Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Political Geography Russia

461. End Times Diplomacy at the UN?

Author:
Richard Gowan
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of International Affairs
Institution:
School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University
Abstract:
In her last days at the UN, Samantha Power practiced "end times diplomacy" in anticipation of President Trump but Nikki Haley has followed Power's diplomatic playbook.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and United Nations
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, and North America

462. From Eastward Pivot to Greater Eurasia

Author:
S. Karaganov
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
East View Information Services
Abstract:
The current stage of russia’s pivot to the east is the product of the second half of the 2000s largely as a belated economic response to the rise of asia, which opened new opportunities for the country’s devel- opment, especially for it eastern part. That rise made it possible to turn the ural region and the russian Far east from a mainly imperial burden – or a logistics base in confrontation with the West, sometimes a front line in rivalry with Japan or china – into a potential territory of develop- ment for the entire country. The expediency of making the pivot was substantiated by the fore- casted imminent economic slowdown of its main traditional partner, europe, and the deterioration of relations with europe and the West as a whole. The need for the diversification of economic ties and outside sources of development was becoming increasingly obvious. These assessments were backed up by a number of pronounced trends in the recent decade. First, these are the disintegration and crisis of the global order that the West has been trying to impose on the world since what it saw as its final victory. second is the process of relative de- globalization and the regionalization of the global economy and politics. and the third is the accelerating trend – related to the previous one – toward the politicization of economic ties, which made interdependence and dependence on one market comparatively less beneficial, if not sim- ply dangerous. Finally, the “asia for asia” trend prevailed over the “asia for the world” trend. Development in asia, especially in china, began to be increasingly oriented toward domestic and regional markets. Meanwhile, the process of spiritual and ideological emancipation of the formerly great asian civilizations, which in the past two centuries had been in colonial or semi-colonial dependence on the West, began to gain momen- tum. asian countries gained access to many achievements of the West, took advantage of the liberal global economic order that it created, became stronger, and began to claim a more appropriate place for them- selves on the world’s ideological and strategic map. The inevitability of the u.s. moving away (at least temporarily) from the role of a global hegemon, which came with a hefty price tag, became evident. Barack Obama set a course for domestic revival. however, old elites and inertia did not allow him to abandon costly and ineffective interventionism. Donald Trump strengthened the “self-isolation” trend. The u.s. has turned into a dangerous amalgam of residual intervention- ism and semi-isolationism. It is becoming increasingly evident that the u.s. seeks to create its own center, casting off some of its disadvanta- geous global commitments. a trend has evolved toward the formation of a hypothetically bipolar world through a multi-polar world with its inevitable chaos. One of its poles is based around the u.s. and the other is in eurasia. china seems to be its economic center, but the eurasian center will only materialize if Beijing does not claim the role of hegemon. however, whatever the case may be, it has turned out that once it has finally made a pivot to the east, russia has discovered many unexpected opportunities for itself.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, Hegemony, Empire, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Asia

463. Russia’s Position on Territorial Conflicts in East Asia

Author:
Dmitry Streltsov
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
East View Information Services
Abstract:
ruSSiA’S poSition on territorial and border conflicts in east Asia arouses great interest. Most of these conflicts have deep roots in and are consequences of the cold War, primarily stemming from legal gaps in the system of interstate borders that is based on the San Francisco peace treaty. these conflicts include disputes over the South Kuril islands (“northern territories”), the Senkaku (Diaoyu) islands, and the tokto (takeshima) islands. in addition, there are numerous conflicts in the South china Sea (disputes over territories including the paracel and Spratly islands) that have more complicated histories and go further back into the past, including the colonial era. russia is involved in only one of east Asia’s territorial disputes, one with Japan, and is just an observer in the rest of them. russia’s line on those conflicts is very important from the point of view of its political and economic interests, which are determined by its trade and investment relations with the countries that are parties to those disputes. Many of the most acute conflicts are sovereignty disputes over islands and sea borders. essentially, they are disputes over economic con- trol of vast water areas in the east china Sea and South china Sea, which are rich in mineral and biological resources and are part of key interna- tional maritime communication lines. For russia, however, those com- munications are not as important as they are, for example, for Japan or South Korea, or even for china. russia is more reliant on the transit facilities of its eastern ports. the latter are used in shipping along the northern Sea route and in trans- portation to and from china more than they are in handling cargo transportation between east Asia and europe along the southern route passing through the Strait of Malacca. it was no accident that russia focused on that southern route in setting the agenda for the Asia- pacific economic cooperation (Apec) summit in vladivostok in 2012. As an outside observer in east Asian territorial conflicts with none of its geographical or economic interests affected by them, russia takes a more neutral position on them than countries to which such conflicts pose a direct threat of armed confrontation. the russian position is also determined by the economic develop- ment priorities of Siberia and the russian Far east as set by its “eastward turn” doctrine. Strategically speaking, russia needs good and stable eco- nomic, and hence political, relations with all key countries involved in east Asian processes of integration, processes that encompass all east Asian countries except north Korea. however, practically all east Asian countries with which russia is determined to maintain trade and investment partnership, including china, Japan, South Korea, and key Southeast Asian states such as vietnam, are embroiled in territorial or border conflicts. obviously, by siding with one of the parties to any of these conflicts, russia would jeop- ardize its relations with the other. russia cannot afford to make friends with one country by estranging another. it needs, showing the utmost discretion and delicacy, to achieve a subtle balance in its relations with various actors and to seek at least a fragile regional status quo. neither can russia ignore the fact that, by joining ad hoc blocs or coalitions formed to deal with territorial conflicts, it would risk being drawn into a conflict that might grow into war any moment.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Territorial Disputes, Military Affairs, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Asia

