American Foreign Policy Research Articles

The First Central Asian Episode in US Foreign Relations: Eugene Schuyler, Turkestan, and America’s Tacit Acknowledgment of Russia as a Eurasian Power

Eugene Schuyler was the first American to travel to Central Asia. Recognized as a scholar diplomat, he had written extensively on Russia and served as the US consul to Reval and the secretary of the American legation in St. Petersburg. During his diplomatic service in Russia, Schuyler was granted absence of leave to visit Central Asia and witnessed the Russian conquest of the region. He was also accompanied by the Russian army to visit the Ili region in Xinjiang amid the Dungan Revolt (1862–1877). Schuyler’s unusual experience was detailed in his travelogue Turkistan, Notes of a Journey in Russian Turkistan, Khokand, Bukhara, and Kuldja. This paper aims to analyze his travelogue to track down the earliest American contact with Central Asia. It argues that the US, even though aware of Russian military activity in the region from Schuyler’s report, tacitly acknowledged Russia’s hegemony in Asia. This could be attributable to Schuyler’s partiality to Russia’s cause, the generally congenial atmosphere in the US-Russia relations in the 1870s, and the absence of perceived US interests in Central Asia. The US foreign policy decision of the 1870s had far-reaching economic consequences and lasting political implications into the 19 th century and beyond.

US Foreign Policy Towards Afghanistan. Brief from 2001 to 2022

In 2021, U.S. and international forces departed after nearly two decades of operations in Afghanistan; the internationally backed Afghan government and its military forces collapsed; and the Taliban, that formerly ruled the country from 1996 to 2001, retook power. The aftershocks of these events continue to reverberate within Afghanistan, throughout its region, and in the United States as publics and policymakers alike grapple with the reality of the Taliban’s renewed rule. When the United States, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, led a military campaign against Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban government that harbored and supported it. In the subsequent 20 years, the United States suffered over 22,000 military casualties (including about 2,400 fatalities) in Afghanistan, mostly at the hands of the robust and growing Taliban insurgency, and Congress appropriated approximately $144 billion for reconstruction and security forces there. At the same time, an elected Afghan government replaced the Taliban and, with significant U.S. and international support, made limited improvements in most measures of human development. This article examines the policy and strategies of the U.S in Afghanistan

“New Pearl Harbor” and US Digital Media 2001‑2002

The research topic is aimed at studying the means, methods and techniques of updating the metaphor “New Pearl Harbor” in the US foreign policy discourse. Analysis of the evolution of this metaphor in the US media in the 21st century allows us to talk about the formation of a special phenomenon of the socio-political life of the United States, the reconstruction and explanation of which is not possible within the framework of the traditional methodology of historical research, but requires an interdisciplinary approach based on historical imagology. The importance and significance of this metaphor is shown by the fact that in every foreign policy crisis, in every new threat, in every aggravation of the international situation, the metaphor “Pearl Harbor” was used in the United States. The metaphor “New Pearl Harbor” and its variation “Russian Pearl Harbor” is an important element of US foreign policy discourse and contemporary research. As a result of the research, it was established that the metaphor “New Pearl Harbor” is used both for “internal consumption” (political discourse) and for the external one. Moreover, in the 21st century, this metaphor very often arises in the coverage and analysis of contemporary Russian-American relations. The article shows the evolution of the “New Pearl Harbor” metaphor in the US digital media. Digital media in the United States reacted most quickly to changes in the use of the “New Pearl Harbor” metaphor. The article is intended for political scientists, historians and journalists.

