Search

The paper aims at exploring the reasons behind China-US rapprochement giving priority to the Chinese perspective. This allows to deal with Nixon’s visit not as an isolated event but as an historical process that has been built over time in order to give international legitimacy to an ideological project. It will be noted, indeed, that the essential conditions that the Chinese communist party presupposes for the development of diplomatic relations with the United States, have been reproposed in various forms over t [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Profiles U.S. Senator John Forbes Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate for the presidential election in November 2004. Foreign policy credibility; Overview of his national security plans; Strategies for fighting terrorism; Discussion on his economic plan and energy policies; Analysis of his vision for health care and education.

The article offers information on the white paper published by the German government which feature its security policy and the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr). It mentions that the 2016 white paper highlights the increasing violence in the security environment of the country brought by the Russian government in the European continent.

The article reports on the release of the 2014 China National Security Studies Report by the Center for International Strategy and Security Studies at the University of International Relations and the Social Sciences Academic Press.

Focuses on policy decisions of the National Security Council (NSC) that led the U.S. into war with Vietnam. Reasons for the U.S. to the Communist attack on South Korea in June 1950; Comment on the foreign policy of the U.S. mentioned in NSC paper regarding Vietnam; Reports that in September, 1949, the Soviets exploded their first atomic bomb, about five years ahead of expectations by American and European experts; Observations on the new power relationship in the world, with the U.S. and the Soviet Union occupying the terminal poles.

This article examines Liberia's reconstruction by external actors and it analyses in particular Liberia's Governance and Economic Management Assistance Programme (GEMAP), a program which implies co-signatures by international experts for state expenditures. The paper argues that Liberia is in a paradoxical situation between conditioned partnership and co-sovereignty with its international partners, which is neither voluntary, nor clearly imposed. The author adopts a theoretical framework based en path-dependency to enhance the understanding of this phenomenon. She analyses the basis and the functions of GEMAP to illustrate this situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on a detailed examination undertaken by British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and Home Office to determine the security risks posed by the Muslim population in Great Britain. The study drew on the assessments of MI5 domestic intelligence agency in Great Britain. The findings revealed that jihadi groups were heavily recruiting educated British Muslims. Also cited were Muslims' social marginalization and a perceived anti-Islamic bias of British foreign and security policies as key contributors to the inclination of some toward extremism and violence. The primary goals of the FCO/Home Office paper are to isolate extremists within the Muslim community and to provide support to moderates.

The article presents information on the author's views on a paper published in a previous issue of the journal. The U.S. is very casual in the selection of words, especially in matters of geopolitics, international relations and foreign policies. If stability is a success measure, then the U.S. shall surely never succeed in Iraq or Afghanistan, nor shall they succeed in the experiment they call the United States of America. Security is the precise word to use. In fact, one of the primary reasons political and military policy makers have such a difficult time with reconstruction operations is a mistaken or misguided belief that stability is security.

he September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on America, and repeated warnings that the next targets could be Germany, England, France, or Italy show how vulnerable Europe is to new threats, from instability in regions far away, from failed or failing states and from the spread of weapons of mass destruction. In the past, many Europeans have seen such problems as America's to deal with, or no one's. At the North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Prague, the Czech Republic, on November 21st-22nd, 2002, and in the European Union's subsequent deliberations about the best use of its own embryonic rapid-reaction force, European leaders will commit themselves, at least on paper, to take on farther-flung responsibilities. After half a century of being wrapped up chiefly in their own affairs, Europe must think urgently about how best to defend themselves and their interests anywhere in the world. Although Europe has prided itself on their civilizing "soft power", most European governments recognize that more hard power, military capability, in short, is required. The go-anywhere NATO that is to be proclaimed at the summit will in any case face the old NATO's problems: too few fleet-footed capabilities, with smart weapons and secure communications, of the sort that America displayed in Kosovo and Afghanistan, and which are needed to win wars. The Iraq debate at the United Nations has been an all-too-familiar case-study in how Europeans get themselves at cross-purposes, with an activist Britain, a cautious France and an ohne mich Germany all pulling in different directions. America easily leads the world in almost every dimension of power. But Europe, with its bigger population and not much smaller gross domestic product, reckoned to be larger, in fact, until America's faster growth and the depreciating euro reversed the honors, has considerable heft, and that weight will grow as the EU takes in more members.

The article focuses on two developments which have caused the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to be the object of unwanted attention. One is the espionage case in which former AIPAC officials Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman have been charged with violating the 1917 Espionage Act by receiving and transmitting national defense information. Intensifying the spotlight on AIPAC's activities has been the paper written by professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. The article, entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," asserts that Washington's unwavering support of Israel has jeopardized American security.

Information about several papers at a Woodrow Wilson Center-sponsored conference entitled "The National Conversation," held in April 2011, is presented. Topics include U.S. national foreign policy paradigms and the national strategic narrative of U.S. foreign policy. Participants include former U.S. security adviser Brent Snowcroft, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute Robert Kagan, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University.

In this article the author comments on a paper by A. Wells that was published in the March 2005 issue of the journal Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute. According to the author Wells continues to perpetrate myths related to the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty 38 years ago. The Liberty had no Hebrew linguists on board, and whatever Hebrew language intercepts Liberty might have collected were not reviewed by the National Security Agency until days later. He remarks that Wells finds of particular interest interviews of Secretary of State Dean Rusk and his key advisor, Helmut Sonnenfeldt.

This article focuses on the varying strategies of United States presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry for the nuclear disarmament of North Korea. Unkeen, despite repeated Republican taunts, to reveal the names of the mystery foreign leaders that he has claimed are rooting for him in the election, John Kerry can hardly be pleased with the one endorsement he does appear to have won--from North Korea's boss, Kim Jong Il. Senior Bush people claim Mr Kim would break out the champagne at a Kerry victory, seeing him as a soft touch. Democrats claim the growing North Korean nuclear threat proves that George Bush's high-handed manner with friend and foe alike has made America less safe. Mr Kerry has long said he would deal with the nuclear issue in direct talks, as North Korea has been demanding, rather than through more cumbersome, and so far unsuccessful, six-way talks that also include South Korea, Japan, China and Russia. But there are few illusions, even among Democrats, that there is an easy deal to be had. Given North Korea's mendacious past, any deal would need tough verification rules to convince Congress that it was worth the paper it was written on.