Search

Since the 1990s, US policy in Azerbaijan has gone through several important shifts in the areas of energy, security and democracy promotion. How can we make sense of these decisive shifts in the orientation of US policy? In this paper, I identify major shifts in US policy in Azerbaijan based on relative weight given to energy, security and democracy issues. I divide US policy into four different time periods: 1994 to 2001, 2001 to 2007, 2007 to 2015 and 2015 to present. I analyze the changes that took place in US policy in the dimensions of energy, security and democracy. Then, I provide plausible explanations that can account for shifts in US policy. To do so, I utilize foreign policy analysis theory that focuses on domestic and international parameters that bring major foreign policy shifts. My explanation is not monocausal, and focuses on several factors that have influenced US policy in Azerbaijan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the alleged conspiracy by the U.S. and U.K. governments to invade Iraq in 2003, the national security state in both countries has been subjected to intense scrutiny by news organizations around the world. This scrutiny has been fueled in part by what some describe as the development of a “networked fourth estate” (Benkler 2011) involving ad hoc alliances between professional journalists, citizen journalists, hackers, and leakers. On the surface, this attention challenges radical conceptions of a “power elite” remaining in the shadows and impervious to accountability exercised through the media. Amid cultural chaos (McNair 2005) and seemingly ubiquitous displays of adversarial journalism without fear or favor, how far are powerful interests still able to control the agenda and manipulate outcomes? The article presents findings in relation to a single case study involving critical coverage of the national security state and a particular aspect of containment that emerged. It concerns how the controversies were resolved through an apparent spectacle of accountability that suggested a resolution eschewing the need for further scrutiny or sanction. The paper further contends that this element of story “closure” warrants renewed attention in the study of news framing and ideological power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Now more than ever, critical discourse analysis is urgently called upon to deconstruct the discourses of arrogant power and division which are largely secret for most citizens and which baldly contradict the discourses of populist solidarity propagated in an official democracy. This paper focuses on deconstructing two legal discourses, the craftily named "Patriot Acts," designed to polarize the citizenry into "patriots" supporting the current US administration and its wars, versus "terrorists" who oppose them, and to use "homeland security" as a cloak to legitimize a maximum of secrecy for the government and its agents, and a minimum for the citizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Failed states pose one of the deepest challenges to American national security and international peace and stability. Finding a comprehensive and effective solution to the challenges of terrorism, human rights violations, or poverty and economic development requires some understanding of how to restore failed states. The response of the United Slates and its allies has remained the same: to rebuild the institutions of state control, and, ~f lucky, to plant a working democracy and a market economy within existing stale borders. But many international law scholars remain openly dubious about the ability of states to rebuild-the problem is not failed states but the nation-state as the primary actor in international relations. This paper argues that both American and United Nations policy on the one hand, and the conventional academic wisdom on the other hand, are mistaken. Building a normal nation-state with full sovereignty on every territory in the world, without changing any borders, fails to understand why some states are failing in the first place. Viable states simply do not align with the borders recognized by the United Nations or created during the period of rapid decolonization in the decades after World War II. Academics who see in failed states the rise of alternatives to the nation-state have no practical solutions that do not depend on the political, economic, and military resources of strong nation-states. Without them, supranational governments, trusteeships, or nongovernmental organizations have shown little ability to fix failed states. This Article argues that powerful nations can help by performing the more modest role of promoting and guaranteeing power-sharing agreements between competing groups within failed states. It concludes by illustrating the thesis with the outcome of the surge in Iraq. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Bush theory of democratic peace. This paper features the Bush administration's National Security Strategy of democratic policy. The Bush administration rationalizing the war in Iraq in efforts to implant democracy in Middle East has caused much debate. The idea of promoting democracy has advanced the advocacy throughout the world but also caused much aversion to the true idea. Other issues discussed here is the strategic purpose of promoting democracy abroad even if it would be by force if seen necessary.