<em>Latin American foreign policies in the new world order: The active non-alignment option</em>

Latin American foreign policies in the new world order: The active non-alignment option, edited by Carlos Fortin, Jorge Heine, and Carlos Ominami, Anthem Press, 2023

Setting the Agenda on the United Kingdom's Policy towards the European Community: Miriam Camps at Chatham House

Historical analysis of the UK government's policy towards European integration is mostly confined to the ‘official’ sphere, that is government, civil service and professional diplomacy. Non-governmental actors within the wider field of para-diplomacy such as policy entrepreneurs or elite foreign policy think tanks have not yet been systematically incorporated in this history. This article explores when and under what circumstances such diplomatic actors can influence government foreign policy formulation. The case explored here is that of Miriam Camps (1916–94), a scholar, former US diplomat and senior researcher at Chatham House. Camps utilised her Chatham House contacts, including key Foreign Office officials as well as her wider transnational network, to influence the Foreign Office's stance on the so-called ‘empty chair’ crisis of the European Economic Community in 1965/6. The article argues that during the crisis Camps acted as a policy entrepreneur with the aim of advancing her own ideas and changing the UK government's position towards the European Economic Community. Besides demonstrating the influence of unofficial diplomats on policy formulation, the article also contributes to the growing literature on the varied roles of women in international relations and diplomacy.

Seth Jacobs. Rogue Diplomats: The Proud Tradition of Disobedience in American Foreign Policy.

Seth Jacobs. <i>Rogue Diplomats: The Proud Tradition of Disobedience in American Foreign Policy</i>.

British Edition of the Monroe Doctrine versus ‘Com- munist Militarism’: Collisions between the USSR and the UK in Eastern Countries in the mid-1920s

The new US foreign policy concept in the Western hemisphere introduced by the American President J. Monroe in December 1823 has become a milestone both in the country’s history and in the theory and practice of international relations in general. For Great Britain, the principles of the Monroe Doctrine acquired new relevance after the end of the First World War. The prospect of unfettered Bolshevik expansion into British colonies and dependent territories in Asia and Africa became a matter of particular concern for the UK ruling circles. It was this threat that forced the military and political elites of Great Britain to turn to the experience of their overseas counterparts and develop a set of measures that can be described as the British edition of the Monroe Doctrine. These measures were directed right against the Bolsheviks’ attempts to revolutionize the national liberation movement and to use it to undermine the ‘colonial rear’ of the imperialist powers. British decision-makers interpreted these attempts as a Bolsheviks’ endeavor to revive the foreign policy practices of the Russian Empire and denoted them as ‘communist militarism’. It is through the lens of the collision of the British edition of the Monroe Doctrine and the concept of ‘communist militarism’ that this study examines the dynamics of the Soviet-British confrontation in Central Asia in the mid-1920s. Special attention is paid to the struggle that took place between the two countries in Iran (Persia), Afghanistan, northwest India, Xinjiang and Tibet. This competition for influence over local rulers took a variety of forms: from information and propaganda campaigns to rivalry in the field of infrastructure and logistics projects. At the same time, it was accompanied by a constant clash of interests of various factions within the USSR and Great Britain, which prevented them from pursuing a coherent policy in the region. Together, these circumstances endowed the Soviet-British rivalry in Central Asia in the 1920s with a number of unique features that does not allow it to be interpreted as just yet another round of the ‘Great Game’.

The Small Wars Doctrine of the US Marine Corps and Colonial Experience of the European Powers

The rapid transformation of the current world order excites renewed interest of the expert community in the phenomenon of empire (as a form of the organization of political life). And since the United States plays a central role in this transformation, the history of the Pax Americana, its formation and development, both at the level of the idea and in the field of real politics is of particular relevance. The author argues that clarification of the role and significance of the colonial background in the projection of US military-political power in the late 19th — early 21st centuries allows for better understanding of the theory and practice of international relations both in the era of ‘high imperialism’ and world wars of the 20th century, and in the context of transition from global colonial empires to nuclear superpowers. It may also be instrumental in addressing the deepening contradictions between advocates of a ‘global leadership’ concept and proponents of a multipolar world during the post-Cold War period. In this regard, the paper examines the works of the US military theorists of the late 19th − first half of the 20th centuries that focused on the colonial experience of the leading European powers, as well as the experience gained from interventions involving the US Army and Marine Corps. Special emphasis is given to the concept of ‘small wars’. Building on a wide array of primary sources, presented both by the works of military experts, direct participants in various counterinsurgency operations in the colonies, as well as by the teaching materials and field manuals of the US Marine Corps, the author traces the evolution of this concept which implied establishment of external management and/or control through military and police measures. This allows the author to restore the historical genealogy of current models of internal security promoted in American foreign policy in conditions of proliferating, protracted, and increasingly hybrid civil conflicts. The author concludes that in the interwar period the US law enforcement agencies pragmatically implemented the relevant experience of global empires in Latin American countries within the framework of the Monroe Doctrine, while regarding European powers as political rivals. It is noted that conflicting imperatives of asymmetric and conventional threats to US national security urge researchers and practitioners to revisit after a post-Vietnam period of neglect the approaches of colonial empires to the conduct of small wars and to adapt them to modern conditions. The findings broaden the understanding of the modern leading powers’ approaches to internal security models transfer, as well as of its limits.

