and attendees of prayer quorums negotiate knowledge, meaning, and proper practice. Chapters four and five focus on children’s material culture and Ashkenazi foodways, respectively. Though nostalgia is “often assumed to be a condition of aging,” Gross shows how in the first decades of the twenty-first century children and parents used books and dolls, especially those distributed and produced by PJ Library and American Girl, to form intimate, affectionate relationships to ancestors and their stories. Chapter five examines the twenty-first-century Jewish food revival, focusing on how restaurateurs have improvised on Jewish Deli cuisine. The “playful and campy nostalgia” (161) of culinary revivals centers the gut—the belly laugh or the full belly—as the way to the...

Вероятность получения Индией статуса основного союзника США вне НАТО

Introduction. Allied relations between India and United States were based during Barack Obama administration and were further developed with Donald Trump coming to power. The interplay that has intensified between states in recent years can contribute to the creation of a new geopolitical space – the Indo-Pacific region. Trade in arms and military equipment is the catalyst for cooperation and the major non-NATO ally status can create all favorable conditions for thus cooperation. United States and India rapprochement, caused, in particular, by geopolitical situation in the Asia-Pacific and the change of power in United States, has led to the emergence of discussions in the American political society about assigning India major non-NATO ally status. Seventeen states in various regions of the world already own this status. The methodological basis of the study was made up of the basic research principles of modern humanities: general scientific methods of cognition, comparison, complex analysis and synthesis. Analysis. The legal framework for cooperation between India and the United States in the military-technical area is formed by agreements on technology transfer, organization of joint development and production of weapons: Defense Cooperation Framework Agreement (2005), Arms and Military Technologies Trade Initiative (2012), Updated framework agreement (2015), Memorandum on material and technical exchange (2016), etc. On the basis of these agreements, a number of projects were successfully implemented. Despite the successes achieved in the development of military-technical cooperation, interaction is complicated by the difference in procedural approaches. As one of the ways to remove bureaucratic barriers, inconsistency in the transfer of technology, joint development and production of weapons systems was considered “major non-NATO ally status”. It could become an alternative to the allied security treaty and an addition to the previously concluded agreements. The proposal to grant India major non-NATO ally status was first received from congressmen led by Republican Joe Wilson. Authors recommended to expand bilateral defense and security cooperation to advance U.S. interests in South Asia and the Indo-Pacific region. Despite their efforts, bill did not receive enough votes. In 2019, similar bills were introduced to grant India as MNNA, which have not been implemented yet. Results. There are agreements that have already been implemented in bilateral cooperation. However, the challenge of building the Indo-Pacific region requires the use of all the tools that U.S. has in its arsenal. One of these tools is status. This study has shown that in the foreseeable future India is unlikely to join major non-NATO allies group because its policy has no place for American interests.

The Continuing Containment

There exists a shifting balance of power in east asia. China, the rising power, is attempting to dismantle american hegemony in the indo-pacific. To counter growing chinese capabilities, the Trump administation has adopted a policy of active containment, escalating U.S.-China tensions. This paper will explore China's rise from the perspective of Great Power Politics, establish there is a power transition, and lastly, argue that the Trump's administation containment strategy has been fundamentally counter-productive to American interests in the region and unsuccessful at moderating Chinese behavior. Lessons can be drawn from the Trump adminitation's misteps that can be used to formulate more effective zchina policy under the Biden administration.

American Interests in Central Asian Region during 2001-2015: An Analytical Study

After 9/11, the Central Asian region got Geo-strategic and geopolitical attention to the United States of America. Initially, Russia, China, and the leaders of regional states criticized the attacks and welcomed America in the region. The landlocked region has enormous energy resources and its border attached to Afghanistan, China, Russia, and the Caspian Sea. American policymakers gave special importance to this region. So, America established Airbases to fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and invested billions of dollars in different areas. After social revolutions in the region, the leaders of Central Asia states, Russia and China viewed America as a threat. This article examines American interests in the Central Asian region after announcing the war against terrorism and also investigates the strategic importance of the Central Asian region for America.

