Autonomy and Foreign Policy: the Brazilian Case on the Fight Against Terrorism in the Lula administration

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophia Luiza Zaia
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Realist Approach ◽  
Global War ◽  
Brazilian Case

This paper examines Brazilian Foreign Policy during Lula’s administration and how the concept of autonomy has shaped Brazil’s stance on alleged terrorist activities within its borders. By using the Neoclassical Realist approach, this article explores how autonomy has allowed for Brazil to oppose the pressures of the United States’ led Global War on Terror between 2003-2010. Autonomy has worked as an intervening variable that allowed for Brazilian Foreign Policy, to some extent, to take its own direction in matters of security. 

scholarly journals ‘Defensive Liberal Wars’: The Global War on Terror and the Return of Illiberalism in American Foreign Policy

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (53) ◽  
pp. 99-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rashmi Singh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Military Involvement ◽  
Global War

This paper offers an analysis of the illiberal practices and discourse of the Global War on Terror (GWoT) and demonstrates how the United States of America used the liberal argument as a qualitative metric of its success and failure in the GWoT. I argue that ‘the othering’ of Salafi Jihadists as well the full military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq were both philosophically rooted in the liberal thinking of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, which have traditionally guided US foreign policy. More significantly, these liberal philosophies of history and international relations hold within them the seeds of illiberalism by depicting non-liberal, undemocratic societies/organisations as ‘barbaric’ – and as such prime candidates for intervention and regime change. Predicated upon this logic, the discourse of the GWoT framed Al Qaeda as a key existential threat to not only the United States but also the ‘civilised world’ in general and one which required a ‘liberal defensive war’ in response. It was the successful securitisation of Al Qaeda that essentially enabled the United States to adopt deeply illiberal policies to counter this so-called existential threat by using any means at its disposal.

Social Practices of Rule-Making and the Global War on Terror

2019 ◽  
pp. 142-202
Author(s):  
Mark Raymond
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Social Practices ◽  
Political Community ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Global War ◽  
Rule Making ◽  
Invasion Of Iraq

This chapter examines public dialogue between al-Qaeda and the United States from 1996 until the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Both sides spoke clearly and consistently about actual and preferred rules for the international system, and the way they should be applied; and both sides engaged in procedural criticism and justification. Both sides knew that conflict was overdetermined, and that they had deep disagreements about relevant social practices of rule-making. So why engage in futile dialogue? Attempts to reach like-minded audiences clearly matter, but esoteric appeals about legitimate rule-making procedures are typically not expected to move political audiences. The chapter argues that participants on both sides had internalized ideas about legitimate rule-making practices, and tied these understandings to conceptions of the appropriate nature and ends of political community. The case demonstrates the emotional power of secondary rules, and the difficulty of resolving conflict in the absence of common rule-making practices.

The Genres ofGuantánamo Diary: Postcolonial Reading and the War on Terror

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yogita Goyal
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
African American ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
The United States ◽  
Slave Narrative ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Global War

AbstractThis essay reads Mohamedou Ould Slahi’sGuantánamo Diary(2015) as an exemplary occasion to stage the dilemmas of postcolonial reading in the present, especially in relation to the global War on Terror declared by the United States after the 9/11 attacks. ReadingGuantánamo Diaryin relation to a genre it clearly seems to echo—the African American slave narrative—the essay argues that the analogy to slavery enables a deeper sense of the multiple and overlapping histories of race and empire but also obscures the transnational geography of detention signaled by Slahi as well as his damning comment on the failed project of postcolonial sovereignty. Showing how attention to questions of genre and their circulation across the globe illuminates the politics of terror and detention, the essay elaborates the possible ethics and aesthetics of postcolonial reading in the present.