Justification for Interference? The Role of the Monroe Doctrine in the Stigmatization and Legitimation of Intervention in the US Foreign Policy in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries

Despite the growing academic attention to the problem of interference in internal affairs, rhetorical techniques the state uses to legitimize interventions in the eyes of foreign counterparties, remain somewhat understudied in the Russian IR studies. In this regard, the case of the Monroe Doctrine, a landmark ideological construct in the history of international relations and US foreign policy, provides a unique framework for an in-depth study of the practices of legitimization and stigmatization of interventions. The paper examines the role of the doctrine in denouncing the interference of European powers in the domestic affairs of Latin American countries and justifying US actions in the region. The author outlines a set of issues related to legitimizing, both externally and internally, the actions of the state in the international arena. It is shown that the appeal to national interests suitable for solving the problems of domestic political legitimization, turns out to be ineffective in justifying interventions in the eyes of the international community and therefore gives way to references to established traditions and historical narratives. The paper examines the historical background of the 1823 presidential address and the ways how the US foreign policy establishment appealed to it later on, both to promote the idea of the inadmissibility of European interference in the affairs of the countries of the Western Hemisphere, and, subsequently, to justify American interventionism. Special attention is paid to the so-called Roosevelt Corollary, since it allows one to better understand the specifics of the US leaders’ perception of the Monroe Doctrine and to separate them from the distortions and stereotypes formed during the ensuing public debates and uncritically replicated in many academic studies. The author concludes that, though the Monroe Doctrine is regarded as a cornerstone of US foreign policy, in fact it played a limited role in both diplomatic justification and stigmatization of interventions. In this regard, it is more appropriate to consider it as a rhetorical asset rather than a strict guiding principle. In general, the case of the Monroe Doctrine reveals the situational conditionality of the practices legitimizing interventions, resulting in their limited persuasiveness. The latter seems to be almost inevitable given the constitutive importance of the institution of sovereignty for the maintenance of international society.

The Monroe Doctrine: Republicans’ Perspective in the Formation Years of the Versailles-Washington System

The Monroe Doctrine occupies a unique place in the US history. It became one of the key foreign policy documents of its time and provided the basis for a wide variety of interpretations of the United States’ role and goals in the international arena at turning points of world history. One of these moments was the turn of the 1910s−1920s, when a new Versailles-Washington order of international relations was emerging. In the US public discourse, this period was marked by intense debates between supporters of the Democratic President V. Wilson and his isolationist opponents. Both Republicans and Democrats constantly referred to the Monroe Doctrine, on the one hand, to justify their own views on US foreign policy in the new conditions, and, on the other hand, to refute the arguments of their political opponents. The controversy surrounding the Monroe Doctrine has been reflected in publications in periodicals and analytical journals, as well as in cartoons. Studying these materials, it is possible to trace the evolution of the approaches of American politicians, experts, editors, and journalists to the Monroe Doctrine. The arguments of the Republicans against the ‘internationalist’ interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine that emerged in the face of the changing global context after the First World War are of particular interest. The study shows that at the initial stage of discussions (1920), the Monroe Doctrine was used by the Republicans primarily to criticize W. Wilson’s concept of international relations in general and his position on the League of Nations in particular. At the next stage (1921−1923), the debate focused around the need to revise the Monroe Doctrine itself, that aroused due to new trends in the development of international relations in the Far East and, in particular, because of the increasing competition between the United States and Japan. The author identifies several main approaches to the interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine formulated during the public debate in 1921−1923. It is shown that, despite significant divergences of view, both isolationists and internationalists eventually came to broader interpretations of the Monroe Doctrine, recognizing the need to extend its principles to the entire Asia-Pacific region.

