American National Interest Research Articles

Effective Grand Strategy of the 21st Century: An American Foreign Policy based on Values or Interests

Since the end of the Cold War, foreign policy analysts have debated about the most appropriate strategy that the United States should follow in terms of its foreign policy. Making clear the concept of effective strategy in foreign policy and international relations, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the concrete strategies that the United States must follow to be successful in its foreign policy, in the context of the new challenges that the international system is facing in the 21st century. More clearly, in this paper will be identified the character of the international policies that the USA should follow in the system of international relations, as well as the most appropriate means to realize them. The research questions that arise for this purpose are: Should the American foreign policy prioritize liberal values and principles or the American national interest? What role should the US play in providing global public goods? Is it necessary for the USA to invest in a restrictive foreign policy strategy, maintaining defiant military primacy in the context of the problems they are facing today? To answer the above question this study is based on secondary sources as bibliographical analysis, journal articles, as well as the most popular theories of international relations, making efforts to ensure objective and accurate information sources. Also, given that international relations forecasting is a really complex issue, the collection of concrete data and their interpretation based on a comparative approach, has served as an important instrument to make the theoretical framework as reliable as possible.

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.

Band of the Free: The Beach Boys as an American National Interest

ABSTRACT For more than fifty years the Beach Boys have been synonymous with the United States. Addressing such associations in musical, thematic, social, cultural, political, and ideological terms, this article argues that the group’s Americanisms have changed over time, as have the forms they have taken and the contexts within which they have gained and lost traction. While professional ambition, corporate interest, public belief, and established myth have all helped underwrite their Americanist associations, the Beach Boys have retained an enduring national interest in part by accommodating the paradoxes and tensions that have marked both the group and their homeland.

Some Preliminary Thoughts Prompted by President Trump’s 6 January Speech: Words, Enemies, Affordances

ABSTRACT The paper argues that in order to understand the events of 6 January we must look at events from a range of perspectives, two of which are identified—the narrow focus of a comparison of a linguistic analysis of the speech and its context, and the broader social and cultural context of a changing sense of American National Interest. It suggests that to understand the events of 6 January we need to conceptualise them as the product of a complex process where both aggregate and specific influences seem relevant, but whilst both offer necessary explanations neither in themselves provide a sufficient explanation of the event. The concept of affordance is suggested to perhaps provide the glue that may bind these and other influences together to facilitate the violence.

Trump and West Asia: Policy Departures and Geopolitical Implications

The first year and half of Trump’s presidency has demonstrated a visible departure from the Obama’s policy in West Asia. While the basic premise of the two administrations of protecting American national interest remains, their methods are significantly different. Obama wanted to move away while Trump has retrenched the USA in regional affairs. While Trump is being accused of taking rash decisions and pushing the region into further chaos, Obama’s hands-off policy did not prevent the regional turmoil either. The common chord between Obama’s legacy and Trump’s policies in West Asia is that the USA is losing ground to emerging global powers, such as Russia and China despite remaining the predominant security guarantor.

Evropska unija i Kosovsko pitanje - međunarodno-etička perspektiva

The subject of this paper is the stand taken by the European Union towards the complex and decades-long Kosovo issue viewed from an international ethical perspective. The author is trying to prove that the issue, such as it is, represents a continuity of an inconsistent attitude of most European states towards the Serbian state territorial issue, which attitude has been persisting for two decades. The stand taken by the author is that by acquiescing to the formation and stabilization of a newly-created state in the Serbian territory, the European Union has actually assumed the role of a medium of overseas attempts at attaining as painlessly as possible the goal of the secession of Kosovo, which territory has been proclaimed of special American national interest and hence, of a legitimate influence. During the process, it was also the unreserved choice of Serbia for a 'European future' after October 5, 2000 that was taken into account. In the conclusion of this paper, the author points to possible consequences that the method of resolving this important state territorial issue could have on the stability of the Western Balkans in near or remote future.

The Islamic State and American National Security

The beheading of hostages and other acts of barbarism carried out by Islamic Republic militants do not constitute sufficient cause for direct American military involvement in the multi-sided armed conflicts underway in Iraq and Syria (2014). Conventional measures of American national interest do not warrant the expenditure of such blood and treasure as seem necessary to affect the outcomes of these conflicts. The idealistic goal of democracy promotion, a recurring theme in American foreign policy discourse, is unlikely to be achievable in the near future.

THE MORAL FOUNDATIONS OF POLITICAL CHOICES: GEORGE WASHINGTON, FOREIGN POLICY, AND NATIONAL CHARACTER

The principles to which Washington adhered throughout his presidency consistently focused on a definition of American national interest and identity, which Washington articulated in his public addresses and pragmatic actions. Washington promoted a national morality based on private morality and religion, and he believed strongly that God's Providence had made the founding of the new republic possible. This essential vision was an important factor shaping his recommendations in the 1783 “Circular Address to the Governors of the Thirteen States,” which argued for a deeply moral character of the American republic, and undergirded Washington's “Proclamation of Neutrality” in 1793.

