Search

Begin New Search Topic Cold War Political Geography Asia

51. The Russian Press in the Post-Soviet Era: A Case Study of Izvestia

Author:
Adam Jones
Publication Date:
07-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas
Abstract:
The progress of the Russian press in the late Soviet and post-Soviet eras can be described (with apologies to Vladimir Lenin) as "two steps forward, on step back." The flowering of glasnost (openness) under Mikhail Gorbachev le to a "golden age" of Soviet journalism, including an explosion of new publications and a lifting of nearly all state restrictions on journalists' professional activities. However, the collapse of the USSR and the onset of material crisis in 1991-92 quickly produced a winnowing of the press and a retrenchment on the part of surviving publications. At the same time, powerful new forces - especially oligarchs and regional and leaders - arose to vie with the state for influence over post-Soviet media. This paper explores the trajectory of one of the leading newspapers of the Soviet and post-Soviet period, Izvestia, in the light of those broader trends. While Izvestia emerged from the ashes of Soviet communism with formal control over its material plant and journalistic collective, it was soon subjected to a tug-of-war between powerful actors determined to control its destiny - first the Communist-dominated Duma (parliament), and then large corporations and business oligarchs. The struggle led, in 1997, to the dismissal of the paper's editor. Oleg Golembiovsky, and the departure of many staff to form Novye Izvestia (New Izvestia) - though this publication too, was also unwilling or unable to avoid the temptations of a close alliance with one of the leading oligarchs, Boris Berezovsky. The findings are place in the broader comparative context of the press in transition, based on the author's research into process of media liberalization and transition worldwide.
Topic:
Cold War, Development, and Government
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Asia

52. Japan's Uneasy Citizens and the U.S.-Japan Alliance

Author:
Sheila A. Smith
Publication Date:
09-2001
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. and Japanese policy-makers have successfully reaffirmed the U.S.-Japan security alliance. Yet, even as they have done so, a series of events has revealed a deeper ambivalence in Japan about the terms of the alliance. These events began with the 1995 rape of a school girl in Okinawa by U.S. servicemen, focusing attention on the social costs to residents of hosting U.S. forces. In 1999 came North Korea's launch of a missile over Japan, raising doubts among many Japanese about their alliance partner's ability to protect them. Most recently, the outcome of the 2001 sinking of the Ehime Maru training ship by a U.S. nuclear sub seemed to many to sacrifice Japanese citizens' interests to those of the U.S. military. Taken independently, these developments may seem temporary set-backs to policymakers, but together they suggest that there is increasing impatience among Japan's citizens with the way the alliance is managed. This disconnect between the public and policymakers could, if untended, have serious implications for the U.S.-Japan alliance.
Topic:
Security, Cold War, and Government
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, Asia, and North Korea

53. U.S. Trade Negotiations: Lessons Learned, Lessons Applied

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, and Political Economy
Political Geography:
United States, China, America, Taiwan, Asia, Brazil, and Democratic Republic of the Congo

54. The Future of Nuclear Weapons: A US-India Dialogue

Author:
Ashley Tellis, Michael Nacht, Rakesh Sood, Frank N. von Hippel, Morton H. Halperin, Victoria L. Farmer, Robert Joseph, Jaswant Singh, K.K. Nayyar, C. Raja Mohan, P.K. Iyengar, Ronald F. II Lehman, V.S. Arunachalam, and Mark T. Fitzpatrick
Publication Date:
05-1997
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for the Advanced Study of India
Abstract:
Realization of the long term objective of achieving 'nuclear zero,' with India and the United States working towards this shared goal, is the main thrust of the paper. It examines the approaches taken by the two countries working together in achieving 'nuclear zero' in the post-Cold War world.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Cold War, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, South Asia, India, and Asia

55. Realism and Regionalism: American Power and German and Japanese Institutional Strategies During and After the Cold War

Author:
Joseph M. Grieco
Publication Date:
04-1990
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute of European Studies
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, and International Organization
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, America, Europe, Israel, East Asia, Asia, and Germany