Water Wars of the Future: Myth or Reality?

This article provides background and context for regional trends and historic agreements focused on the Nile River Basin, offers a comprehensive assessment of security challenges, and presents focus areas for future investment and cooperation. The policy recommendations will serve American interests better and improve agricultural practices in the region. Without a marked alteration of existing aid from Western countries, the water scarcity situation will continue without significantly producing the required infrastructure improvements.

Disappointment and Indifference: Pakistan and The Biden Presidency

Disappointment and Indifference:Pakistan and The Biden Presidency Robert M. Hathaway (bio) Over the decades, the up-and-down relationship between Pakistan and the United States has sometimes been likened to a roller coaster ride.1 Others have seen it marked by a succession of "bubble-crash cycles," alternating periods when Pakistani and American interests converged and the two countries found mutually useful ways to work together, punctuated by periods of discord when their fundamental interests seemed to go in different directions.2 Still others, noting the way in which Islamabad and Washington have appeared to be friends and enemies simultaneously, have portrayed the two countries as "frenemies."3 Regardless of the metaphor, Islamabad's ties with the United States in recent years have displayed the same volatility as in earlier periods of their 75-year history. [End Page 1] The elevation of Joe Biden to the American presidency in 2021 initially generated hopes in Pakistan that perhaps the two countries could move beyond the boom-and-bust pattern of the past. Through the first year of Biden's presidency, however, these aspirations never came close to fulfillment. Worse yet in the eyes of many in Pakistan, a new element entered the Pakistan-American equation. To the astonishment of those who had expected something more from Biden, and contrary to the approach pursued by previous U.S. presidents, the attitude toward Pakistan of the new American administration bordered on utter indifference. The Trump Years Donald Trump, who entered the White House in early 2017, did little to alter the roller coaster pattern so characteristic of ties between Pakistan and the United States. The first year of the Trump administration saw the unpredictable American president unleash several exceptionally harsh verbal attacks on Pakistan. Past U.S. administrations had paid Pakistan "billions and billions of dollars at the same time they [Pakistan] are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting" in Afghanistan, Trump declared in August 2017. "That will have to change, and that will change immediately," he threatened. Four months later, Trump launched a New Year's Day Twitter blast at Islamabad. "The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools," the president thundered. "No more!"4 Three days later, the State Department announced the suspension of all U.S. security assistance to Pakistan. In the months that followed, the Trump administration took further steps to ratchet up pressure on Pakistan, most notably by working with allies to place Pakistan on the Financial Action Task Force's (FATF) "gray list" of countries with inadequate controls on terrorist financing, a move that could dry up foreign investment and seriously damage an already weak Pakistani economy.5 In November 2018, Trump and Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan engaged in an unseemly public spat via Twitter, with Trump again complaining that Pakistan had taken billions [End Page 2] in U.S. assistance while simultaneously housing September 11th mastermind Osama bin Laden and actively working against American efforts to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. Washington had at last "restored some clarity in our relationship with Pakistan," a White House press spokesman declared. "For the first time we're holding Pakistan accountable for its actions."6 Trump's complaints about Pakistan had not come out of the blue. U.S. frustration with Islamabad had begun almost simultaneously with the resurrection of the U.S.-Pakistan partnership in the weeks after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. As the years passed and U.S. efforts to create a stable democratic government in Afghanistan sputtered, relations with Islamabad worsened. Washington charged that Pakistan provided safe havens and other vital support to the Afghan Taliban and allied groups like the Haqqani network, which had been responsible for some of the deadliest attacks against the Kabul government and its American partners. Pakistan denied the U.S. allegations, insisted it was a faithful partner in the struggle against extremist terror, and declared that Washington was scapegoating Pakistan to avoid facing its own failures in Afghanistan. Yet, despite this unpromising beginning...