Symposium: The Arab Uprisings and U.S. Policy: What Is the American National Interest?

Symposium: The Arab Uprisings and U.S. Policy: What Is the American National Interest?

In the National Interest? Authoritarian Decision-making and the Problematic Creation of US Africa Command

US Department of Defense change agents pursued transformation in creating US Africa Command and focused inwardly to win the bureaucratic struggle. In contrast, they did not bother to consult with African leaders and made assumptions about African reactions to AFRICOM, which demonstrated a lack of empathy. The authoritarian leadership style of Rumsfeld brought about the unworkable directive that AFRICOM headquarters should be placed on the African continent in less than two years. The directive was rejected by most African leaders and media. A subsequent ‘strategic communications’ campaign to repackage AFRICOM and sell it to African leaders failed because of already established suspicions. Only the reversal of the directive to place the command on the continent brought grudging acceptance, along with American offers of training, joint exercises, and other forms of security assistance. At issue is the viability of AFRICOM in the face of Congressional scrutiny and the possibility that the new command will not be fully funded. Members of Congress have not been convinced that AFRICOM will advance American national interest.

“Under the Influence of Mahan”: Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and their Understanding of American National Interest

This article explores links in the grand strategic outlook of Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt, with particular reference to the influence upon both men of Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan. It focuses upon an episode during Franklin Roosevelt's tenure as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, when he was in direct correspondence with both Theodore and Mahan on matters of grand strategy and naval policy. The paper argues that Theodore Roosevelt proved a crucial conduit in the formulation of Franklin Roosevelt's grand strategic outlook, both through his promulgation of Mahanian thought and his support of Franklin's correspondence with the Admiral. This in turn would be important later during Franklin Roosevelt's leadership of the United States.

US Power after Sept 11th: Increasing International Insecurity

Since the attacks on the United States of America on September 11 th 2001 the US has chosen a strongly unilateral foreign policy underscored and effectively sustained by military power. In the immediate aftermath of the attack on the US it was speculated that American desire to build an international coalition against terrorism and to take military action in sensitive areas would lead it to engage in dialogue with its potential allies in both the developed and developing worlds. This did not prove to be the case as the US displayed a willingness to act in opposition to the international community and to back up its foreign policy decisions with force if necessary. This article analyses the current international role of the US and the impact US actions have on the emerging system of international governance. While the US is undoubtedly dominant, and their actions in the international arena have undermined the effectiveness of the United Nations, they have faced unprecedented opposition to their policy on Iraq, have not been able to prevent initiatives such as the International Criminal Court or to win widespread international support, in either the industrialised states or among the developing world for their actions. This indicates a reduction in US hegemony and also an increase in international insecurity as US foreign policy action aimed at securing a narrowing defined American national interest leads to growing polarisation in the international system.

David or Goliath? The Israel Lobby and Its Critics

Although neither John Mearsheimer nor Stephen Walt speaks much Gaelic, they touched off academic equivalent of an Irish bar brawl in March 2006 by publishing a hard-hitting critique of American relations with Israel in London Review of Books. In The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, book-length version of that earlier essay, authors pull no punches in recounting what they regard as increasingly baleful influence of the Israel on recent U.S. foreign policy. Mearsheimer and Walt's bid for a knockout rests on two right uppercuts and a left hook that they summarize as follows: the United States provides Israel with extraordinary diplomatic and military support, lobby is principal reason for that support, and this uncritical and unconditional relationship is not in Amer ican national interest (p. 14). Drawing on a broad range of memoirs, news papers, and on-line sources detailed in more than 100 pages of footnotes, authors make a strong showing in this fifteen-round main event. Most scholars will readily agree that during six decades since Harry Truman extended recognition to newly established Jewish state, Amer ica has developed a special if not extraordinary relationship with Israel. Mearsheimer and Walt begin by reminding readers that since May 1948, United States has provided Israel with more than $150 billion in economic aid, with state-of-the-art military hardware (including tanks, jet fighters, and surface-to-air missiles), and with diplomatic support at United Nations and elsewhere. In theory, American rationale for serving as Jewish state's great benefactor seemed compelling. A well-armed Israel could be a stra tegic asset during Cold War by helping to prevent Soviet domination of Middle East, while a democratic Israel built by survivors of Holocaust

“America is Safe While its Boys and Girls Believe in its Creeds!”: Captain America and American Identity Prior to World War 2

In this paper I engage with the literature on nationalism and popular culture to discuss the role of Captain America Comics in the production of American national identity and national interest prior to World War 2. The character of Captain America is introduced as an example of a rescaling icon, or a bridge between collective identity and the individual. Additionally, the impact of the context in which the comic was produced is discussed as a force in the construction of American identity before the 1941 entry of the United States into the war. The empirical portion of the paper is a content analysis of the first ten issues of Captain America Comics, all predating the attack on Pearl Harbor. The analysis focuses on the ways in which American behavior is disciplined through the narratives in the comic book, as well as the ways in which nationalities are scripted into a moral geography.

