The Energy Crisis and U.S. Foreign Policy, The United States and International Oil: A Report for the Federal Energy Administration on U.S. Firms and Government Policy and U.S. Energy Policy: Alternatives for Security

1977 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 162-163
Author(s):  
Louis Turner

Subject Belarus's attempts to court the EU and the United States. Significance The Belarusian government has shifted from an exclusively Russia-oriented foreign policy to a campaign to mend fences with the West. Government statements and a defence policy document speak of equal, non-adversarial relationships, while President Alexander Lukashenka has encouraged greater engagement with the EU and United States. Impacts Western governments will grant more legitimacy to the government. Opposition parties will find it harder to cite international isolation as a failed government policy. The EU's Eastern Partnership may be revitalised by its emerging role as conduit for ties with Belarus.


1969 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth L. Hill

SoonAfter John F. Kennedy became President, difficult foreign policy decisions had to be made. Even before he assumed the burdens of office, he knew an early judgment would be required concerning United States policies vis-à-vis Laos. Throughout 1960, Communist forces in Laos and their allies won numerous military victories and the Laotian Royal Army was unable to check their advances. The United States and other SEATO members were understandably disturbed. They now had to contemplate a total Communist victory with all its potentially painful and embarrassing consequences. These consequences worried President-elect Kennedy and prior to his inauguration, he and his advisors began systematically examining all their policy alternatives; they found that none were really attractive.


Author(s):  
Vadym Danylets

Violation of status-quo in the Middle East, which radically influenced the world oil supply system, generated the uncertainty of prospects in politics in general and energetics in particular. For the United States, it became necessary to transform their energy strategy, which included domestic and foreign policy aspects. However until October, 1973 the Administration of the USA could not develop a strategy capable of preventing an energy crisis of 1973–1974. Nevertheless, persistent looking for a new model of energy politics continued in the United States throughout the first half of 1970. As of December 1972, at least 42 federal agencies, bureaus, departments, and offices were involved in research into energy issues. The 93rd Congress (January 1973–January 1975) involved itself was in energy-related legislation on an unprecedented scale. More than 2,000 bills were introduced, and more than 30 standing congressional committees collectively held over 1,000 days of hearings on nearly every aspect of energy policy programs and problems. Nearly 40 energy-related laws were enacted. The magnitude of these efforts indicates that the United States leadership was deeply concerned about the situation. Despite the efforts made, the US administration could not avoid the dramatic events of the energy crisis. The cause for this was the untimely transformation of American energy policy. This article shows relationship between politics and energetics and explores, therefore, political methods, used in the USA in the process of developing the new energy politics in 1970 – 1975. It covers the history of this politics institutional and legal base creation. By the modern viewpoints it highlights the main problems and barriers to energy strategy formation, which slowed down its transformation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-170
Author(s):  
Gerardo Gurza-Lavalle

This work analyses the diplomatic conflicts that slavery and the problem of runaway slaves provoked in relations between Mexico and the United States from 1821 to 1857. Slavery became a source of conflict after the colonization of Texas. Later, after the US-Mexico War, slaves ran away into Mexican territory, and therefore slaveholders and politicians in Texas wanted a treaty of extradition that included a stipulation for the return of fugitives. This article contests recent historiography that considers the South (as a region) and southern politicians as strongly influential in the design of foreign policy, putting into question the actual power not only of the South but also of the United States as a whole. The problem of slavery divided the United States and rendered the pursuit of a proslavery foreign policy increasingly difficult. In addition, the South never acted as a unified bloc; there were considerable differences between the upper South and the lower South. These differences are noticeable in the fact that southerners in Congress never sought with enough energy a treaty of extradition with Mexico. The article also argues that Mexico found the necessary leeway to defend its own interests, even with the stark differential of wealth and resources existing between the two countries. El presente trabajo analiza los conflictos diplomáticos entre México y Estados Unidos que fueron provocados por la esclavitud y el problema de los esclavos fugitivos entre 1821 y 1857. La esclavitud se convirtió en fuente de conflicto tras la colonización de Texas. Más tarde, después de la guerra Mexico-Estados Unidos, algunos esclavos se fugaron al territorio mexicano y por lo tanto dueños y políticos solicitaron un tratado de extradición que incluyera una estipulación para el retorno de los fugitivos. Este artículo disputa la idea de la historiografía reciente que considera al Sur (en cuanto región), así como a los políticos sureños, como grandes influencias en el diseño de la política exterior, y pone en tela de juicio el verdadero poder no sólo del Sur sino de Estados Unidos en su conjunto. El problema de la esclavitud dividió a Estados Unidos y dificultó cada vez más el impulso de una política exterior que favoreciera la esclavitud. Además, el Sur jamás operó como unidad: había diferencias marcadas entre el Alto Sur y el Bajo Sur. Estas diferencias se observan en el hecho de que los sureños en el Congreso jamás se esforzaron en buscar con suficiente energía un tratado de extradición con México. El artículo también sostiene que México halló el margen de maniobra necesario para defender sus propios intereses, pese a los fuertes contrastes de riqueza y recursos entre los dos países.


2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-79
Author(s):  
Nargiza Sodikova ◽  
◽  
◽  

Important aspects of French foreign policy and national interests in the modern time,France's position in international security and the specifics of foreign affairs with the United States and the European Union are revealed in this article


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (10-3) ◽  
pp. 228-237
Author(s):  
Marina Shpakovskaya ◽  
Oleg Barnashov ◽  
Arian Mohammad Hassan Shershah ◽  
Asadullah Noori ◽  
Mosa Ziauddin Ahmad

The article discusses the features and main approaches of Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East. Particular attention is paid to the history of the development of Turkish-American relations. The causes of the contradictions between Turkey and the United States on the security issues of the Middle East region are analyzed. At the same time, the commonality of the approaches of both countries in countering radical terrorism in the territories adjacent to Turkey is noted. The article also discusses the priority areas of Turkish foreign policy, new approaches and technologies in the first decade of the XXI century.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document