АНТИМОНОПОЛЬНОЕ РЕГУЛИРОВАНИЕ КАК СИМПТОМ ДИСФУНКЦИИ АМЕРИКАНСКОЙ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ СИСТЕМЫ

Contemporary American interest in using antitrust law to address wealth inequality is a symptom of American political dysfunction rather than a reflection of any intellectual advance regarding the sources of inequality. Indeed, both the original American progressives of a century ago, as well as Thomas Piketty, whose work sparked contemporary intellectual interest in inequality, agree that inequality’s source is scarcity, rather than monopoly, and so will persist even in perfectly competitive markets. The only real solution is taxation, not a potentially destructive campaign of breakup. There are two causes of contemporary American antimonopolism. The first is American anti-statism, which has closed off tax policy as a viable political solution to inequality, forcing scholars and activists to seek a secondor third-bestworkaroundinantitrustpolicy. Thesecondisthe Americanpress, whichisactivelypromotingantimonopolism as a way of fighting back against Google and Facebook, two companies that have badly outcompeted the press for advertising dollars in recent years. Given these idiosyncratic roots of contemporary American antimonopolism, other jurisdictions seeking to address inequality may have little to gain from following the American example, particularly if taxation remains a viable policy option for them.

A lost opportunity of a grand bargain: Security architecture between NATO and Russia

Ukraine is existential to Russia, but peripheral to American interests. The “escalation dominance” advantage is with Moscow, and no amount of military aid or economic coercion, short of an actual war, will deter Moscow, given the asymmetry of interests and differing threat perceptions. American public opinion remains firmly opposed to risking a potential great power war. That said, a Ukraine—if it exists as a state after the war—at peace with its neighbours is in everyone’s interest, as is a decreased risk of a great power conflict. This policy brief identifies some confidence-building measures that might, in a similar situation in the future, result in a more realist grand bargain. A potential war might be a short punitive campaign by Russia, in which case the central thesis of this policy brief, a neutral zone in Ukraine, will remain intact. It might also be a war of occupation and conquest, in which case this paper might be considered a study in a counterfactual history of what could have been.

ASSURED RETALIATION: MAKING SENSE OF THE CHINESE NUCLEAR DOCTRINE

Employing the qualitative and historical analysis method, this paper overviews the Chinese nuclear doctrine and how it has evolved over the years with particular focus on the Chinese policy of ‘no-first use of nuclear weapons’ and its future. This paper argues that to understand the role assigned to the nuclear weapons in the Chinese defense policy, one must comprehend Chinese strategic thinking and where does nuclear weapons lie in this thinking. The paper further argues that for a better understanding of Chinese strategic thinking, it is imperative to be cognizant of the strategic language and vocabulary used by the Chinese strategic thinkers. The paper also analyses the command and control set up for the Chinese nuclear weapons and the American assessment of the Chinese nuclear capability. The argument put forth is that the American assessment of the Chinese nuclear capabilities is mostly exaggerated as it has security implications for American interests regionally and globally. The paper also argues that despite new emerging threats in the technological domain, China would continue pursuing the policy of no first use in the foreseeable future.

The Militant Young Minister

During 1940–1950, Reverend Clayton D. Russell was a leading African American pastor in Los Angeles and one of the city’s most prominent “race men,” advocating for African Americans in jobs, transportation, civil rights, and education. He also ran for public office and served as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. His primary platform was the pastorship of the People’s Independent Church of Christ. He also headed the Negro Victory Committee, which was both an advocacy group and a protest organization; and served as president of the Negro Victory Markets, a food cooperative for African Americans in Los Angeles. Russell’s ministry served both the sacred and the secular interests of African Americans in Los Angeles during the 1940s. He was very successful in using his radio ministry to speak to and advocate for African American interests.

