US Action Research Articles

Roundtable: The Trump Presidency and Southeast Asia

The accession of Donald Trump to the US presidency has triggered serious discussion within Australia's policy community over the future of Australia-US security relations and Australia's role in Southeast During his first days in office, President Trump pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, an integral part of his predecessor's pivot strategy towards Asia and an initiative strongly supported by the Australian government. The United States' withdrawal from the TPP has led various Australian commentators to question Washington's commitment to maintain a viable economic and strategic presence in the Asia Pacific. (1) Such uncertainty is aggravated by Canberra's growing disquiet over intensified tensions between China and the United States in the South China Sea. President Trump's posture of challenging Chinese sovereign control over its man-made islands in the South China Sea has increased Australian concerns that it could soon face the nightmare of being compelled to choose between its largest trading partner--China--and its long-term security ally--the United States--if the two Great Powers were to clash militarily in Southeast Asia's critical maritime littorals. (2) ASEAN Fragility and Australia's Concerns Shortly after Trump's election victory, former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating called for Australia to cut the tag of unmitigated support for US foreign policies and recognize that our future is basically in the region around us, in Southeast Asia. (3) Since its inception in 2011, successive Australian governments had extended unqualified backing to the Barack Obama administration's pivot strategy which was largely designed to reassure members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that Washington was committed to playing a vigorous and sustained strategic and economic role in Southeast Asia in the face of China's rising power. (4) Trump's decision to withdraw America from the TPP undercut Australia's commitment to regional order-building by pursuing multilateral free trade arrangements and promoting an inclusive approach to shaping future rules for security conduct in Comments by Trump's nominee for US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, during his confirmation testimony before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee--that the new administration would reserve the prerogative to resort to military force to oppose Chinese territorial claims and would ask US regional allies to provide backup for any such military operation--exacerbated Australian uncertainties about future US policy directions. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop reiterated that her government's position would remain consistent: the South China Sea dispute should be settled by international law. For the Australian government to respond to such hypothetical situations prematurely, Bishop noted, would not be appropriate. (5) However, Keating and other Australian critics warned that any such US action would be tantamount to initiating a Sino--American war that would disrupt Australia's vital sea lines of communication (SLOCs), devastate its economy, and render global security null and void. Australia, he insisted, should tell the Trump administration from the get-go that it would not be a part of such adventurism. (6) ASEAN's brittleness in the absence of a regionally engaged United States ranks as perhaps Australia's most fundamental concern about Southeast As ASEAN's self-appointed locomotive, Indonesia's willingness to push back against China's maritime expansion southwards--in conjunction with China's territorial claims embodied in the so-called line--is viewed by Australian policy planners as increasingly critical. While Indonesia is not formally involved in the South China Sea dispute, and its control of the geographically critical Natuna Islands has not been formally challenged by Beijing, some Chinese maps have demarcated Indonesia's 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as being partly inside the nine-dash line. …

Who is Wile E. Coyote? Power, influence and the war on drugs

Thucydides said that ‘Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must’. Such is the characterization by many scholars of the US dominance of Mexico. We challenge this claim in explaining a puzzle: why American unilateralism in the ‘war on drugs’ results in symbolic and material gains for Mexico as it shifts the United States from a unilateral to a cooperative policy. We examine five major cases over the last five decades and identify a dynamic cycle that begins with unilateral US action and ends with bilateral agreements, where mechanisms for clear communication are created, and resource transfers take place. Although we recognize that our claims are both contingent and context-dependent, a clear pattern emerges: Like the Roadrunner, Mexico has triumphed again.

The history, development and the present status of the radon measurement programme in the United States of America.