Sociologists and political scientists have long fretted over the dangers that a politicized military poses to democracy. In recent times, however, civil–military relations experts in the United States accepted retired or indeed still serving generals and admirals in high-ranking political posts. Despite customary revulsion from scholars, the sudden waivers are an indicator that military participation in momentous national security decisions is inherently political without necessarily being partisan, including when civilian authority defers to a largely autonomous sphere for objective military expertise. Military politics is actually critical for healthy civil–military collaboration, when done prudently and moderately. Janowitz and Huntington, founders of the modern study of civil–military relations, understood the U.S. military's inevitable invitation to political influence. Here, we elaborate on two neglected dimensions, implicit in their projects, of military politics under objective civilian control based on classical virtues of civic republicanism: Aristotle's practical wisdom and Machiavelli's virtú. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following public revelations of interference in the United States 2016 election, there has been widespread concern that online disinformation poses a serious threat to democracy. Governments have responded with a wide range of policies. However, there is little clarity in elite policy debates or academic literature about what it actually means for disinformation to endanger democracy, and how different policies might protect it. This article proposes that policies to address disinformation seek to defend three important normative goods of democratic systems: self-determination, accountable representation, and public deliberation. Policy responses to protect these goods tend to fall in three corresponding governance sectors: self-determination is the focus of international and national security policies; accountable representation is addressed through electoral regulation; and threats to the quality of public debate and deliberation are countered by media regulation. The article also reveals some of the challenges and risks in these policy sectors, which can be seen in both innovative and failed policy designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States prides itself on freedom of speech and information. However, foreign adversaries have weaponized these prized freedoms against the United States. The First Amendment, the Privacy Act, and other U.S. laws designed to protect Americans' civil liberties paradoxically constrain the United States' ability to combat information warfare by its enemies. This Article argues that the United States must reform laws and doctrine concerning speech, information, and privacy to protect the democratic process and national security. By exploring the example of the Russian threat to the U.S. electoral process, this Article will illustrate how foreign adversaries wield the United States' own laws against it. It will also explain how justifiable concerns with infringement on civil liberties have hindered the United States' response. The Article concludes with recommendations on how courts, legislatures, and policymakers should balance First Amendment and privacy rights with national security interests to combat information warfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Military Education and Training program is the United States security assistance program that provides professional military education to officers from foreign militaries. As a tool of soft power, the program has the potential of helping the United States achieve its foreign and national security goals. Despite the potential benefits of the program, research on its effectiveness is limited. The present study contributes to the literature by inquiring into what benefits toward acquiring an understanding of democratic values and the United States society are expressed by foreign officers who have participated in the program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses aspects of national security in the U.S. since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. Topics include aspects of the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which allows the president to use all appropriate and necessary force against those nations, persons or organizations involved in the said attack and any future acts of international terrorism, Carl Schmitt's criticism of liberalism and democracy, and former President Barack Obama's drone warfare program.

The article focuses on the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) opposition to the U.S. policy towards the Vietnam War in 1961-1975. It discusses IPS's call for a reduction in U.S. foreign aid to nations guilty of human rights abuses and its contribution to the debate over war, democracy and bureaucracy. It looks at IPS's efforts to eliminate the divide between theory and activism, and IPS intellectuals's arguments over the rising fortunes of technocrats within the bureaucracy. It also examines IPS calls for direct involvement of U.S. citizens in governance.

How the U.S. military establishment interacts with other parts of the American government and the people impacts American national power. Because civil–military relationships are influenced by the context of the environment and the “kind of war” being waged, there are a variety of ways that military and civilian leaders can work together to improve the nation’s security. This article proposes an alternative civil–military relations model called pragmatic civilian control. It integrates Samuel Huntington’s objective civilian control theory with traditional American political philosophy and concepts established by Morris Janowitz, while accounting for current geopolitical conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the role of US public interest groups in the promotion of government transparency, as part of a broader agenda on civil liberties. Drawing on a set of declassified documents, and extensive oral testimony from protagonists, it is argued that such groups occupy a significant position as facilitators of intelligence accountability in the United States. Public interest groups represent a tradition of pluralism that lies at the heart of the American conception of democracy. A survey of the tactics deployed by interest groups to support liberal democratic principles demonstrates that these groups always rely on government institutions to carry out their oversight function. By virtue of this, public interest groups support intelligence accountability rather than hold to account the US government and its intelligence agencies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses diplomatic tensions resulting from U.S. democracy-promotion efforts in China, noting that distrust could be dispelled through greater cooperation. Topics include controversy regarding the 1989 Tiananmen Square protest in Beijing, China, Chinese allegations that the U.S. sought to foment regime change in China under former U.S. President George W. Bush, and U.S. complaints about human rights issues in China. It is said that China fears U.S. efforts as attacks on national sovereignty over areas such as Tibet, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, China, particularly through the U.S. government organization National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