464. Explaining India’s Foreign Policy: From Dream to Realization of Major Power

Author:
Takenori Horimoto
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific
Institution:
Japan Association of International Relations
Abstract:
A power transformation appears to be taking place in Asia, brought about by the rapid emergence of China and the relative decline of US influence. India has sought a way to cope with this new situation. India itself has been rising to prominence since the 1990s, particularly its nuclear weapon tests in 1998 onward. Since the start of the twenty-first century, India has been perceived as the next country to follow China in seeking a major power status. Although India has previously tended to conceal its power aspirations, in 2015 it declared its intention to be a leading power. This article elucidates this transformation through India's policy orientation on a local, regional, and global level and its key partnerships with Russia and Japan. India’s metamorphosis holds great implications for the transformation of power in Asia.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, and Power Politics
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, India, Asia, and Asia-Pacific

465. Hard Times for Soft Power: A Q&A with Joseph Nye

Author:
Michelle Nicholasen
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Last December, the Weatherhead Center recognized the upcoming retirement of University Distinguished Service Professor Joseph S. Nye, Jr. by dedicating the 2016 Manshel Lecture on American Foreign Policy to him. One of the most influential foreign affairs scholars of our time, Nye served as Center director from 1989 to 1992—though his roots at the Center trace back to its infancy in 1961, when he was a research assistant to Director Robert Bowie. Nye's accomplishments run deep. He began his distinguished career as a Harvard faculty member at the Kennedy School of Government in 1964, and became the school's dean in 1995. He held security appointments in both the Carter and Clinton administrations, and his thought leadership has influenced heads of state and policy makers around the world. He is perhaps best known for coining the term “soft power,” which describes the ability of states or institutions to attract and persuade others through noncoercive means. The Weatherhead Center sat down with Nye to discuss the fate of soft power in the context of current US foreign affairs—and also asked him to share his memories of early days at the CFIA.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Science and Technology, and Soft Power
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, Europe, Asia, and North America

466. The Cold War’s Endless Ripples

Author:
John Laidler
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
As an international historian, Faculty Associate Odd Arne Westad may be best known for bringing a fresh interpretation to the Cold War in which he argues that the era began much earlier and extended much farther than popularly thought. Those and other themes are explored in detail in a comprehensive new history of the Cold War written by Westad, the S.T. Lee Professor of U.S.-Asia Relations at Harvard Kennedy School. In The Cold War: A World History, Westad traces the broad history of the era, including what he sees as its origins and its far-flung effects. The Harvard Gazette spoke to Westad about his perspective on the Cold War, including the forces that brought about and sustained the epic confrontation, and how it continues to reverberate decades after ending.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cold War, Military Strategy, and Leadership
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, Europe, Asia, and North America

