Search results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 23 items for :

  • "US foreign policy" x
  • International Relations x
Clear All
José Luís Fiori

the State Department, together with the Pentagon, the CIA and other security and intelligence organs of the US government, as well as the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Treasury. To grasp its importance, it is necessary to distinguish it from the eccentric and unpredictable character of Donald Trump. But it is also necessary to recognise that it would take a character like Trump to bring about such a break from the history and tradition of US foreign policy. From a strictly academic perspective, the new strategy document looks

Journal of Humanitarian Affairs
Atul Bhardwaj

shift, Obama’s “Pivot” to Asia from around 2011 represented a fundamental reorientation of the US Navy from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This charting of a new course by the US Navy was not only aimed at revitalising US foreign policy but also stemming its own decline. 4 The chapter explores Obama’s and Trump’s maritime approaches in the Indo-Pacific against the backdrop of the continual rise of China’s Navy. The chapter also asks whether a continued reliance on Mahanian tenets – in particular, fleet engagements and securing overseas bases to control maritime domains

in The United States in the Indo-Pacific
Deepening ties and securitising cyberspace
Maryanne Kelton and Zac Rogers

ties with China. Obama’s Pivot also oversaw a less visible but highly consequential reprioritisation of the cyber domain in allied security ties, which was dependent on the integration of US entrepreneurial, innovative, and technological resources to maximise Washington’s position. 3 If it was clear in the first months of the Trump presidency from January 2017 that Obama’s diplomatic legacy was vulnerable to revision, it has become correspondingly evident two years in, that the underlying calculative pragmatism of US foreign policy remains. To date, the US force

in The United States in the Indo-Pacific
Obama’s Legacy and the Trump Transition

This edited volume explores the political, economic and security legacies former US President Barack Obama leaves across Asia and the Pacific, following two terms in office between 2009 and 2017. The aim is to advance our understanding of Obama’s style, influence and impact by interrogating the nature and contours of US engagement throughout the region, and the footprint he leaves behind. Moreover, it is to inform upon the endurance of, and prospects for, the legacies Obama leaves in a region increasingly reimaged in Washington as the Indo-Pacific. Contributors to the volume examine these questions in early 2019, at around the halfway point of the 2017–2021 Presidency of Donald Trump, as his administration opens a new and potentially divergent chapter of American internationalism. The volume uniquely explores the contours and dimensions of US relations and interactions with key Indo-Pacific states including China, India, Japan, North Korea and Australia; multilateral institutions and organisations such the East Asia Summit and ASEAN; and salient issue areas such as regional security, politics and diplomacy, and the economy. It does so with contributions from high-profile scholars and policy practitioners, including Michael Mastanduno, Bruce Cumings, Maryanne Kelton, Robert Sutter and Sumit Ganguly. The volume will be of interest to students and scholars of the international relations of Asia and the Pacific, broadly defined; US foreign policy and global engagement; the record and legacies of former President Barack Obama; and the foreign policies of the administration of President Donald Trump.

Promises and perils
Prashanth Parameswaran

Introduction Southeast Asia has traditionally occupied a marginal role in US foreign policy in general and US Asia policy in particular, and American commitment to the region has remained quite ambivalent since the end of the Cold War. But during his time in office, US President Barack Obama raised the level of US attention given to Southeast Asia and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) to a level not seen since the end of the Vietnam War. 1 Seeing Southeast Asia and ASEAN as vital to preserving what it referred to as the rules

in The United States in the Indo-Pacific
Open Access (free)
The United States in the Asia and Indo-Pacifics
Inderjeet Parmar

administrations to 2019; inevitably, and because the term “Indo-Pacific” was routinely absent from the lexicon of most scholars and policy makers (both in the United States and the Asian region) during Obama’s time in office, the authors individually explore the record of Obama in particular within the Asia Pacific region his administration identified as the most crucial to American interests. A key focus of this volume, then, is the examination of transition. Within this transition of US foreign policy from Obama to Trump there lie continuities and changes, durabilities and

in The United States in the Indo-Pacific
Obama, Trump and the Asia Pacific political economy
Michael Mastanduno

proposed the term “responsible stakeholder” to convey that China had benefited greatly from its integration into the American-led world economy, and in return needed to do its part to ensure global stability, defined in terms of the priorities of the US foreign policy agenda. 11 Obama’s team embraced China’s promise as a responsible stakeholder. The President frequently stated that the United States ‘welcomed the rise of China’ and characterised US–China relations as the most important bilateral relationship of our time. 12 The administration took opportunities to

in The United States in the Indo-Pacific
Autopilot, neglect or worse?
Nick Bisley

worrying lack of concern about nuclear proliferation in Northeast Asia and promised a trade war with the world’s second largest economy. As President, Trump looked like he might govern US foreign policy in the same norm-busting manner in which he had campaigned, with dramatic consequences for regional security. But after two years in office, those hoping for radical change in US security policy towards the region have been disappointed. Much in the way that Obama’s Pivot was more about the presentation of US strategic policy and involved much less substantive change

in The United States in the Indo-Pacific
Oliver Turner

partnerships, with the term hegemony more appropriate than ‘misleading’ assertions of empire or imperialism. 5 Andrew Hurrell concurs, but suggests that notions of an institutional American empire often neglect the centrality of force and coercion to US foreign policy, and its intrusions into others’ domestic affairs. 6 As suggested by Ikenberry who sees a deeply rooted ‘neo-imperial logic’ in US political culture, 7 hegemony and empire are not mutually exclusive. Charles Maier, indeed, laments the polarising nature of the word empire and resists its application to the

in The United States in the Indo-Pacific
The Marshall Plan films about Greece
Katerina Loukopoulou

that were aligned with the US foreign policy. The majority of the MP films about Greece mobilise a particular kind of humanitarian narrative, one that evokes the ancient Greek heritage in such a way that it stands not only for Greece’s reconstruction but also for Western Europe’s future and its alignment with the US vision of a geopolitical ‘pax Americana’. My argument is that

in Global humanitarianism and media culture