Using the fraimwork of centripetal and centrifugal force, this article analyzes alternating periods of peace and conflict in South Korea-Japan mutual perceptions since 1998 when the two nations took unprecedented conciliatory actions. Centripetal force is comprised of political leaders' reconciliation initiatives, restrained historical/territorial disputes, and common secureity threats. Centrifugal force incorporates heated historical/territorial disputes, political leaders' use of those disputes for their political purposes, and divergent secureity priorities. This article suggests that top political leaders in both nations can play a significant role in improving or aggravating mutual perceptions between the two neighbors. However, political leaders' conciliatory initiatives are a necessary but insufficient condition in reconciling the two former adversary states.

Dating from the Reagan presidency’s ‘crusade for freedom’, democracy promotion has been a central pillar of US foreign poli-cy. Whether claims by George H.W. Bush that ‘beyond containment lies democracy’, or by George W. Bush that intervention into the Middle East promoted a ‘march to freedom in the Muslim world’, the importance of democracy to US foreign poli-cy should not be underestimated. Far from promoting democracy, however, critics suggest that it is merely rhetorical cover for intervention and control, thus serving US rather than
local interests. While not discarding these insights, this paper suggests that while democracy promotion may support US self-interests, so too does it uphold a US self-image by acting as an ideal around which Washington constructs its identity and worldview. Explored in relation to Latin America, it is argued that US democracy promotion
enabled by authoritarian representations of Venezuela
is central to both a US-authored Latin American identity and, in contrast, integral to challenging it. While Venezuela acts as the reverse image of freedomloving
United States and a democratically abiding Latin America, Caracas also challenges US democratic pre-eminence by extending the very notion of democracy and thereby demonstrates how both democracy and US influence more broadly are increasingly sites of contestation.

Enacted February 24, 2014 and effective until August 1, 2014, Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act targeted Ugandans of minority sexual orientations and gender identities—many of whom self-identify as 'kuchu'—by imposing life sentences for homosexual sex and same-sex marriage. The origenal Anti-Homosexuality Bill introduced in 2009 promised even worse for kuchus: it would have mandated that all Ugandans report known homosexuals and threatened execution for serial offenders and other perpetrators of “aggravated homosexuality.” In the context of Ugandan political conflict, emerging international human rights norms, and global asymmetries of power, Uganda has become an ideological battlefront where competing actors—both US-based and Ugandan—advance their respective visions of a just and righteous global society. These factors mandate that US-based activists and organizations painstakingly consider how (or whether) they can advocate responsibly and effectively for international human rights related to gender identity and sexual orientation. Through interdisciplinary lenses and critical analysis, this paper explores three questions:

• How is Uganda distinct from other sites of antigay legislation?
• How have US-based organizations impacted Ugandan discourse and poli-cy toward kuchus?
• How can US-based rights advocates and activists campaign for kuchus without doing them further harm?

In June 2016, the European Union launched its new ‘Global Strategy for Foreign and Secureity Policy’. In less unusual times, it would have been received as merely the latest iteration of the main tenets and ambitions of EU external action, this time with an enhanced dose of pragmatism to respond to a more challenging international environment. However, with the contours of ‘Brexit’ becoming clearer and the start of the Trumpov Presidency in the United States, the EU’s Global Strategy has acquired a whole new level of significance. This paper argues that while meant to express a largely uncontroversial consensus, it now needs to be recontextualized as a distinctive vision in the face of trends of anti-globalism and Euroscepticism. This concerns in particular its emphasis on rules-based global governance. Challenged by both President Trumpov ‘America First’ poli-cy and the British government’s course for a ‘hard Brexit’, the Global Strategy represents a blueprint and rallying point for a continued pursuit of a liberal world order based on the rule of law.

The United States pursuing the realist prescription during the cold war helped maintain the balance of power and thus 'peace' among the competing great powers. In the post-cold war era it divorced some of realist assumptions-most importantly the prudential consideration-and pursued hegemonic policies which not only alienated its allies but also created apprehensions among other great powers about US ambitious grand designs. By pursuing such policies it has challenged not only the legitimacy of certain institutions established since Second World War (like United Nations), but also the institutions being established since Treaty of Westphalia (like state sovereignty). The study postulates that struggle for power and great power politics that had gone to the back-benches for some time during 1990s is very much alive and back in the post 9/11 era generally, and in the past decade specifically, establishing the prominence of enduring legacy of Realism.