467. Economic Constraints on Russian Foreign Policy

Author:
Christopher Smart
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
The recent collapse in the U.S.-Russia relationship has roots that stretch back to fundamental misunderstandings at the end of the Cold War. Western democracies have watched with dismay as tightening political controls in Russia have throttled domestic pluralism, while Moscow’s roughshod foreign policy and military tactics have driven its neighbors into submission or open hostility. Russia has bemoaned what it sees as Western arrogance and a stubborn refusal to recognize its security concerns and great-power status. Today, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, support of Syrian repression, and, above all, meddling in the U.S. presidential election have shattered any desire in Washington—at least outside the Oval Office—to search for common ground. Indeed, amid congressional logjams on nearly every issue, overwhelming bipartisan majorities passed a stiffer sanctions regime. The narrative in Moscow, meanwhile, paints a consistent picture of Washington actively rallying Europeans to expand footholds around Russia’s borders with an ultimate goal of regime change in the Kremlin itself. In spite of President Donald J. Trump’s apparent eagerness to improve relations, deepening resistance across the political spectrum makes any progress fanciful at this stage.Whether either side understands how to get relations back on track remains uncertain. What is clear is that neither side wants to. Deep-seated U.S. mistrust and an unyielding Russian government seem likely to confine the bilateral relationship to a series of sour exchanges and blustery confrontations for now. Yet one persistent weakness will ultimately limit Russia’s foreign agenda: an economy that is likely to fall increasingly behind those of its major neighbors and partners. For now, Russia has largely learned to tolerate Western economic sanctions, and its companies have found ways to live with restricted access to finance. Without reform and economic integration with the West, however, Russian influence will drift toward the margins of global diplomacy. Russia’s economy will atrophy from a combination of hyperconcentrated decision-making, continuing dependence on hydrocarbons, and persistent financial isolation. Core goals of Russia’s foreign policy will steadily recede from view, including important elements of the economic agenda with its immediate neighbors, the European Union and China. Though a snapback of oil prices would undoubtedly delay any day of reckoning, even large new inflows of petro-profits will not fundamentally close the widening gap with major partners.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, and North America

468. Russia in the Czech Foreign Policy

Author:
Petr Kratochvil and Karel Svoboda
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Institute of International Relations Prague
Abstract:
Amid the ever-higher tensions between the West and Russia, the Czechs became more active on the political level in 2017, with the highlight being the official visit of President Zeman to Russia. However, several structural factors prevented this flurry of political activity from turning into tangible political or economic results. First, the ongoing sanction regime and Russia’s aggressive stance in the neighbourhood rendered any deeper economic or political co-operation difficult to achieve. Second, the focus on internal issues (the then upcoming presidential elections in both countries) made foreign policy a mere pawn in the domestic political games. Third, while President Zeman confirmed his role as one of the most vocal advocates of President Putin, the continuing polarisation of the public opinion as well as the re-grouping of Czech anti-Kremlin forces limited his influence on the day-to-day Czech policy vis-à-vis Russia.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Politics, and Domestic politics
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Czech Republic

469. Foreign Security Policy of the Czech Republic

Author:
Lukáš Dyčka
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Institute of International Relations Prague
Abstract:
The Czech foreign security and defence policy in 2017 was influenced mainly by the Russian threat, terrorism and migration – nevertheless, Brexit and the new US administration under President Trump were also important external drivers for it. These factors resulted in various steps taken within the Czech defence sector. The policy faced changes ranging from renewals of strategic documents, an increased defence budget, the high (yet still problematic) support from the public and rising numbers of Armed Forces personnel to problems with the age structure within both the military and the civilian part of the defence sector. Finally, the foreign security policy will likely be heavily influenced by the results of the parliamentary elections in October 2017 and also by the new government of Andrej Babiš, but this is rather to be expected in 2018.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Migration, Terrorism, and Armed Forces
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Czech Republic, and United States of America

470. Tolerating the “Intolerable Partner:” Once Shunned, Bulgaria’s United Patriots Joins the Governing Coalition

Author:
John R. Haines
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI)
Abstract:
Several weeks after winning a plurality in Bulgaria’s late March parliamentary election, Prime Minister Boyko Borissov did something unprecedented: he brought the nationalist United Patriots (Obedineni Patrioti) into his coalition government. The United Patriots is an electoral alliance of three parties, the IMRO[2]-Bulgarian National Movement (VMRO-Bulgarsko Natsionalno Dvizhenie), the National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria (Natzionalen Front za Spasenie na Bulgaria), and Attack (Attaka). Their inclusion in the coalition government has given rise to concern among Bulgaria’s NATO allies (and many Bulgarian themselves) about what the Bulgarian Socialist Party’s Korneliya Ninova called Mr. Borissov’s “floating majority, his unprincipled alliance”[3] (plavashti mnozinstva, bezprintsipni sŭyuzi). That concern is well placed for several reasons. Only a few years ago, even the nationalist IMRO-BND and NFSB excluded the radical Ataka[4] from their electoral alliance dubbed the “Patriotic Front” (Patriotichen front) because of Ataka’s positions on Russia and NATO. Even then, however, the Patriotic Front’s “nationalist profile” (natsionalisticheskiyat profil) was so far to Bulgaria’s political right to cause Mr. Borissov to exclude the Patriotic Front from his coalition government. He did so with the active encouragement of his center-right European People’s Party allies across the European Union. “Nothing against the PF, but unfortunately the things Valeri Simeonov [a PF leader, more about whom anon] proposes do not correspond to our Euro-Atlantic orientation,” said Mr. Borissov at the time.[5]
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, and Nationalism
Political Geography:
Russia and Bulgaria