The US radon measurement programme began in the late 1950s by the US Public Health Service in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah during the uranium frenzy. After the 1967 Congressional Hearings on the working conditions in uranium mines, the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was asked to conduct studies in active uranium mines to assess the exposure of the miners on the Colorado Plateau and in New Mexico. From 1967 to 1972, the Health and Safety Laboratory of the US AEC in New York investigated more than 20 uranium mines for radon and radon decay product concentrations and particle size in 4 large uranium mines in New Mexico. In 1970, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established and took over some of the AEC radon measurement activities. Between 1975 and 1978, the Environmental Measurements Laboratory of the US Department of Energy conducted the first detailed indoor radon survey in the USA. Later in 1984, the very high concentrations of radon found in Pennsylvania homes set the wheels in motion and gave birth to the US Radon Industry. The US EPA expanded its involvement in radon issues and assumed an active role by establishing the National Radon Proficiency Program to evaluate the effectiveness of radon measurement and mitigation methods. In 1998, due to limited resources EPA privatised the radon programme. This paper presents a personal perspective of past events and current status of the US radon programme. It will present an update on radon health effects, the incidence rate of lung cancer in the USA and the number of radon measurements made from 1988 to 2013 using short-term test methods. More than 23 million measurements were made in the last 25 y and as a result more than 1.24 million homes were mitigated successfully. It is estimated that <2 % of the radon measurements performed in the USA are made using long-term testing devices. The number of homes above the US action level of 148 Bq m(-3) (4 pCi l(-1)) may be ∼8.5 million because ∼50 million homes were added since 1990 to the home inventory. This paper will discuss the current instruments and methods used to measure radon in the USA, and what is the effectiveness of radon resistant new construction, the current status of mitigation standards and the proposed testing protocols in schools and large buildings.

North–South relations and human rights

There are apparent differences between the developed North and the economically weak South. The relations between the North and South are marked by dichotomies and in order to deal with the challenges posed by the South, the North choses control and cooperation. The North uses several instruments including economic assistance to achieve its objectives. One of the new tools that is increasingly taken advantage of is human rights. Although there exists a genuine concern about human rights standards in the South, action on these issues almost always depends on national interest of the states in the North. This paradigm is proved true by the present human rights campaign the United States is undertaking against Sri Lanka in the United Nations Human Rights Council. The US and its Western allies believe that serious human rights violations have been committed during the last phase of the war in Sri Lanka. Promoting accountability and insisting on an international investigation, the US has successfully presented three resolutions on Sri Lanka since 2012. This paper argues that the US action is motivated primarily by its national interest. At the secondary level the US is interested in curtailing what is called the Sri Lanka model of conflict resolution and promoting reconciliation.

Geoeconomic Assumptions, Insecurity, and ‘Free’ Trade in Central America

The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) exemplifies interconnections and contradictions between geopolitical and geoeconomic agendas, including security, democracy, and resource marketing. Central American sovereignty is selectively weakened as states are increasingly dependent on the US and must synchronise governance with the expectations of their most important trade partner or risk becoming defendants in international tribunals. Salvadoran and Costa Rican governments have been accused of upholding environmental regulations that impede the profit-earning of multinational corporations, while the Guatemalan state was charged with violating domestic labour laws. Nevertheless, criminal behaviour and impunity are widespread across the region and seldom provoke US action. Five years after CAFTA's implementation, there is evidence of the erosion of democracy, repression of civil society, and uneven distribution of trade costs and benefits. These results have led some analysts to conclude CAFTA must be renegotiated, while others recommend human and labour rights protocols accompany free trade agreements.

The global dimensions of public health preparedness and implications for US action.

The globalization of public health is both real and relevant throughout the United States and to Americans traveling or residing abroad. US public policy responses are evolving, but a crisper and more comprehensive global perspective is needed. I suggest four timely US actions to address today's competing realities of globalization and economic austerity: raise awareness among clinicians and local health departments; capture and share exemplary disaster management practices across countries; ensure that US global health investments are effective, efficient, and sustainable; and think globally while acting locally to enhance US health security. The reauthorization of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act of 2006 provides an opportunity to more clearly address the global dimensions of domestic preparedness.

The “Global War on Terror,” Identity, and Changing Perceptions: Iraqi Responses to America's War in Iraq

For many years opposition to US foreign policy has frequently been interpreted by cultural commentators and the wider media as “anti-Americanism.” Such “anti-Americanism” has been situated as dangerous, irrational and violent, and this apparent link has been reinforced continuously since 9/11. However, by making a reading of two Iraqi weblogs which have gained significant recognition in Iraq and the West, this article challenges such a simplified definition of alternative perspectives on foreign policy as “anti-Americanism.” This article focusses on the blog entries of two Iraqis, Salam Pax and “Riverbend,” who lived in Baghdad throughout the Iraq War (2003–9) and during the subsequent years of civil unrest. It explores how their online responses to the US action in Iraq illustrate the complexity of perceived “anti-Americanism.” The bloggers do not situate themselves as “anti-American.” Instead they draw a clear distinction between opposition to US foreign policy and hostility towards America and its people, thus problematizing previous definitions of “anti-Americanism.” However, this article also recognizes that whilst these texts highlight this distinction, the negative impact of US foreign policy on Iraq since the occupation, coupled with the militarized image that America projects of itself, has caused the distinction between a disapproval of US foreign policy and an objection to US culture in broader terms to become increasingly blurred. Indeed, these narratives indicate that rather than situating 9/11 as the first move in a campaign of “anti-Americanism,” it could be argued that it is the American government's reaction to the attacks, and the impact of the subsequent occupation of Iraq, which acted as a catalyst for the growth of opposition to US foreign policy, and to some extent a rejection of US culture, in Iraq.