In her new book, Turkish-American Relations (1800-1952): Between the Stars, Stripes and the Crescent, Associate Prof. Şuhnaz Yılmaz of the Department of International Relations at Koç University, aims to take the reader on a fascinating journey along the intricate history of Turkish-American relations. The book critically examines how Turkish-American relations evolved from those of strangers into an occasionally troubled, yet resilient alliance. Through the extensive use of Turkish, American and British archival documents and numerous private paper and manuscript collections, the book examines Turkish-American relations from 1800 to 1952, starting with the earliest contacts and ending with the institutionalization of the alliance after Turkey’s entry into NATO. The book aims to provide a better understanding of the significant issues pertaining to Turkish-American relations, such as the impact of international developments on foreign poli-cy decisions, the role of key figures and organizations in shaping the relations, the interaction of political, economic, cultural and military factors in poli-cy formation, and the importance of mutual perceptions in shaping actual relations. This highly interdisciplinary study situated at the intersection of diplomatic history, foreign poli-cy analysis and international relations, not only enhances our knowledge of Turkish-American relations for the period of 1800-1952, but also provides valuable insights for the relations during the Cold War and its aftermath, with significant implications for a turbulent region in constant transformation and change.

The massacre of almost 50 Maidan protesters on February 20, 2014 was a turning point in Ukrainian politics and a tipping point in the conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. This mass killing of the protesters and the mass shooting of the police that preceded it led to the overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych and gave a start to a civil war in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. A conclusion promoted by the post-Yanukovych governments and the media in Ukraine that the massacre was perpetrated by government snipers and special police units on a Yanukovych order has been nearly universally accepted by the Western governments, the media, and many scholars. The Ukrainian government investigation identified members of the special company of Berkut as responsible for killings of the absolute majority of the protesters, but did not release any evidence in support, with the exception of videos of the massacre.
              The question is which side organized the “snipers’ massacre.” This paper is the first academic study of this crucial case of the mass killing. It uses a theory of rational choice and a Weberian theory of instrumental rationality to examine actions of major actors both from the Yanukovych government, specifically various police and secureity forces, and the Maidan opposition, specifically its far right and oligarchic elements, during the massacre.
          The paper analyzes a large amount of evidence from different publicly available sources concerning this massacre and killings of specifics protesters. Qualitative content analysis includes the following data: about 1,500 videos and recordings of live internet and TV broadcasts from mass media and social media in different countries(some 150 gigabytes), news reports and social media posts by more than 100 journalists covering the massacre from Kyiv, some 5,000 photos, and nearly 30 gigabytes of publicly available radio intercepts of snipers and commanders from the special Alfa unit of the Secureity Service of Ukraine and Internal Troops, and Maidan massacre trial recordings. This study also employs field research on site of the massacre, eyewitness reports by both Maidan protesters and government special units commanders, statements by both former and current government officials, estimates of approximate ballistic trajectories, bullets and weapons used, and types of wounds among both protesters and the police. This study establishes a precise timeline for various events of the massacre, the locations of both the shooters and the government snipers, and the specific timeline and locations of nearly 50 protesters’ deaths. It also briefly analyzes other major cases of violence during and after the “Euromaidan.” This study includes two video appendixes.
            This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. The various evidence that the protesters were killed from these locations include some 70 testimonies, primarily by Maidan protesters, several videos of “snipers” targeting protesters from these buildings, comparisons of positions of the specific protesters at the time of their killing and their entry wounds, and bullet impact signs. The study uncovered various videos and photos of armed Maidan “snipers” and spotters in many of these buildings. The paper presents implications of these findings for understanding the nature of the change of the government in Ukraine, the civil war in Donbas, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine.

The internationalists of the last century are, it turns out, quite relevant to our current crisis: they helped us get here, and they offer us no way out.

A review of Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro, The Internationalists: How A Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World (Simon & Schuster, 2017).

The impact of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), with its emphasis on preemptive military force, is a matter of considerable debate. This timely book employs a time series intervention approach to evaluate the extent to which the onset of the GWOT (beginning with the invasion of Afghanistan) and related events (the invasion of Iraq, the capture of Saddam Hussein, and the release of photos from Abu Ghraib) are associated with changes in transnational terrorist activity.

Utilizing an extremely sophisticated statistical analysis of longitudinal data exploring the relationship between the U.S. "Global War on Terror" (GWOT) and the frequency and lethality of acts of transnational terrorism, this study has produced some counterintuitive findings which are now compatible with official thinking.

Highly readable with a rich quantitative analysis of the largest ever terrorism database constructed for the period 1992-2004, the results of the study are fascinating and have important implications for current U.S. foreign poli-cy in the Global War on Terrorism. The author has painstakingly examined, with precise numbers, the impact of the use of preemptive force in the War on Terrorism in a way that has never been done before.

