Search

The “Nixon China Shock” (the July 15, 1971 statement by the U.S. President R. Nixon about the recent trip of his National Security Advisor H. Kissinger to the PRC and about the President’s upcoming visit there) became one of the pivotal points in the history of Japanese foreign policy and contributed to Tokyo becoming more independent from Washington in its diplomatic course. Using the case of Japan’s reaction to this event, the article explores the characteristic features of the foreign policy making process in post-war Japan and demonstrates the considerable influence of these features on the character of Japanese foreign policy of the so-called “1955 System” period (the prolonged and continuous dominance of the conservative Liberal Democratic Party in 1955-93). The paper shows the decentralization of the foreign policy making process, expressed in the limited ability of the Prime Minister to determine foreign policy, the presence of considerable internal contradictions in the MoFA of Japan, the factionalism of the ruling party, and the high degree of dependency of the government’s policy course on the public opinion. It proves that these factors were one of the reasons for Japan’s political leadership avoiding decisive actions to normalize relations with the PRC before the “Nixon shock”, cautious that it might damage its relations with the U.S. and unable to discern the signs of upcoming U.S.-Chinese détente, and after this event, vice versa, making every effort to normalize its relations with Beijing as soon as possible, reaching this goal even before their American partners did. Given the historical importance of the “1955 System” for contemporary Japanese politics, the article’s conclusions are significant for the understanding of the logic of Japan’s domestic politics and foreign policy of the entire post-war period.Author declares the absence of conflict of interests.

The US political system is repeatedly subjected to significant deviations from those constitutional provisions that determine the relationship between the three branches of power. The scientists use such phrases as «Jacksonian democracy» or «Imperial presidency» to illustrate the attempts of American presidents to intervene those issues which constitutionally assigned to the other branches of power. In general, despite these deviations from legally established rules, the elites retained a general consensus on the notion of stable domestic and foreign policies. As the main threat to this stability, the possibility of organizing a revolution from above was considered. However, in November 2016 D. Trump managed to be elected under the slogan of such a revolution, becoming the first the president in the political history of the United States, which has no firm support among the elites. Undoubtedly, such a success illustrated serious problems within American society, that’s why the reasons of the conflict between D. Trump and his opponents could be found first of all in the ideological sphere. The newly elected president proposes a transformation of the fundamental basics that determined the vectors of US foreign and domestic policy in recent decades. In this case, unlike the historical precedents considered in this paper, D. Trump’s criticism goes beyond simple accusations on the pages of the mass media or in statements of the leading representatives of the American political establishment. It takes a form of an acute confrontation between the branches of power and within them. The analysis of this situation is proposed in the article, both from the point of view of political and legal sciences, which could help to make a forecast on the chances of D. Trump to become a winner in this conflict within the American political elite.

The article discusses the trend of securitization of the political elite as a reaction to strengthening of coercive influence upon these elites in terms of consolidation and strengthening of confrontation between different civilizations. The authors argue that the main object of the coercive influence in world politics, which ensures stable control of regime change and a managed transit is the political elite rather than civil society. The assumption then is that the main object of the security and the securitization in world politics is to be political elite. Securitization of the political elite can be seen as a necessary condition for ensuring the sovereignty at the level of local human civilization. The conclusion of this paper is, first, the assessment of the political elite as the main object of securitization in a clash of civilizations. Secondly, the removal of contradictions between the securitization of political elites and democracy at the scale of human civilizations; third, underlining the need to take into account the vital importance of the political elite in the strategic planning and development of long-term forecasting of international relations development.

This paper proposes an idea of'values imperialism'as a helpful way of conceptualising the relationship between the EU and the states that came within its sphere of influence after the end of the Cold War, particularly its 'neighbours' in Eastern Europe. Values imperialism places its emphasis on the 'superstructure', including norms, laws and social practices. EU larger objective was that the assumptions about government and ownership that were favoured by the dominant powers (EU and the West in the broad term) should be absorbed and recapitulated by those countries that were subordinate. The broad framework ofsubordination was established by the Partnership and Cooperation Agreements that began to be concluded from 1994 onwards. Patterns of'values imperialism'could also be discovered in the EU Common Strategies on Russia and Ukraine that were adopted in 1999. Article also points out several cases when the EU intervened directly in the domestic affairs of the Eastern Europe countries in a manner that was not always compatible with the provisions on state sovereignty: a 'European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights', launched in 2006, interventions ofEU representatives in the work of local courts and organisation of exit polls, which could be used to discredit the official election results and in this way to undermine the position of local governments. Finally, the author concludes that the EU used 'values imperialism'practices in order to extend its influence, particularly in the Eastern Europe.