Dead White Men: An Essay on the Changing Dynamics of Race in US Action Cinema

Dead White Men: An Essay on the Changing Dynamics of Race in US Action Cinema

Lessons from the First Great Cyberwar Era

PurposeAs we approach the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the international treaty that ended the First Great Cyberwar Era, it seems worth marking the event with a reflection on the steps taken and the extent those actions remain applicable today. Almost every significant new “cyber” technology has proceeded through the same cycle of behavior by innovators, industry and governments. Excitement, euphoria, and innovation by geeks are followed by industry assimilation and exploitation, which gives rise to pervasive public implementations, and then conflict among nations to maintain perceived advantages. Chaos and global cyber conflict then drives international cooperation and accommodations. This paper aims to address these issues.Design/methodology/approachHistorical analysis applied to contemporary developments.FindingsFor the First Great Cyberwar Era, it took a dramatic incident like the sinking of the Titanic to bring about major change in US policies. Will that be the case again today, and what will be the requisite level of shock and awe to obtain substantial US action and cooperation? It is long past due to institute the seven proven components of a global cybersecurity framework.Originality/valueThis is original work that draws upon decades of analysis, and is not known to be reflected in any published material.

Ever again? The United States, genocide suppression, and the crisis in Darfur

This paper focuses on the United States and its policy on the Darfur crisis, which in 2004 was acknowledged as a case of genocide by both the US administration and Congress. It explores a range of questions, issues and themes, and their relevance to US policies on genocide suppression between April and November 2004, as manifested in regard to the crisis in Darfur. It is proposed that constraining effects of the war in Iraq, a deadlocked Security Council, a multifaceted defensive Sudanese government campaign against intervention aided by the existence of at least two key American interests in the country, and the perceived risks of military intervention have combined to impede a meaningful US action to stop the first genocide of the twenty-first century. It is however also argued that while the US government could and should have been much more active, non-militarily, on the issue of Darfur, its rhetoric and actions during 2004 did exhibit a certain increase of willingness, although for as yet uncertain motives, to attempt engagement in acts of genocide suppression. The study discusses the motives, obstacles and political realities that have led to a policy of, in fact, non-intervention.

Just War Theory and the 2003 Iraq War Forced Displacement

The forced displacement in the wake of the 2003 US coalition invasion of Iraq is the largest in the Middle East since the 1948 Palestinian displacement at the inception of the State of Israel. It has had and is having dire effects upon Iraq and the region, with millions of IDPs resulting from and contributing to sectarian violence within Iraq, and Iraq's neighbours Syria and Jordan hosting the vast majority of refugees. Using the burgeoning third pillar of just war theory (JWT), jus post bellum, or just peace, this paper will examine what duties the US has toward the Iraqi displacement. In doing so, the paper will present overviews of US conduct in the war through the lens of JWT, as well as a discussion on the consequences of the forced displacement. From there, it will be possible to critique US action toward the displacement pursuant to jus post bellum criteria.