The Influence of Trump�s Leadership Style on American Foreign Policy During Covid-19 Pandemic

Scholars argue that Trump�s character and experience influence American foreign policy during a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. His controversial policy can be seen from his reopening of America agenda at a time when the situation was not conducive yet, the rejection to join COVAX, confrontational behavior toward WHO and China, the reduction of international engagement with the European Union to address COVID-19. This article examines how Trump�s leadership style influenced American foreign policy during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. It mainly uses psychobiography and content analysis as complementary methodologies. This article found that Trump is a predominant leader with a more goal-driven style. He is a leader who likes to challenge constraints, is closed to information, and is achievement-motivated, with an expansionist type. His personalities of high level of dominance, high self-confidence, emotional, ambitious and aggressiveness shaped his foreign policy to be inconsistent and unpredictable during the pandemic.&#x0D; &#x0D; Keywords: American Foreign Policy, COVID-19 Pandemic, Donald Trump, Leadership Style

미국 연방헌법상 대통령의 전쟁권 범위와 연방의회의 전쟁권 결의안에 관한 연구

The U.S. president's right to war is one of the key issues in the separation of powers between the president and Congress under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution distributes the right to war to the president and Congress, and the president is given the right to wage war and the Congress is given the right to declare war. However, this decentralized power worked in the president's favor in reality, and the president often waged war without the consent of Congress.&#x0D; The provisions of the right to war in the U.S. Constitution are stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 2, which gives the president the right to command the military, and Article 1, Paragraph 8, which gives the Congress the right to declare war. Constitutional makers gave the president the right to wage war, allowing the president to take military action quickly and flexibly in wartime situations. In addition, by granting the Congress the right to declare war, the president's right to war was checked and a mechanism was prepared to reflect the people's intention to war.&#x0D; The right to war in the United States has been a subject of debate since the beginning of the founding of the United States. George Washington, the first president, exercised his own right to wage war without Congress' consent, and this behavior was inherited by subsequent presidents. However, the prolongation and defeat of the Vietnam War changed the perception of the war in American society, and in 1973, Congress enacted the War Rights Resolution to limit the president's right to wage the war.&#x0D; The Warzone Resolution requires the president to end the military operation unless approved by Congress within 60 days. However, the resolution of the war zone was virtually neutralized by the president's disregard for Congress and the Supreme Court's denial of constitutionality. In addition, the resolution of the right to war does not clearly define the concept of war or the scope of war, so it does not substantially limit the president's right to wage war.&#x0D; America's right to war remains a major source of conflict between Congress and the president. Congress is trying to limit the president's right to wage war, but the president is trying to exercise the right to wage war stipulated in the constitution. These conflicts are expected to have a major impact on the US foreign and security policy.&#x0D; America's right to war is a key issue in the separation of powers between the president and Congress. It is necessary to readjust the right to war in order to secure the legitimacy and democracy of war while maintaining the separation of powers between the president and the parliament. To this end, legislative efforts are needed to clearly define the concept of war and the scope of war conduct, and to substantially strengthen the parliament's right to war.

Beyond the dominant voices: Unveiling Latin American perspectives on the international order

AbstractThe concept of international order has undergone significant evolution, but the dominant voices of great powers have often overshadowed regional perspectives, particularly in Latin America. Still, this region has played a crucial role in shaping the contemporary discourse on the international order. Today, the term is used in various contexts within Latin America, reflecting the increasing presence of nonstate actors and the interdependent nature of societies and the planet overall. This article focuses on Latin American diplomacy and civil society's understandings of international order, contending that the region has developed analytical and practical approaches that converge into a normative vision centered on international justice. Both the analytical and practical approaches view the international order as a normative concept. Civil society especially perceives the international order as a practice concept, utilizing its voice and actions as instruments for change. Yet, civil society is not monolithic, and various groups seek different outcomes. This article reviews critically analytical and normative perspectives of the international order, providing a comprehensive understanding of Latin American viewpoints through various data collection methods.