The article focuses on American political theorist Francis Fukuyama's view on former U.S. President George W. Bush doctrine. It discusses Bush's political priorities in national defence, charities, and educational reforms. Also mentioned are the political leadership, anti-terrorism policies, and democracy in the country.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, public reason in the United States has narrowed to a focus on national security and economic stability. This marks the loss of an aspirational element that has been historically important in American public life, and it tends toward the privatization of all moral arguments, not just those that depend on theological claims. To maintain theological integrity, Christian public reasoning will have to become more distinctively Christian, simply because there will be less shared ground to occupy with others. But the future of theological ethics also requires attention to the scope and quality of the public discussion itself. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The antiterrorist policy of the George W. Bush Administration established a relationship between democracy and security that implied the limitation of the former as a necessary condition for the achievement of the latter. This strategy led to the diminishing of the basic liberties promoted by liberal democracy through legal means with the putative objective of guaranteeing the ‘security’ of American citizens. A key starting point of these policies can be found in undercover operations carried out abroad by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of State at the beginning of the Cold War. This article focuses on the continuities and ruptures between the official discourse of the G. W. Bush Administration and that of the first years of the Cold War, focusing on the realist and liberal patterns present in those discourses. This leads to an analysis of the relationship between democracy and national security under the antiterrorist policy implemented by the G. W. Bush government, approached from a power elite perspective. The aggressive foreign and homeland policies of the US government were based upon a booming military–industrial pole, closely bound to free market expansionism and liberal democracy as key dimensions in the reproduction of capitalism. Included in this consideration are the 2002 and 2006 National Security Strategies, the Patriot Act (2001), and the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (2003) (or ‘Patriot Act II’) put in place by the G.W. Bush Administration, as well as the National Security Strategy (2009) established by President Obama. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US invasion of Afghanistan, in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, was originally conceived in narrow strategic terms. However, what began as a counter-terrorism policy, based on eliminating and eradicating al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime, led to increasing calls for nation-building and the establishment of a democratic state. This 'mission creep' was increasingly associated with the Bush administration's Freedom Agenda, and consequently the democratisation of Afghanistan became a central US security objective. In spite of this, however, the Bush administration was never able to reconcile the tensions between countering terrorism and promoting democracy. This was exacerbated by policy decisions that generated greater insecurity in Afghanistan, which amounts to a disturbing picture of mishandling and negligence. As such, when the Obama administration inherited the Afghanistan campaign, the situation was worse than that which had been seen at the start of the war. This has resulted in the Obama administration abandoning the notion of democracy promotion in favour of transferring power as quickly as possible to an illegitimate Afghan government. This article details the ebbs and flows of US-Afghan policy as it relates to the Freedom Agenda, whilst highlighting the contradictions and problems that the US has faced over nearly a decade of war. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a revised version of a presidential address the author gave at a conference for the Organization of American Historians on April 10, 2010 in Washington, D.C. regarding the topic of the relationship between national security and democracy in U.S. history. She argues that Cold War ideologies about capitalism, freedom, and Americanism have undermined the democratic rights of individuals in America since the end of World War II and examines the role that the media, including television and newspapers, have played in developing fears about nuclear warfare, communism, and crime for U.S. citizens. She also overviews the political factors that shaped the U.S. civil rights movement and comments on topics such as vigilante justice in motion pictures and the violent crime rate.