Towards a Theory of Iranian American Life Writing

Though the Iranian American memoirs published since 2003 are by no means the first writings by members of this ethnic group, because they appeared after the September 11, 2001 bombing of the World Trade Center and in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the response to them demonstrates not only increased anxieties about Muslims in the public sphere, but a sharpening of the debate within the Iranian about the appropriate role of its members in the host country. These circumstances have resulted in a perception, especially on the part of scholars within the Iranian American community, of higher stakes in interpretation of these texts. One critic charges the memoirists with complicity in a US program for hegemony in the Islamic world, suggesting that works like Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran (2003) promote a selective memory of historical events that encourages collective amnesia concerning US action abroad (Dabashi); another criticizes the clumsy attempt to translate Iranian culture into humorous terms comprehensible to Americans, in memoirs like Firoozeh Dumas's Funny in Farsi (2003), arguing that representing the vexed relationship between and the US in terms of such banalities trivializes Iran's plight in the modern world (Mottahedeh). On the other hand, one second-generation Iranian American critic celebrates these memoirs as unique forms of exil[ic] cultural production, seeing in their publication and popularity a positive development in articulating the vision of Iranian Americans who have embraced the term diaspora to describe their relationship to Iran, but for whom a recognizable identity in the US socio-cultural milieu is important, too (Malek 354). All this suggests not only a contested understanding of the role of diasporic Iranians in the home and host cultures, but also a certain confusion over what the responsibilities of memoir are to truth--or, more to the point, whose conception of truth prevails. Should our understanding of the truth be assembled from the testimony of many, or is truth best expressed by the experience of the individual? More simply put, is the truth historical or anecdotal? Clearly, the matter is divided, especially within the Iranian diaspora, where if the lively debate sometimes veers towards personal attacks on the integrity of the rnemoirists, the impulse of critics to interrogate political motivations, to historicize, and to critically recognize this developing body of work still is important. Yet the restriction of the debate primarily to the has obscured other meaningful contexts for inquiry, particularly that of memoir itself--a genre to which even readers outside of the special circumstances of the Iranian bring complex expectations. (1) Theorist Philippe Lejeune argues that because readers and authors of memoirs are bound by the autobiographical pact, which compels authors to tell the truth as they know it, readers must assume, until proven otherwise (as in the borderline and exceptional case... of fraud [26]), that memoirs do uphold the relationship between the world inside the text and the world outside of the text as it is has been perceived by the author. Yet this means that the memoir cannot necessarily satisfy strict demands for either political correctness or historical accuracy. Lejeune also reminds us that while biographies and histories aim for [a]ccuracy [which] involves information we can only expect from the autobiographer or memoirist fidelity [which involves] (23). More specifically, in the case of the Iranian American memoir, the genre does give us permission to assume that the Iran and America referenced in such works are places that actually exist, and which the reader may know through her own experience. At the same time, the reader must acknowledge that her sense of the truth or meaning of these places may diverge, in some cases dramatically, from that of the memoirist, and that in the contest between these two experiences of perception, neither historical accounts nor the personal experience of a reader can necessarily mediate or provide definitive answers. …

Haiti and America Latina: it is as it always was

The Bush administration's forced removal of democratically elected Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, while a power-sharing deal with his political opposition was being brokered in 2004, resulted in the country's expulsion from the Caribbean Community and was condemned by the African Union. The installation of the US-backed replacement government of Gerard Latortue has resulted in the rape, torture and false imprisonment of thousands of ordinary Haitians. The only Latin American country to condemn the US's action in Haiti, however, has been Venezuela. Other countries and organisations like the Organization of American States (OAS) have been bought over with a massive programme of civilian and military funding by the US.

Creeping Unilateralism: How Operation Provide Comfort and the No-Fly Zones in 1991 and 1992 Paved the Way for the Iraq Crisis of 2003

In this article, it is argued that the genesis of the Iraq Crisis of 2003 within the Security Council can be traced to earlier patterns of acquiescence by Council members in US and UK unilateral enforcement action in Iraq. By the time this acquiescence ceased, between 1994 and 1996, UK and US enforcement policy was set and would culminate in Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003.

Reconciliation between Korea and Japan

Although Japan and Korea formally normalized their relations in 1965, these neighbours remain wary of each other because of their awkward history during the first half of the twentieth century, when Japan annexed Korea and oppressed the Koreans in many ways. Korean scholars believe strongly that this annexation was ''illegal'' and that it constituted a violation of international law when it occurred. Japanese scholars tend to admit that the Japanese occupation of Korea was brutal and caused enormous suffering, but they are reluctant to acknowledge that the annexation was ''illegal'', because other great powers were annexing small countries during that period. The US action supporting the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 and annexing Hawaii in 1898 may be helpful in finding an appropriate resolution to the Japan-Korea standoff. In 1993, the US Congress enacted a joint resolution formally apologizing to the Native Hawaiian people and calling for a ''reconciliation'' between the United States and the Native Hawaiians. This resolution acknowledged that the US diplomatic and military support for the 1893 overthrow was ''illegal'' and was in violation of ''international law''. This strong statement seems to be an application of ''inter- temporal law'', whereby present views of international law are applied to the events of the 1890s, but, in any event, it is a powerful acknowledgment that a wrong occurred, causing injuries that can still be felt today. The reconciliation process between the United States and Native Hawaiians is now under way and, to be complete, it will require the restoration of the sovereignty of the Native Hawaiians and a return of land and resources to them. Japanese officials have offered apologies to the Koreans, but the reconciliation between the two countries can become complete only if these apologies are accompanied by a transfer of items of real value. This paper proposes that proper payments to the Korean comfort women and a renunciation by Japan of its claim to Dokdo/Takeshima (the tiny islands claimed by both countries) could serve to formalize the reconciliation between these two neighbours.