Yehuda Bauer’s Assessment of the US Government and American Jewry During the Holocaust: An Analysis

ABSTRACT Beginning with well-deserved personal praise for Professor Yehuda Bauer celebrating his 95th birthday, this article then examines Bauer's brief but important work Could the US Government Have Rescued European Jewry?, in which he challenges the preferred narrative of American and Israeli Jews: that American Jews were silent, ineffective, divided, timid, self-absorbed, weak, and incapable of bringing a Judeo-centric request to the American political establishment and did not effectively come the aid of their European brethren; that American Jew had the power to do something significant, if only they had tried to use it; and that the American government was antisemitic or, at best, unconcerned about Jews. The article then examines Bauer's contentions regarding the US government's and American Jews' capabilities, interest, and responsibility in saving European Jews. Bauer's consideration is divided into four periods: from 1933 until the Reich's November Pogroms in 1938; from Kristallnacht until the onset of the war in September 1939; from the war until the beginnings of the systematic murder of the Jews, which coincided with the German invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941; and finally during the period of the mass murder, which only ended at the war's end on 8 May 1945. Bauer reconsiders the controversial issue of the bombing of Auschwitz, which he examines from the perspective of the Yishuv in Palestine and the British and American bombing capabilities and wartime priorities as well as the effectiveness of aerial bombardment. The paper also considers Elie Wiesel's challenging of multiple US presidents regarding the decision not to bomb and questions Wiesel's depiction of his discussion with President Jimmy Carter on this issue. Ultimately Bauer's conclusion is that US was not powerful or well-positioned enough to save European Jews, and the Jewish community in the United States did not have the power to impose its will even if it had tried.

The Negro Leagues Were Major Leagues: Historians Reappraise Black Baseball

The Negro Leagues Were Major Leagues: Historians Reappraise Black Baseball

Most Favored Racial Hierarchy: The Ever-Evolving Ways of the Supreme Court’s Superordination of Whiteness

This Article engages in a critical comparative analysis of the recent history and likely future trajectory of the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence in matters of race and religion to uncover new aspects of the racial project that Reggie Oh has recently called the “racial superordination” of whiteness—the reinforcing of the superior status of whites in American society by, among other things, prioritizing their interests in structuring constitutional doctrine. This analysis shows that the Court is increasingly widening the gap between conceptions of, and levels of protection provided for, equality in the contexts of race and religion in ways that prioritize the interests of whiteness and set those interests as the normative baseline in both areas of constitutional law. While the Court has increasingly moved toward an aggressive and religion-conscious “most favored nation” equality theory in the Free Exercise Clause context, its continued march toward mandating colorblindness is arguably moving toward something akin to a “least favored nation” equality theory for race and race consciousness in the equal protection context. Arguments can be made that the most favored nation approach should also be applied to race. Doing so would provide more doctrinal space for racial equality-enhancing government programs and call into question deeply entrenched aspects of the Court’s current affirmative action jurisprudence. The Court’s refusal to even hint at the possibility of such an approach points to a racial project of superordinating the interests of white Americans to be constitutionally protected from race-conscious interference with their dominant position in the racial hierarchy over the application of consistent constitutional principles.

Ближний Восток во внешней политике США после Трампа и интересы России

The article explores the emerging contours of the new American policy in the Middle East against the background of unprecedented and confusing domestic political affairs resulting from a highly questioned electoral outcome as well as D. Trump`s complicated “fait accompli” legacy in the Middle East. The first political initiatives of Joe Biden demonstrate that unlike previous transition periods of incorporating Middle East into a revised global American strategy the current moment is fraught with difficulties. The authors examine the key regional priorities and the nature of “recalibration” process to a number of crucial issues in the region. Among them are as follows: the renewal of the Iranian deal, lessening tension in the Gulf, tackling Palestinian problem in the light of D. Trump`s withdrawal from the internationally accepted a “two-state-solution” approach, political settlement in Libya and Syria. The authors draw a conclusion that even though rethinking Middle East role within the US global foreign policy strategy has already started, the process is slow and cautious since the Congressional mood as well as the partisan reaction should be taken into consideration. Chinese containment strategy and counteracting “Russian threat” are the aims topping the political agenda which means a disengagement from a conflict-ridden region, military redeployment and a policy of de-escalation. However, the agenda does not mean a full withdrawal from the region which will remain under the US focus even though it no longer tops the list. In other words, the task is to balance traditional democratic values with American national interest in the region, a balance which has always been hard to strike. Joe Biden`s new Middle Eastern team of professional and experienced policy-makers who as well share deep knowledge of this region aims at shaping a more balanced and a more predictable policy in coordination with its European allies and regional partners. Additionally, the US “recalibration” of the Middle East may open a window of opportunities in bilateral US-Russian ties. Despite conventional “zero-sum-game” thinking the new Biden administration will not be able to ignore the fact that Russian comprehensive involvement in tackling a number of pressing regional issues is absolutely essential in contemporary Middle East politics.

