Search

Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: James Cronin
  • Publication Date: 01-2008
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University
  • Abstract: The so-called “special relationship” has been a fixture of international relations since at least 1940, but it seemed of declining significance during the 1960s and 1970s. It has nevertheless been revived, even refounded, since then; and it has served as the strategic base on which a new Anglo-American vision of the world has been articulated. At the core of the new connection, and the vision to which it gave rise, is a strong preference for the market and a set of foreign and domestic policies that privilege markets and see their expansion as critical to peace, prosperity and the expansion of democracy. This essay examines the origins of this new paradigm as a response to a set of interrelated crises in the 1970s, its elaboration and application during the 1980s under Reagan and Thatcher, its curious history since the end of the Cold War, and the way it evolved into the failed policies of the post-9/11 era.
  • Topic: International Relations, Cold War, Political Theory
  • Political Geography: America, Europe
  • Author: Niall Ferguson
  • Publication Date: 02-2008
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University
  • Abstract: We are living through a paradox-or so it seems. Since September 11, 2001, according to a number of neo-conservative commentators, America has been fighting World War III (or IV, if you like to give the Cold War a number). For more than six years, these commentators have repeatedly drawn parallels between the "War on Terror" that is said to have begun in September 2001 and World War II. Immediately after 9/11, Al Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups were branded "Islamofascists". Their attack on the World Trade Center was said to be our generation's Pearl Harbor. In addition to coveting weapons of mass destruction and covertly sponsoring terrorism, Saddam Hussein was denounced as an Arab Hitler. The fall of Baghdad was supposed to be like the liberation of Paris. Anyone who opposed the policy of pre-emption was an appeaser. And so on.
  • Topic: Cold War, Economics, Terrorism, War, Financial Crisis
  • Political Geography: America, Iran
  • Author: Peter Graves
  • Publication Date: 12-2007
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: National Endowment for Democracy
  • Abstract: U.S. efforts to develop an independent media sector abroad are a relatively recent phenomenon. Both public and private funders have supported journalism training since World War II, but some of the most significant opportunities to develop the independent media sector came after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Since most media in Eastern European countries and the former Soviet republics were controlled by the state during the Cold War, the fall of communism spurred American interest in developing free and independent media in these countries as a building block toward transparent and democratic societies.
  • Topic: Cold War, International Political Economy
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, America
  • Author: Carl Conetta
  • Publication Date: 09-2006
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Project on Defense Alternatives
  • Abstract: America's unique position of power in the post-Cold War era has often inspired comparisons to that of Rome during the rule of Augustus. But the security policy adopted by the United States, especially since the 9/11 attacks, calls to mind a different ancient place and personage: Pyrrhus (318 - 272 B.C.E.), king of Epirus, a Hellenistic realm that comprised what is now northwestern Greece and southern Albania. Plutarch memorializes Pyrrhus as a “great man of war” – but also a fool. Although he waged successful campaigns against Macedonia, the Romans, and others, Pyrrhus was unable to preserve his gains, which came at great cost. In the end, his martial ambitions won him and his kingdom nothing but ruin and disapprobation. He is remembered today in the phrase “Pyrrhic victory”– meaning any victory not worth its cost.
  • Topic: Security, Cold War, Terrorism
  • Political Geography: United States, America, Greece, Albania, Rome
  • Author: Jackson Janes
  • Publication Date: 11-2003
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Center for German and European Studies, University of California, Berkeley
  • Abstract: During the Cold War, European-American relations were often marked by differences over tactics, but we did share for the most part a strategic goal that was to be achieved on the basis of the twin principles of deterrence and détente. Yet there are some that would argue that this past year has been different; that the transatlantic rift goes deeper and will last longer. If the Americans and Europeans cannot find common ground in certain regulatory areas, it may be that we will agree to disagree on the use of GMO's, technological standards, or Anti-trust legislation. This could lead to more competition but also to duplication in an increasingly interwoven global market. Yet, because we face a vastly more complicated environment today than during previous years — full of threats and opportunities — it will remain a challenge for the coming decade to strategize as to how transatlantic political policy problems can best be dealt with.
  • Topic: Conflict Prevention, Cold War, Weapons of Mass Destruction
  • Political Geography: America, Europe
  • Author: Anouar Boukhars
  • Publication Date: 04-2001
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Columbia International Affairs Online
  • Abstract: Soviet-American relationship in the 1970's entered a new phase of controversial complexity. The 1970's were expected to mark a rupture with the antagonism of the cold war period. It was expected to be an era of détente where no efforts would be spared to avoid East-West confrontations. The two superpowers manifested their intentions to expand areas of cooperation and to reduce international tension. Both the US and the Soviets were eager to start a new promising, less volatile relationship. But this exuberance was soon to fade out with the explosive crises that were to occur in the periphery.