Senate hearings strengthen calls for US action over climate

Winds of change blow through Congress.

A bargain born of a paradox: the oil industry's role in American domestic and foreign policy

Scholarly attention to oil reached its zenith in the late 1980s. Spirited debates on regime theory, neorealism and American hegemony dovetailed with the aftermath of the oil shocks, the ongoing Ira...

Britain, America, and the Vietnam War

This single-authored monograph is the first major academic study of the impact of the Vietnam War on Anglo-American relations 1964-68 and is international in scope. No other single-volume study of this kind exists. It assesses how the war affected the diplomatic and political relationship between London and Washington. The book considers the pressure put on Britain to send troops to Vietnam as part of a ‘more flags’ campaign. Although Britain supported the US action in Vietnam in public, the Wilson government refused to send troops to South East Asia and often disagreed with US military methods in fighting the war. The book assesses how the Wilson government conducted a political balancing act in maintaining US support of the ailing pound sterling, providing diplomatic support for the war in Vietnam and handling backbench and public opposition to the war. The monograph was published as part of a new International History series edited by Erik Goldstein, William Keylor and Cathal Nolan. The research for the book was multi-archival in methodology (using primary materials from archives in Boston, Washington DC, Richmond, Austin, Texas, and London) and made extensive use of oral history and newly opened materials. The book was developed out of a PhD thesis on ‘Anglo-American Relations and the Vietnam War’ which was revised and extended for publication. It was partly funded by a British Academy Small Research Grant in 2001. The monograph received a Choice (American Libraries Association) ‘Outstanding Academic Title’ award for originality and significance in 2004. It has been favourably reviewed. Reviewers have written that “the book extends the frame of reference for the Vietnam War beyond the confines of Washington, Saigon and Hanoi, a recognized historiographical need … Highly recommended” and “Clearly written and sensibly organised, her book is a significant contribution to historiography” (Journal of American History).

'Targeted killings' in an age of terror: the legality of the Yemen strike

In November 2002, a US Unmanned Aerial Vehicle launched a missile at a car in Yemen suspected to be carrying terrorists. The lethal strike arguably represented a `targeted killing`, a policy that had previously been widely renounced by the international community including the US. However, the incident remained largely unchallenged by other states. This article analyses the legality of the Yemen strike, taking into account alternative legal rationales that could be presented in defence of US action. It characterises and assesses the incident in turn, as a Yemen request for forceful intervention, an engagement in an ongoing armed conflict, an anti-terrorist operation mandated by Security Council Resolution 1373 and an act of anticipatory self-defence. It finds that the Yemen strike in particular, and `targeted killings` in general, can only tenuously be reconciled with the existing international legal framework. In this context, the article questions the uncritical international response to the Yemen incident. It speculates that the tacit acceptance of US action reflects two emerging norms governing the use of force, namely a toleration of military actions that do not threaten the existence of the state and the gradual legitimisation of state action perpetrated against unidentified individuals.

European and Japanese fuel economy initiatives: what they are, their prospects for success, their usefulness as a guide for US action

Abstract The new Japanese weight class standards for fuel economy and European Voluntary Commitment for reducing carbon emissions, both aimed at light-duty vehicles, are likely to further separate the fuel efficiency of the Japanese and European fleets from the US fleet… . and they may put substantial pressure on both US manufacturers and the federal government to take action to narrow the growing fuel economy gap. This paper describes these two new initiatives, discusses some concerns with their outcome, and provides some insight into their potential applicability to the United States market. In particular, the paper compares the regulatory conditions governing fuel economy (test regimes, emissions standards) and the differences in the cost-effectiveness of new fuel economy technology (given differences in fuel prices, vehicle taxation, and other factors affecting technology cost/fuel savings tradeoffs) for the three markets. European and Japanese market conditions are more conducive to improving fuel economy because of less stringent emissions standards (that make direct injection engines more feasible and will likely allow better performance from them) and much higher fuel prices than in the US. However, factors such as high vehicle taxes and, in some European countries, a high percentage of company cars may narrow the gap between the US market and the European market. And very high rates of driving in the US also enhance the cost-effectiveness of efficiency technologies