This article assesses Taiwan's strategic options in relation to the US. From Taipei's perspective, the first strategic option is to maintain the interest of the US and this is largely done by emphasizing the threat posed by a rising China. The second strategic option relates to gaining more support from the US through highlighting the island republic's democratic credentials. Importantly, limitations exist in Taiwan's strategic options in part because they are subject to positive responses from the US as well as reactions from China. For Taipei, a middle power, the key therefore is achieving an optimal mix of strategies while overcoming any deficiencies in order to enhance its national security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors suggest that the U.S. should not abandon the promotion of democracy in the Middle East advanced by President George W. Bush. The authors argue that democracy promotion will blunt terrorism and political violence in the region even though the post-Bush democratization debate steers away from an emphasis on national security. The authors discuss measures involved in such a strategy including conditional political and human rights reforms and inclusion of nonviolent Islamist political parties in the process.

The article focuses on suggestions about U.S. foreign policy and the promotion of democracy. It states that the administration of U.S. president George W. Bush considered the promotion of worldwide democracy as the most urgent requirement for U.S. security. It mentions that the Bush administration's push for elections in Palestine in 2005 led to Hamas winning the election and the U.S. cutting off foreign aid. It suggests that U.S. credibility was damaged when it failed to back pro-democracy reformers in the 2007 elections in Pakistan. It comments on the need to work with Islamist political parties to help disassociate Islamism from the tendency toward political extremism. It talks about the need to include foreign legislative institutions in bilateral policy making.

After Al Qaeda's destruction of the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001, many democracies reacted to the event, and to international terrorism in general, by passing laws restricting civil liberties and political rights, raising questions about the balance between security and liberty. Such laws have produced alarms among civil libertarians, worldwide. Are the alarms justified? In this article we analyze the relationship between the yearly number of international terrorist attacks in 24 countries from 1968-2003 and (a) measures of civil liberties and political rights as provided by Freedom House, and (b) levels of democracy as measured in the Polity IV scales. We take the number of international terrorist events, by country, from data provided by the Memorial Institute of the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp. Our analysis indicates that there is, generally, no relationship between the number of international terrorist events and the levels of civil rights, political rights, or democracy as measured by the Freedom House and Polity IV indicators. When there is a statistically significant relationship, it is negative, opposite to what is predicted by the tradeoff hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a survey of key foreign policy issues in the Black Sea Region (BSR) which will confront the next United States (US) administration. The article argues that interrelated issues of security, energy and political development make the region a critical, but often overlooked, area for US policymakers. Increasing regional integration, and encouraging pro-Western and democratic political development is key to resolving the security issues and unleashing the economic potential of the region. However, this is a difficult task given the political, historical and cultural diversity of the region, ongoing 'frozen conflicts', and the newly empowered Russian Federation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines whether George W. Bush administration in the U.S. should pursue democracy promotion. It is argued that as a presidential candidate, Bush had not focused in promoting freedom around the world, however, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack had caused him to review his administration's national security policy that raised democracy promotion as a central goal of his foreign policy agenda. It emphasizes the need to employ effective strategies and better modalities in achieving the success of this objective.