  • Topic: Cold War
  • Political Geography: United States, America, Israel, Arabia
  • Author: Mickey Kantor
  • Publication Date: 11-1997
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Council on Foreign Relations
  • Abstract: The challenges of the era of interdependence will constitute the greatest foreign policy test of the 21st century. The war over globalization and interdependence is at an end. Only the battles are yet to be fought. Those who cower behind walls of fear and fail to accept responsibility do so at their own peril, and will not turn containment into engagement, or mutual assured destruction into mutual assured prosperity. The approach of the new millennium finds us at the intersection of three epochal events: in politics, the end of the Cold War; in economics, the emergence of a global economy; and in technology, the rise of the Information Age. The intersection of economics, strategic issues, and political concerns is creating the glue which will bind together an updated U.S. foreign policy. Vast opportunities lie before us, and more than a few pitfalls. We face fewer serious military threats but an increasing number of competitors. The rise of competition, the need to create new opportunities, and the confluence of major economic and political changes create a need to intensely focus on U.S. priorities and goals. Despite this urgency, we have yet to fully articulate a foreign policy that matches the era in which we now live, especially the appropriate role of international economics. We need to direct our focus toward the lessons we have learned over the past five years. Seekers of universal truths or simple catch phrases should prepare in advance for disappointment. U.S. leadership in both the public and private sectors must accept the challenges represented by these enormous changes. Our willingness to take responsibility, clearly define our goals, and recognize our limitations but pursue U.S. leadership at every opportunity will dictate the success or failure of promoting a stronger United States and a less dangerous world. The goals and objectives are clear: U.S. leadership must pursue peace, stability, economic progress, basic human rights, and sustainable development. In order to address these goals we need to create foreign-policy tools and institutions that are pragmatic, practical, and resilient reflecting the speed with which events, opportunities, and challenges now confront us as a nation. There is no question that global economics has fundamentally changed the nature of foreign policy. Today, economics and foreign policy are no longer separable, and economic security and national security have become synonymous. We live in an interdependent, globalized world. No longer are we self-contained, nor is it in our interest to be so. We can no longer take for granted our global economic dominance and turn our back on foreign markets. It is self-defeating in the short run and impossible in the long run to ignore the problems which occur across the border or across the world, and we cannot overlook our responsibility as the world's remaining superpower. Driven by technological change, freed of Cold War conflicts and connected by economic and strategic interests, the era of interdependence demands negotiation, engagement, and leadership. Interdependence dictates that our foreign policy and economic future are increasingly connected to international trade. Interdependence dictates that terrorism, weapons proliferation, environmental concerns, the drug trade, and economic opportunity are now cross-border issues. These issues profoundly affect the everyday lives of people around the globe. Cross-border issues directly influence policies, laws, and regulations of the countries in question, raising issues such as the rule of and respect for law, regulation and deregulation, privatization, and other concerns heretofore thought to be strictly internal. This new era requires a redefinition of global leadership. Being the only remaining superpower does not simply mean that we are the strongest military power, nor does it mean only that we are the most economically competitive nation on earth. Both of those statements are true, of course. But holding the position of the world's only remaining superpower in the era of interdependence means that we have the opportunity to take advantage of the vast economic potential which is being created around the globe to the benefit of all Americans, and we have a corresponding obligation to rally other nations to pursue common long-term interests, such as strategic and political stability, economic progress, and sustainable development. There are other examples which support the notion of new multidimensional international relations. Brazil has dramatically increased its international standing and influence using its potential economic strategic position. During the Cold War and prior to the dramatic growth of economic power and industrialization, Brazil's strategic position would have been defined and dictated by its ability or inability to have an influence over strategic and political issues especially those concerning East-West relations. But today, and in the foreseeable future, not only do countries increase their influence based on economic potential and achievement, but economic considerations and relationships tend to bring entities together which in other circumstances could not or would not cooperate. The recent Middle East Economic Conferences and the participation of China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) are obvious examples.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Cold War, Diplomacy, Political Economy
  • Political Geography: United States, China, America, Taiwan, Asia, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo
  • Author: David J. Vidal
  • Publication Date: 05-1996
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Council on Foreign Relations
  • Abstract: In the architecture of postwar American foreign policy, the twin themes of the Cold War and the national interest emerge as unshakable pillars. In the design of the conference, one session was set aside to explore the practical and political meanings of these themes for minorities. Conferees were asked to consider how Cold War foreign policy priorities intersected with minority concerns. They were also asked to assess whether the declaration made by Hans J. Morgenthau --that "we should have one guiding standard for thought and action, the national interest"--was a useful benchmark. These two points of departure struck the organizers as indispensable to any rethinking of the future.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Cold War, Politics
  • Political Geography: United States, America
  • Author: John Hollister Hedley
  • Publication Date: 01-1995
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
  • Abstract: A changing world fraught with new uncertainties and complexities challenges America to understand the issues and dangers U.S. foreign and defense policy must confront. Economically and politically, however, it is a fact of life that the United States must engage the post-Cold War world with a smaller, more cost-efficient intelligence capability than the 13-organization, $28-billion-dollar intelligence apparatus of today. This might be achieved by a meat-cleaver approach—such as across-the-board cuts based on the erroneous assumption that every part of the apparatus is equally dispensable or indispensable. Preferably, it can—and will—be accomplished by prudently eliminating redundancy and by abandoning missions no longer deemed essential or affordable.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Cold War, Intelligence, Political Economy
  • Political Geography: United States, America
  • Author: Joseph M. Grieco
  • Publication Date: 04-1990
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Center for German and European Studies, University of California, Berkeley
  • Abstract: Germany's foreign economic policy places enormous weight on formal European institutions. In contrast, Japan has not had an institutionalist orientation in regard to its East Asian neighbors. This paper addresses the question of why Germany and Japan differ so greatly on this issue of regional economi. institutions. It suggests that the differences observed in German and Japanese interests in regard to such arrangements constitute a puzzle if they are examined from the perspective of liberal ideas about the functional bases of international collaboration, or from the viewpoint of realist propositions about hegemony and cooperation and about the impact of polarity on state preferences. The paper also puts forward a realist-inspired analysis (focusing on American power in the post-Cold War era as well as American national strategy in the early years of that conflict) that might help account for the strong German bias in favor of regional economic institutions and the equally pronounced Japanese aversion to date for such arrangements.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Cold War, International Organization
  • Political Geography: United States, Japan, America, Europe, Israel, East Asia, Asia, Germany