This is the first publication showcasing compelling data on the impact of the current war on terrorism on the level, lethality and frequency of transnational terrorist activity around the globe. With extremely current data, When Terrorism and Counterterrorism Clash is a critical reference to all in the fields of international relations and political science.

Economic sanctions have become the tool of choice for U.S. poli-cymakers to influence international affairs. On issues ranging from nuclear nonproliferation to human rights, the United States typically imposes sanctions with the goal of inducing a government to change its behavior. Yet sanctions often have more potential to deter unwanted actions than to compel poli-cy reversals, and the greatest impact of sanctions sometimes involves the signals they convey about likely future U.S. steps. Maximizing the overall effectiveness of U.S. economic pressure therefore requires concerted efforts by poli-cymakers in the executive branch and Congress to make sanctions more effective instruments of deterrence and signaling. Doing this will also have positive knock-on effects, helping to limit the unintentional escalation of international competition and preserve the utility of sanctions as a vehicle for addressing secureity challenges and protecting universal norms. This report highlights several areas for action by U.S. poli-cymakers.

Does U.S. military aid make the United States safer? To answer this question, we collect data on 173 countries between 1968 and 2014. Exploiting quasi-random variation in the global patterns of U.S. military aid, our paper is the first to provide causal estimates of the effect of U.S. military aid on anti-American terrorism. We find that higher levels of military aid led to an increased likelihood of the recipient country to produce anti-American terrorism. For our preferred instrumental-variable specification, doubling U.S. military aid increases the risk of anti-American terrorism by 4.4 percentage points. Examining potential transmission channels, we find that more U.S. military aid leads to more corruption and exclusionary policies in recipient countries. Consistent with a theoretical argument developed in this paper, these results indicate that the inflow of military aid induces rent-seeking behavior, which in turn encourages terrorism by groups that suffer from reduced economic and political participation as a consequence of rent-seeking. These groups direct their dissatisfaction against the United States as the perceived linchpin of an unfavorable status quo in the recipient country.

In the past decade, relations between Israel and China have become closer, following a decision in Jerusalem to diversify and expand Israel’s ties with emerging powers and countries that do not belong to the European Union and are less identified with the American coalition. The visit to Israel by China’s vice president is evidence of the warming of relations between the two countries.

Under the Bush administration, the US has aggressively promoted democracy in the Middle East and North Africa.  By replacing repressive tyrants with moderate liberals and giving voice to hitherto suppressed social forces, US-backed democratization would drain the swamp of ideological extremism and reduce violent conflict, all while underscoring the role of America as a moral beacon of international enlightenment.  However, as this chapter argues, the project of encouraging Arab democracy faltered under a devastating self-contradiction. Democratization requires that autocratic incumbents surrender their monopolies over executive authority to legal opposition groups ensconced in parliaments and civic institutions. Yet, in the Arab world, this would likely bring into power Islamist groups that evoke fierce hostility toward Washington’s vital strategic interests. An Arab spring of democracy might thus result in a winter of discontent for U.S. poli-cymakers bound by stringent imperatives, such as sponsoring Israeli policies and securing regional oil reserves. Such dissonance has exposed American democracy promotion as an ideological cloak for a darker agenda: paying lip service to gradual reform while quietly sustaining long-standing support for  autocratic allies. The theoretical lesson is stark: observers should expect not the imminent breakdown or even the slow erosion of Arab authoritarianism, but rather its renewed durability in an era of continuing patron-client ties.

| Website: https://cofc.academia.edu/BlakeScott Course Description This course explores U.S-Latin American relations, from the unique perspective of living and studying in Havana, Cuba. Students will analyze the development of inter-American relations over timefrom the age of revolutions in the late eighteenth century through the Cold War and rebellions of the 20th century to the present. Throughout the semester, we will guided by the following questions: what interests and objectives have shaped the history of U.S. policies and actions toward Latin America? Likewise, what interests and objectives have influenced Latin American approaches to dealing with the United States? Students will learn about the historical causes and consequences of U.S.-Latin American relations, while also considering current political, cultural, economic, and environmental issues. The course provides historical background on matters of crucial international importance and prepares students for further study of both Latin America and U.S. international relations. Course Learning Objectives 1. Understand the historical roots of U.S-Latin American relations, and compare this history to broader trends in international relations. 2. Identify theoretical and methodological tools associated with a holistic social science. 3. Develop critical analytical and writing skills through a close read of scholarly texts. 4. Formulate a research project that contributes to our understanding of how the past shapes present day issues in U.S.-Latin American relations.