This concluding article reviews the collection's discussion of US democracy assistance policy, focusing on an underlying tension between commitments to democratic processes and to democratic outcomes. The analysis centres on a discussion of this tension, particularly as security concerns increasingly influence that policy. The author first notes contributors' suggestions that democratic processes and outcomes may not pose zero sum choices for policy makers. Democratic interactions often strengthen democratic practice and skills, and key actors' democratic commitments may be contingent on specific conditions and apt to fade or falter after the transition. Given this contingency, the collection speaks most strongly for a process-based approach to democracy assistance, as well as stronger analysis of the way post-settlement interactions may work to strengthen or conversely erode democratic aspects of a system. This essay then considers how the increasing security burden on democracy assistance policy seems likely to influence the balance between process and outcome-based policy, and suggests that political pressures have driven that policy in exactly the wrong direction. The essay concludes by arguing that as security concerns grow more pressing, democracy assistance policy needs to become more process based, and less tied up in support to particular parties or candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interest in the role of public opinion in foreign policy has grown steadily since the end of the Second World War. We distinguish at least three different waves of research on this topic and examine two main components of the present policy debate: the need for an Atlantic community and agreement on the means to reach common goals. As to the first issue, we explore the extent to which Atlanticism--defined as the willingness to cooperate among European partners and the US on problems perceived as common--is still high in the 2000s. We find considerable variation between European countries and the US. The left-right cleavage is still relevant in explaining attitudes toward collaboration across the Atlantic both in the US and in several European countries. As to the means, we look at the issue of support for the use of military force in Europe and the United States. On the basis of the available data, support for the use of force is much higher, across the board, in the US than in Europe. On the other hand, the contextual conditions under which force will be used seem to make a significant difference, albeit in different ways, in Europe and the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why have some democratic states maintained their civil liberties in times of emergency while other states have seen serious infringements of civil liberties? The key variable in explaining this variation is not the extent of the emergency provisions, but whether the measures themselves undermined the institutional constraints (the legislature, judiciary, and the press) that might have protected civil liberties. This distinction challenges the very notion that there is a tradeoff between liberties and security. With extensive oversight over the use of emergency powers, those powers can be broad enough to be effective, yet still be relatively safe for democracy and liberty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Successful modern democracies act to balance the twin obligations of maintaining secure and tolerant environments for their citizens. When faced with external threats such as global terrorism, democracies respond in a pendulum fashion—acting initially by giving security precedence over other values and then swinging back towards moderation, the pursuit of tolerance, and the promotion of policies that match the preferences of the median voter in society. Understanding this behavior helps to explain shifts in U.S. security policy since 9/11, and suggests fruitful avenues for research in political psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In September 2002 the President of the United States issued a new National Security Strategy. Under the impact of 9/11 the authors of this NSS argue that the United States needs to pre-emptively attack rogue states that try to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and have links to terrorists who might use these WMDs against the United States or its allies. This article analyzes this so-called 'Bush doctrine', asking about its legality, justice and feasibility in the present world order. Furthermore, it attempts to show which underlying tacit assumptions the authors of the NSS must make to give their argument for a right to forcible regime change plausibility. To do so the NSS is being contrasted with a realistic utopian concept of an idealized international order in which preventive defense and regime change might seem justifiable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An almost impossible question to answer, but the author succeeds in demarcating the road ahead and the roadblocks erected along the way. The journey will be perilous, he suggests, and fraught with second-guessing, fear, and even the possibility that the overarching commitment to fight terrorism will be abandoned during the protracted period required to fulfill it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The values of national security and democracy are sometimes necessarily in conflict, and one may be compromised in defense of the other. The history of national security concerns in the United States of America can be seen as a continuing pragmatic attempt to balance fundamental democratic values and ideals against elements of their defense that have at times intruded upon the rule of law, individual freedoms, and popular participation in policy debate and decision making by an informed citizenry. The balancing of national security and democracy is an ongoing process, but the long-term trend in the United States seems to be toward an increasing emphasis on democratic process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A full understanding of any modern, democratic political system requires some grasp of the role of the media and nowhere do the media play a more significant part in politics than in the United States. The focus of this study is the media as a news source. Following an introduction, the discussion notes the emergence of television and its eventual supplanting of newspapers as the principal means whereby Americans obtain political news. Consideration is given to legal and judicial developments in the 1960s that have helped to make the media in the US the freest in the world with exceptional opportunities to scrutinise politics and politicians. Events in the l970s such as Vietnam, Watergate and changes in Democratic Party rules, which together brought about a sea change in journalistic attitudes and greatly magnified the role of the media in the political process, are also given particular attention. Further discussion centres on some of the problems of governability and touches on the consequences for foreign and national security policy making that follow from the emergence of satellite technology. The conclusion refers to the consequences for democracy arising from the various changes that have occurred in the past three decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analyses of the same NORC poll relied on by Hyman and Sheatsley and a 1994 poll for the Times Mirror Center for The People & The Press show that sizable portions of the U.S. public were "know-nothings" on both occasions. OLS regressions on both polls show that, although there are slight differences, essentially the same factors affect knowledge of international politics in 1946 and 1994. At bottom, Americans tend to be uninformed about foreign affairs because they are inattentive to events abroad. If it is true, as some students of U.S. foreign policy claim, that public opinion has an important and growing impact on national security policy, widespread public ignorance recalls Lippmann's concern about the "democratic malady." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]