The American national interest and global public goods

Since the end of the Cold War, Americans have been divided over how to be involved with the rest of the world. In the wake of the 11 September terrorist attacks, the debate between those who favour a unilateral foreign policy and those who advocate a multilateral approach has been brought to the fore in American politics and the media. In this article, Joseph Nye proposes a conception of the American national interest grounded in multilateralism. He argues that, although the United States remains the world's leading power, it cannot act alone to solve global problems such as transnational terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and global warming. Although the United States is the only country in a position to take the lead in protecting ‘global public goods’, such as an open international economic system and international stability, it will maintain its current predominance only if it works to establish international consensus on issues of global importance.

The Transatlantic Way Ahead: U.S. Readiness Problems Show Why European Capabilities Will Be So Important

Europe's burden for the future will be to stabilize America's position as the world's only "superpower" by investing in its own military strength. America has to enter into conflicts, especially in Europe, in which it would not engage normally, because its European counterparts are too weak. Such commitments beyond pure American national interest leave the U.S. with numerous negative consequences, demonstrated in the current state of the U.S. Air Force.

Time for America to Join the Commonwealth

IT IS TIME FOR THE UNITED STATES to join the Commonwealth. Membership in the Commonwealth would facilitate the kind of globalization that is in the American national interest, and it would serve as a hedge against the emergence of a less benign international order based on civilizational power politics. In return, United States membership would offer the Commonwealth a much-needed shot in the arm in terms of resources and ideas that could transform it from a persistent underachiever into a leading model of transcivilizational co-operation.At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting (CHOGM) in Durban, South Africa, in November 1999, Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, called for new thinking about modernizing the Commonwealth to make it more effective. A critical element in this new thinking should be a discussion of United States membership, so that it can be on the agenda of the next CHOGM in Australia in November 2001.Before any such discussion can take place, however, two important emotional roadblocks have to be clared out of the way. On the American side is what may be termed '1776 and all that.'The Commonwealth, like the Empire before it, is seen as a British operation, and a monarchical one too. Much as they enjoy the activities of the British Royal Family as a spectator sport, for the citizens of a country conceived in liberty and republican virtue, bowing, scraping and dressing up at their behest is out of the question. There can be no going back.On the Commonwealth side are fears about their own version of le defi Americain. The United States, it is suggested, would become impatient with the consensual and pragmatic way in which the Commonwealth moves towards modest achievements. Americans have never known an international organization they did not create or aspire to own, and their tendency to deal in moral absolutes, of both right and left, would lead them to wreck the Commonwealth by trying to get their way. The Commonwealth, say its keenest supporters, is really a self-help organization of developing states that, for historical reasons, just happens to have some medium-sized developed members. The United States is too big and rich to be one of the former and lacks the historical links and experience to be one of the latter.Doubts on both sides are fuelled by strong emotions, but they lack foundation in the world of facts. The Commonwealth is not a British operation and no one, including Britain, wants it to be. British influence in the Commonwealth today rests on the wealth and power that it, as one of several wealthy members, is prepared to commit to the organization. The Foreign Policy Institute, a think tank close to the present Labour government, has suggested that the Commonwealth secretariat might be moved from London, and the British government has severed its final links with the Commonwealth Institute, making the latter fully independent.Nor is the Commonwealth a monarchical organization in any significant sense. The CHOGM in Durban celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the London Declaration, which, prompted by India's decision to abandon its dominion status and become a republic, made it possible for republics to retain their Commonwealth membership after independence. From that point on, the British monarch served only as a 'symbol of the free association' of its independent members in what is known as the modern Commonwealth.Membership has not compromised the identities of the 33 republics that are already members of the Commonwealth, many of whom had a much rougher experience than the United States at the hands of British colonialism. Similarly, membership would not entangle the United States in the monarchial intimacies and imperial ambitions of London. On the contrary, Commonwealth membership would place it in an organization in which it was equipped to do well.For this very reason, Commonwealth insecurities are harder to dismiss. While United States membership would change the Commonwealth, it is clear that, in the words of one writer in the Commonwealth journal, Roundtable, the United States 'undoubtedly qualifies under the IGCCM criteria. …

George F. Kennan's Strategic Thought: The Making of an American Political Realist

Foreword by Kenneth W. Thompson Preface Political Realism and American Foreign Policy A Realist's Political Theory: On Man, Power, Morality, and Politics American National Interest and the World Balance of Power The Domestic Struggle for Power The Forgotten American Art of Diplomacy Force and War as Foreign Policy Instruments Major Power Rivalry: The American-Soviet Security Dilemma Kennan's Realism as a Theory of American Foreign Policy Selected Bibliography Index

The American national interest in Quebec and Canada

The American national interest in Quebec and Canada

American National Interest and the United Nations

American National Interest and the United Nations