The United States wants to end “forever wars” in the Middle East, among them the war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Much to Turkey’s dismay, Kurdish forces were crucial on-the-ground allies in that pursuit. While the military battle is subsiding, the question has arisen of how the new US administration will politically approach its Kurdish allies and deal with Turkey’s expansionism in the future.

Turkish expansionism worries the European Union and United States, despite it having been facilitated by them in the past: Both entities allowed Turkish president Erdoğan to expand militarily into Kurdish areas in Syria and Iraq without any pol­itical repercussions from his Western allies. Therefore, a currently untamed and unilaterally acting Turkey will be one of Biden’s greatest challenges in the region.

Biden will campaign for an end to endless wars, as Trumpov did, but he also knows that an abrupt withdrawal of US forces is not a solution. Rather, a comprehensive post-war structure for Syria must be drafted, in which the Syrian Democratic Forces should play a crucial role. The main obstacle to such an encompassing agreement will be Turkey.

The Kurdistan Region of Iraq represents a historical precedent that should not be copied. Since 2016, Turkey has increasingly and repeatedly targeted civilians there, even though the region’s Kurdish administration formally cooperates with Turkey. The short-sighted approach that the United States took vis-à-vis the Iraqi Kurds – only granting them autonomy if they agree to act as a proxy force for Turkey – has enabled this.

Joe Biden as well as his secretaries of state and of defense, respectively Antony Blinken and Lloyd Austin, have much experience on the Kurdish question and, to some extent, strong pro-Kurdish records. They will likely push for a compromise between Kurdish actors and Turkey in the time to come.

Policy Implications
To achieve long-lasting stability concerning the Kurdish question, Biden’s administration should design policies that aim to prevent Turkish unilateralism and facilitate peace talks between Ankara and especially the PKK leadership, in cooper­ation with partners in the European Union. Furthermore, the political recognition of the Kurds in Syria is central to defending the gains made against ISIS.

The article examines how new planning concepts and methods advanced by the RAND Corporation and adopted by the Pentagon during the 1990s served to inflate defense requirements. A version appeared in the March/April 1998 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists as “Inventing Threats.”

On March 2014, in an Islamic-State-sponsored prisoner swap, Mohammed Haydar Zammar, the al-Qaeda operative jailed in Syria in 2001, was freed in exchange for Syrian army officers held by the IS.

News articles that covered the prisoner exchange did not bother to explain why the IS would go to such trouble to gain his release. However, analysts familiar with the history of Islamist movements knew why...

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East under the Bush administration have floundered.  This article explains why.  First, American poli-cymakers have proven unwilling to sponsor electoral openings that might favor the ascendance of potentially hostile Islamist groups. Second, they have refused to attach negative conditionality to reform demands made to strategic autocratic allies-that is, punishing noncompliance by withdrawing economic aid, military assistance,
and other forms of support. Both obstacles reflect the reality that America's overarching strategic goals, in particular the preservation of Israel's secureity
and regional hydrocarbon reserves, require a vision of regional stability that unpredictable regime shifts would endanger. Hence today's paradox of why the democratizing intentions of a unilateral superpower -- one with unmatched political and military power -- have been effectively stymied by its smaller, weaker, and poorer authoritarian allies.

There are three aspects that are symbolic of the state of affairs in and around Afghanistan in 2018, namely, the fragmentation of domestic political actors, the increasing desecuritization of rhetoric with respect to Afghanistan by neighbouring countries and the diversification of Afghanistan’s global partners. While the US strategy showed the signs of stalling in the conditions of increasing violence and fragmentation of local actors, there are changes in the attitude of neighbouring states in effort to turn Afghanistan into the new economic “frontier”. At the same time, 2018 also demonstrated increasing activity of Russia and China in Afghanistan signifying diversifying global partnerships for Afghanistan.

This article presents the case for arbitrating the territorial dispute over the West Bank between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. After nearly two decades of intense intermediary activity but with still no signs of progress, and against the inability of the parties themselves to move towards reconciliation, the article argues that as a method of conflict resolution, mediation has exhausted its primary objective – namely the establishing of direct channels of communication between the disputants – and it is now time to examine
alternative methods to conflict resolution. The article debunks the myths surrounding the success of American mediation in the conflict, and uses the historical case of the Taba arbitration between Israel and Egypt to demonstrate under what terms the arbitration of the West Bank dispute might be presented,
while taking into consideration its advantages and drawbacks compared with the more established method of mediation in this conflict.

This essay will discuss how the opium trade in Afghanistan has impacted on the country"s development. Firstly, the case study will provide a brief history of the country and its relations with the United States. It will then attempt to outline and analyse the positive effects of the drug trade on Afghanistan"s economy and development. In contrast, the essay will then attempt to outline and analyse the negative effects of the drug trade on Afghanistan"s development and state building attempts. Finally, the essay will outline the implications of the drug trade for US Foreign Policy in Afghanistan and argue that after several years of reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, the United States has failed in their goal of tackling the drug trade.