The reproduction of American identities in Somalia through terrorism and ethnicity

ABSTRACT In this article, we aim to discuss how manifestations of American identities have been reproduced in Somalia by diverse US diplomacy actors in the 2000s. Following a knowledge/power nexus, we argue that Orientalist discourses establish alterity politics in global South countries by managing and controlling post-colonial bodies. We explore different expressions of the American self’s reflection by comparisons to Somalia in discourses on terrorism and ethnicity. To do this, we understand American identity based on the notions of Americanity and Puritanism. This article contributes to debates on identity/difference among foreign policy, critical security, and terrorism studies by combining academic, journalistic, and political sources as expressions of US discourse.

The effects of presidential breakdowns on foreign policy in Latin America

AbstractPresidents and their ideologies have long been thought to be important explanatory variables in Latin American foreign policy, but little is known about how presidential breakdowns, a common form of leader change, affect foreign policy. I use a qualitative structured comparison to analyze the effects of nine presidential ousters on their successors’ foreign policies. I focus on cases in which the legitimacy of the process is in a gray zone, when narrative disputes are more likely to emerge. The findings indicate that incumbents politicize foreign policy when they use it to attain public support but accommodate it to congressional interests when they need support of Congress; meanwhile, international peers respond to presidential breakdowns according to their strategic and ideological rather than normative concerns. Even though Latin America is dominated by weak states, domestic politics, especially during crises, play a major role in explaining their foreign policies. Considering the role played by presidents in foreign policymaking, understanding this kind of presidential succession is essential.

THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES (FRUS) SERIES AS AN EXAMPLE OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENTARY HISTORY

The purpose of the article is to reveal the idea of the emergence and evolution of the FRUS publication as the gold standard of official documentary history, to analyze the main periods of the collection's development, focus on the legislative basis for the publication of the series and the problems of understanding the FRUS series as an example of the transparency of the American government. Analyzing the scientific work on the topic of the study, the author draws attention to two aspects: the lack of interest in this collection in the Ukrainian scientific community and the rather limited interest among the world scientific community. The research methodology is based on the principles of historicism, objectivity, a systematic approach, and relevant general scientific methods such as problem-chronological and information analysis. The scientific novelty is determined by showing the evolution of the collection, its functional orientation, and the proposed periodization of the publication's development. Conclusions: The publication of the collection began in 1861 and was viewed by Congress not only as a means of informing the public but also as a tool to control the executive branch. No clear criteria for publishing or removing materials were made public, although there was a consensus on which materials should not be published, namely those “that would be detrimental to the public good”. The publications of the period 1861-1905 did not take into account the fact of inconvenience to foreign governments, American diplomats, or US presidents. It is emphasized that the publications of the period 1920-1945 underwent profound changes in purpose, production, design procedures, and target audience. This period is associated with the appearance of the first official order that provided for mandatory historical “objectivity” and served as a charter for the series (with minor changes) until 1991. It is pointed out that the content of the collection and the speed of its appearance were seen as direct evidence of the US government's adherence to the policy of transparency and accountability. As a result, between 1920 and 1945, the State Department released 56 volumes, covering the years between 1913 and 1930. It is noted that gradually the balance between transparency and national security became increasingly difficult. The FRUS series has been and remains a vital resource for the public, academia, political scientists, and others. After the end of World War II, the State Department redefined the transparency paradigms of the 20th century. From the 1950s to the 1980s, the imperatives of the Cold War affected the timeliness of publication, as well as the decision-making process for declassifying U.S. government documents. At the beginning of the Cold War, the FRUS series was 15 years behind on average; by the 1980s, this gap had doubled to about 30 years. The volumes were also subjected to greater scrutiny by the U.S. government before being released. This was partly a result of expanding bureaucratic frameworks and partly a consequence of the Cold War. The publications of the second half of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries moved away from the functional component of the nineteenth century and instead became a means of a certain historical transparency. The FRUS publications will allow us to analyze not only the evolution of US diplomatic skill but also the policy of openness as a key element of democratic development.

