Implications of the U.S. War on Terrorism for U.S.-China Policy: A Strategic Window

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Carter ◽  
Costello Jr ◽  
III Peter A. ◽  
William D. Kendrick ◽  
Dana J. Pittard
2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Carter ◽  
Costello Jr. ◽  
Kendrick Peter A. ◽  
Pittard William D. ◽  
Dana J.
Keyword(s):  

Asian Survey ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Ganesan

In 2002, the Malaysian government underwent significant political consolidation. Despite Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's sudden announcement in June of his resignation, he will remain in office until October 2003, after which Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi will replace him as prime minister. The government's political consolidation derived partly from its war on terrorism, which allowed it to marginalize the mainstream opposition. Additionally, opposition parties themselves are in disarray. Economically, the country performed well, and unorthodox measures introduced after the Asian financial crisis have begun to pay off. In foreign affairs, Malaysia achieved good accommodation with the U.S. but suffered from hiccups in its bilateral relations with regional neighbors.


Asian Survey ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 174-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali A. Jalali

The year 2002 was one of rebirth and rebuilding in Afghanistan following a drawn-out civil strife that ended with the downfall of the Taliban regime in the U.S.-led coalition war on terrorism. But the struggle for peace proved to be much tougher than winning the war. International financial support and political backing helped Afghanistan move toward creating a broad-based government, improving security across the country, and rebuilding its devastated economy. However, the enormous humanitarian and development challenges involved require a sustained and multifaceted response as well as a long-term international commitment to assist the war-torn country in restoring peace, normalcy, and economic stability.


1996 ◽  
Vol 146 ◽  
pp. 643-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roxane D. V. Slsmanidis

2001 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Baum

Ever since Richard Nixon's 1972 “opening” to China, U.S. presidential election campaigns have been the occasion for the opposition party to strongly challenge the incumbent president's policy of engagement toward China. Once in power, however, successful challengers (Carter, Reagan, Clinton) have softened their criticism and accepted the strategic necessity of cooperation with China. In the first stage of this cycle, the 2000 election appeared to be no exception, as presidential challenger George W. Bush sharply criticized Bill Clinton's notion of a “strategic partnership” with the PRC and proposed instead that the U.S. and China were “strategic competitors.” This paper examines the first six months of the Bush presidency to see if the historic pattern of post-election reversion to the status-quo ante is repeating itself in the Bush Administration. Looking, inter alia, at the individual preferences of key administration policymakers, the administration's enhanced arms sale package to Taiwan, the president's pledge to do “whatever it took” to defend Taiwan, and the mid-summer visit of Secretary of State Colin Powell to Beijing, the paper documents the existence of a sharp division between “soft” realists and “hard” realists within the Bush Administration; and it concludes that while there has been a perceptible shift toward a more adversarial outlook, it is too soon to tell whether this shift will be partly offset by the normal first-term “regression to the mean.”


Author(s):  
Sergey Trush

Biden’s foreign policy team worked out the new concept of its relations with China. The main idea of this concept is more nuanced approach to China’s behavior, reassessing bilateral ties with China to separate the spheres of confrontation, regulated competition and possible cooperation for commonly shared goals. However, this concept and ideology still failed to be applied to practical policy. Biden’s many steps towards China, especially in economic and military realms, are in fact showing the inertia and obvious continuity with Trump’s policies. In political sphere, Biden’s stress for «human rights» issues, so typical for Democratic Party, make the dialogue with China the same unproductive, as it was in the Trump’s era. In economic relations Biden’s administration is not cancelling high trade tariffs on China goods, being oriented on “regulated trade” approach in its ties with PRC. Biden’s administration is more successful and active than Trump in pushing through Congress the legislation for spending on innovation and technological upgrading of the U.S. economy, that is vital to successful competition with China.


2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zain Pasha

Even before his inauguration, President Barack Obama made it clear that he believed torture was morally reprehensible and promised that under his administration the U.S. would no longer practice torture. Accordingly, on April 16th, 2009 Mr. Obama and the U.S. Department of Justice authorized the release of C.I.A memos detailing the methods of torture that were authorized under the George W. Bush administration. The release of the C.I.A. memos elicited an almost immediate reaction from former Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney, who in an interview with Fox News on April 21st, 2009 criticized Mr. Obama for failing to disclose documents detailing the “success” of torture in garnering intelligence that was vital to the U.S. War on Terrorism.3 Mr. Obama’s efforts to discredit torture as a justifiable tool for preserving U.S. national security and Mr. Cheney’s rebuke of those efforts attest to the importance and contentious nature of the debate about whether torture is in the U.S national interest. Using this debate as motivation, I answer the question of whether or not the use of torture is in the U.S. national interest. To do this, I first chronicle the history of U.S. torture practices since the Cold War to provide a reference point for the rest of the paper. Second, I empirically demonstrate the negative impact of these practices on international U.S. credibility, the War on Terrorism and U.S. presidential approval ratings. Third, I consider the theoretical value of torture in context to its empirical utility as an intelligence-gathering tool, and vis-à-vis possible alternatives, to ultimately make a qualitative assessment of torture’s actual utility for preserving U.S. national security. Finally, I compare the international and domestic consequences of U.S. torture (section 2) to its actual utility (section 3) to ultimately conclude that torture is not in the U.S. national interest.


Author(s):  
Sheriff G.I. ◽  
Chubado B.T. ◽  
Ahmet A.

This paper discusses the concept of the one-China policy and how the United States support of Taiwan poses a challenge to stability in the region. The paper adopted the library descriptive instrument from historical research to come up with the available data in the paper. Findings show that, since 1949, the struggle between the Nationalist Republic of China and the Communist party escalated into a civil war which resulted in the defeat of Kuomintang and the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which took control of all mainland China. Only the island of Taiwan remained under the control of the ROC. Since then, both the ROC and the PRC have been claiming to represent all of "China", and both officially claim each other's territory. The paper concludes that China cannot forfeit the strait of Taiwan despite American support to the island. The deteriorating relationship between the U.S and China relationship has seen trade wars to accusations on the origins of the coronavirus to political buffering, to the sovereign of Taiwan and Hongkong, it just seems to be a manifestation of the Sino-American Cold War. The way things appear, the relationship between the U.S and China will further deteriorate largely because democracy and liberal order are being challenged by the political posture of China. The paper recommends that there is the need to maintain the non-interference principle by the two parties, the United States should know that Taiwan is China and therefore not meddle in the affairs of China and vice-versa.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document