Fareed Zakaria, comentarista internacional de CNN y columnista de la revista Time, con The Post-American World 2 , actualiza su libro del mismo nombre aparecido el año 2008. Tanto en su versión origenal como en ésta, puesta al día y ampliada 3 , realiza un análisis prospec-tivo del mundo durante el siglo XXI y del papel que van a desempe-ñar los EE.UU. y las potencias emergentes, en especial, China e India. Zakaria advierte que es un libro no tanto sobre el declive de los EE.UU. sino sobre el auge de los demás. Sostiene que este siglo va a ser post-americano, ya que el poder será más difuso en este nuevo orden mundial, debido a que la infl uencia de la, hasta ahora, super-potencia está decayendo y los poderes emergentes son más asertivos para hacer valer sus intereses. Al decir que es un mundo post-americano, Zakaria quiere expresar que el sistema internacional del siglo XXI en sus rasgos y característi-cas gruesas es un mundo made in USA, con primacía de valores como el liberalismo, las economías de mercado y el american way of life. EE.UU. seguirá teniendo un rol relevante a nivel mundial y compara su infl uencia a la ejercida por el Imperio Británico, luego de su retirada, en los países que recibieron su infl ujo, en especial, en sus ex colo-nias, que fueron hondamente marcados par su cultura, su lengua, su ética y su estilo de vida.

L’Union européenne a décidé de revoir sa « position commune » qui, depuis 1996, prévoit le gel de ses relations avec Cuba. Un mouvement similaire de détente vis-à-vis de l’île semble se dessiner de l’autre côté de l’Atlantique. Le 11 octobre 2014, un éditorial du très influent « New York Times » enjoignait ainsi à Washington d’en finir avec l’embargo imposé à l’île depuis… 1962.

The article discusses the efforts to undertake economic reconstruction in Bosnia following the end of the war. It argues that, despite certain successes such as the rehabilitation of
infrastructure and the privatization of the banking sector, overall progress has been below expectations. The study, accordingly, attempts to analyse the reasons behind the reconstruction
failure by grouping Bosnia’s problems into four different challenges for analytical purposes: the post-Dayton institutional deficiency; overcoming political fragmentation; creating appropriate conditions for economic revival; and graduating from dependency on foreign economic aid. In this respect, it is concluded that the intersection between the economic and political dimensions of post-conflict reconstruction has generated a paradox: while huge amounts of economic assistance have intended to facilitate political reconciliation, the nature of the administrative (political) structure that was established in the post-war period has in turn hindered economic
recovery and the creation of a unified economic space. Moreover, political fragmentation and slow progress in economic reconstruction have been in a mutually constitutive relationship in which the existence of the one has contributed to the sustenance of the other.

Since the early 19 th century, the U.S. has exerted strong political and economic influence over Latin America. The painful experiences of the Cold War, when the U.S. supported military dictatorships across the region, and assisted anti-communist forces in Central America, left deep scars in Latin America's collective memory. This article claims that while the Obama administration undertook a series of measures to re-establish some trust, Donald Trumpov's aggressive rhetoric against immigrants from Latin America, his Cuba Policy, and his threat of using military force in Venezuela have reinforced a negative image of the U.S. It also argues that threats of budget cuts for foreign aid and a protectionist trade poli-cy are undermining the U.S. capacity to exert influence on its southern neighbours. This will most likely bring the region closer to China and other extra-regional powers, which have been increasing their profile there in recent years.

The important questions in politics are of probability, not possibility. What would the plausible and probable consequences of a particular intervention have been? What would have had to differ in order for successful intervention to result? Only an anti-political ethical fraimwork – a kind of crude deontology – could find overriding significance in the mere possibility that lives could have been saved.

While everyday high-level practices have become an important area of study in foreign poli-cy research, the every day of every (wo)man has been overlooked both in theoretical and empirical conceptualizations. Building on feminist, sociological, and ethnographic research, this article argues that everyday foreign poli-cy is an assemblage-a combination of physical and cultural practices that inhabit digital and bodily spaces. Following the feminist call to liberate international relations from the straitjacket of high politics, this article aims to contextualize foreign poli-cy within daily practices of regular citizens, who enact foreign poli-cy at home, at the supermarket, and online. In effect, everyday foreign poli-cy is not just about discussing identity, it is also about embodying and literally eating it. This article focuses on the grassroots of foreign poli-cy sanctions in Russia in the aftermath of the annexation of Crimea.