Krokodil against Uncle Sam: the American Other in Soviet Cartoons at the Beginning of the Cold War (1947—1960)

The main focus of this article is political cartoons from Krokodil — the Soviet flagship satirical magazine. The author uses social constructivism as a lens to analyze U.S.-Soviet relations through political cartoons which serve as a peculiar, but valuable primary source. The article focuses primarily on the works of prominent Soviet artists, i.e., the Kukryniksy, Boris Efimov, Yury Ganf, Boris Leo, Ivan Semyonov, Vitaly Goryaev, and Mark Abramov, all of whom were mobilized by the Soviet propaganda in the Cold War of images with the USA. The author traces the role of political cartoon as a litmus test of the changing bilateral relations from the early Cold War to the first international Thaw at the end of the 1950-s, dissects a repertoire of images of the US, and identifies the constant and the variable in the equation of Soviet perception. Among the “constant,” unchanging communicative strategies, were dichotomies “internationalism vs. racism and imperialism,” “disarmament vs. arms race,” “peaceful intentions vs. military propaganda,” “prosperity for all vs. wealth for the elites,” “social guaranties vs. poverty and unemployment.” The variables, meaning characteristics that served as an indicator of transformation in U.S.-Soviet relations, included expanding the repertoire of images and contexts, as well as the decreasing number of anti-American cartoons almost to the point of non-existence. The mutual interest of American and Soviet cartoonists toward each other was also notable as they aspired to understand satire produced “on the other side” and learn to mock mutual stereotypes. All these trends remained later and marked the beginning of the détente as well as new tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union.

A Better Mousetrap: Rube Goldberg and Jewish American Assimilation

Rube Goldberg’s cartoons made him the first Jewish-American comedy star, but on the surface his works seem completely American and not at all Jewish. While the content of his most famous comic strip “The Inventions of Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts” is reflective of the American ethos of innovation that was flourishing at the time, his religious roots are present in the form of the cartoons. There are strong structural similarities between these drawings and the European Jewish joke cycle concerning the wise men of Chelm that lampoon the byzantine Talmudic arguments of the rabbinate. In adopting this Jewish form of humor, but substituting the American civil religion of modernist innovative capitalism in the place of Talmudic interpretation as its focus, Goldberg’s humor signals the interest of Jewish Americans to be both Jewish and fully American.

Greenland and the geopolitics of critical minerals

Greenland and the geopolitics of critical minerals

Review essay: Between the Material and the Ephemeral

Review essay: Between the Material and the Ephemeral

Decolonization of Higher Education in South Africa

Abstract Western education still dominates the education terrain across Africa. For some people, the dominance is nothing but ‘academic imperialism,’ which is believed to have relegated African scholars to mere conduits of knowledge through which European and American scholarship and interests are protected and promoted. Consequently, a dissident voice is resonating in the African educational system, particularly South African education system, demanding the recognition of ‘home-grown’ knowledge to solve home-grown problems. This article engages the debate about decolonization of higher education in South Africa and asks the fundamental question of whether or not it is possible to achieve a fully decolonized curriculum in a society that is already cloaked and engulfed by capitalism and Western ideologies.