19. Religion

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Marsden
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Affairs ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Emergency Plan ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Christian Zionism ◽  
Global Affairs ◽  
Global War ◽  
The Cold War

This chapter examines the influence of religion on US foreign policy. It first considers how religion affected American policy during the Cold War, from the time of Harry S. Truman to George H. W. Bush, before discussing the bilateral relationship between Israel and the United States. It then looks at the rise of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a US-based interest group, and how its work has been complemented by conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists who ascribe to Christian Zionism. It also explores the ways in which religion has intersected with the global war on terror and US foreign policy, how the US resorted to faith-based diplomacy, the issue of religious freedom, and George W. Bush’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in Africa. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the Office of Religion and Global Affairs (ORGA), created by Barack Obama.

Philippines-US Relations

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricio N. Abinales
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Special Relationship ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Military Alliance ◽  
Global War ◽  
The Military

An enduring resilience characterizes Philippine–American relationship for several reasons. For one, there is an unusual colonial relationship wherein the United States took control of the Philippines from the Spanish and then shared power with an emergent Filipino elite, introduced suffrage, implemented public education, and promised eventual national independence. A shared experience fighting the Japanese in World War II and defeating a postwar communist rebellion further cemented the “special relationship” between the two countries. The United States took advantage of this partnership to compel the Philippines to sign an economic and military treaty that favored American businesses and the military, respectively. Filipino leaders not only accepted the realities of this strategic game and exploited every opening to assert national interests but also benefitted from American largesse. Under the dictatorship of President Ferdinand Marcos, this mutual cadging was at its most brazen. As a result, the military alliance suffered when the Philippines terminated the agreement, and the United States considerably reduced its support to the country. But the estrangement did not last long, and both countries rekindled the “special relationship” in response to the U.S. “Global War on Terror” and, of late, Chinese military aggression in the West Philippine Sea.

Exceptionalism Again: The Bush Administration, the “Global War on Terror” and Human Rights

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 707-725 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Foot
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
British Government ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Detention Facility ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
Global War ◽  
Made In

When former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, gave his farewell address in December 2006, he expressed his dismay at the Bush administration's conduct during its anti-terrorist campaign. The United States had given up its vanguard role in the promotion of human rights, he averred, and appeared to have abandoned its ideals and principles. There have been many statements similar to this one made in the period since September 2001. Even close allies, such as the British government, for example, have called for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility on the grounds that, as a symbol of injustice, it had tarnished the United States as a “beacon of freedom, liberty and justice.”

American Human Rights Policy Toward Eastern Europe

1981 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 519-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen A. Garrett
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
American People ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Realist Approach ◽  
War Of Independence

A number of analyses of American foreign policy suggest that over the course of some two hundred years there have been two distinct themes in the American diplomatic experience. These can be labeled the realist and idealist. At various times first one and then the other appears to have assumed at least a temporary predominance in American thinking and diplomatic activity. The classic statement of the realist approach still remains that which was offered by John Quincy Adams in 1823 in response to pressure on the United States to intervene to assist the Greeks in their war of independence against the Ottoman Turks. “Wherever the flag of freedom may be unfurled,” remarked Adams, the heartfelt sentiments and sympathy of the American people go out to those struggling for freedom. On the other hand, the United States should and could not assume a direct responsibility in such struggles. In Adams' vivid phrase, America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” The Adamsonian or realist approach to American foreign policy then posits that altruistic or moral concerns are essentially irrelevant to the real objectives of a sound national diplomacy, which are the protection of one's own sovereignty and political and economic well-being. In our external relations, then, the focus ultimately must be on power considerations, the development of our strictly personal national interests.

18. Global terrorism

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Rogers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
The Political ◽  
Terror Attacks ◽  
The Us ◽  
Global Terrorism

This chapter examines how global terrorism, and particularly the war on terror, has shaped US foreign policy. It first provides an overview of the 9/11 terror attacks and definitions of terrorism before discussing the US experience of terrorism prior to 9/11 as well as the political environment in Washington at the time of the attacks. It then considers the response of the Bush administration in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the nature and aims of the al-Qaeda organization. It also reviews the conduct of the war on terror in its first nine years, along with the decline and transformation of al-Qaeda after 2010. Finally, it analyzes the options available to the United States in the war against al-Qaeda, ISIS, and like-minded groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document