Rekonstrukcja strategii Stanów Zjednoczonych wobec Tajwanu podczas prezydentury Josepha Bidena

RECONSTRUCTING THE US STRATEGY TOWARDS TAIWAN DURING THE PRESIDENCY OF JOSEPH BIDEN Adopting the model of neoclassical realism and elements of the American-centric nationalist paradigm, the paper examines both systemic factors stemming from the Sino-American power rivalry and internal ones referring to the populist traditions of American foreign policy. The main goal of America regarding Taiwan was to use its relationship with the island in its policy of containment of China by emphasizing Taiwan’s right to decide its future and preventing China from taking over the island by force. Along with deepening bilateral cooperation, the administration used multilateral mechanisms to promote the concept of peace and security across the Taiwan Strait as an essential element of the global order, which increased the number of countries interested in maintaining the status quo. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine heightened concerns about the possibility of PRC’s attack on Taiwan, prompting the Biden administration to intensify pressure on Taipei to accelerate military reform. However, the accentuation of closer relations between Washington and Taipei was interpreted by China as a provocative crossing of more “red lines,” leading to an intensification of repressive measures against Taiwan and the consolidation of bellicose rhetoric directed against both Washington and Taipei.

Contending American Visions of North Korea: The Mission Civilisatrice versus Realpolitik

This article aims to situate US–DPRK relations in a broader historical and theoretical context, that is, part of the violent encounters between the West and the ‘Rest’ in modern times, to examine discursive causes of their animosity and devise preliminary solutions to usher in peace and reconciliation in the Korean Peninsula. Drawing on a postcolonial reading of the liberal internationalist project and the global nuclear order, as well as a reflexive realist critique of US foreign policy toward the rogue states, this research explores how two competing geopolitical discourses, the mission civilisatrice and realpolitik, have constructed the epistemological problématique of Washington’s approach to Pyongyang and contributed to internal tensions in it over time. After analyzing the historical trajectory of America’s contrasting understandings of the Korean question, I seek to offer their implications on the dramatic change in the bilateral relations in the Trump era. By interrogating Trump’s realist turn in grand strategy and its unexpected influence on the two Cold War enemies’ mini-détente in 2018–2020, this article asks how a genuine dialogue between the liberal, ‘civilized’ center and the illiberal, ‘barbarian’ periphery can be materialized in an alternative normative setting. In particular, I argue that Trump’s new realist trial posed a critical question on how to depart from old ontological assumptions that frame the dominant liberal internationalist/neoconservative approaches toward a more dialogical and equal negotiation and compromise. A peaceful resolution of the North Korean dilemma is inherently related to a larger reflexivist project that promotes a thorough interrogation of the self-righteous US identity and a great transformation of America’s imperialist monologue toward the Third World in general. Des visions américaines concurrentes de la Corée du Nord : Mission civilisatrice vs Realpolitik

Assessing the Impact and Failures of America's War on Terror in the Middle East

This research paper critically analyses how the United States aided Jihadists and supported terrorists and paramilitary organisations during the Cold War. It further defines Jihadists in the United States. Despite this, it discusses US aid to some authoritarian governments that have used state terrorism as a means of repression in the Middle East and US supports for non-state terrorists. Apart from that, it elaborates on US foreign policy regarding weapons, training, and extensive financial and logistical support for terrorist organisations in the Middle East. Further, it explains how radical Islamist terrorism is a serious threat and how many terrorist groups operate in the Middle East. In addition, this article discusses the causes of Islamist terrorism. The paper argues that if authoritarianism is not the cause of Islamist terrorism then what other factors have contributed to it? In addition, the research examines the challenges of American foreign policy in the Middle East in the fight against terrorism. This study argues that the war on terror has failed because of two main reasons discussed in the research paper. It also considers how American foreign policy in the Middle East has been complex and has evolved over the years.

Soft power and the future of US foreign policy

Soft power and the future of US foreign policy