U. S. Foreign Policy and Northeast Asia

PS ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 866
Author(s):  
Robert A. Scalapino
2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henk Houweling ◽  
Mehdi Parvizi Amineh

AbstractThis Chapter studies continuity and innovation in the geopolitics of America in projecting power beyond legally recognized borders. Exporting cultural symbols expressing what America has on offer plays as crucial a role in the opening of societies beyond borders as commodity exports and the activities of the CIA and the US Air Force do. The historical part summarizes early experience and aims at uncovering continuity in the foreign policy of getting America offshore. The hypothesis is that the US objective of inserting power and influence in West and CEA is to deny to a single state, other than the US itself, or coalition of powers not including the US, the capability to set conditions for accessing the energy resources of West and CEA. Our argument is that such a dominating coalition of actors not including the US, would arise from the creation of overland energy and other transportation links among the industries of Western Europe, Russia, Turkey, Northeast Asia, and China, leading to economic unification of Eurasia. Economic unification by creating overland energy and transport links of much of Eurasia would deprive the US navy of its power to interdict supplies of oil and food to core industrial areas of Eurasia and Japan. The reassertion of Russian power in the Caucasus and Central Asia should therefore be prevented. The EU and Japan should be prevented from developing autonomous military power and be kept dependent on maritime transported energy and food supplies. China should not host pipelines connecting energy resources of West Asia and CEA with the industries of Japan and Korea, whose unification and economic and strategic merger with China should be prevented. Iraq, Iran, and the Saudi Kingdom should be reformed into powers friendly of the US. Energy unification by overland transport systems, leading to economic unification between industries of these entities, would give major powers of the Asian landmass the potential for setting conditions for the US state and non-state actors to access the resources on the largest of world's islands. Such a power shift between the world's continents would reduce the Western Hemisphere to a rather dependent offshore island between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.


2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 87-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Bromley

AbstractDuring the Cold War, United States (US) policies towards the Middle East and towards Afghanistan and Pakistan were largely unrelated. India's non-alignment and relations with the Soviet Union were reasons for close US-Pakistani relations, but the Chinese success in the war with India in 1962 also highlighted the importance to the West of India's position. 1979 marked a major turning point in US foreign policy towards the Middle East and Central Eurasia (CEA) because of the two events which were to shape so much of politics and geopolitics in those regions as well as in the wider international system: namely, the Iranian revolution in February and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December. Taken together, these developments posed a major challenge to US strategy towards the Soviet Union, to the wider Middle East and to relations with China, Pakistan, and India. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan during 1988/89, the US lost interest in Afghanistan and followed the policies of Pakistan for most of the 1990s. Then came 9/11 and President Musharraf took the historic decision to break with the Taliban. In March 2003, the US began its second war against Iraq. Whatever the rationale for the conflict, the outcome has been to turn the future of Iraq into a key fault-line of geopolitics in the Greater Middle East. Now, with the instability following the collapse of the Soviet Empire in CEA, the defeat of the Taliban and the ongoing future of Iraq, the US faces what the Department of Defense describes as an "arc of instability" running from the Middle East through CEA to Northeast Asia. This is the region that lies at the centre of planning for the "long war" announced in the Pentagon's 2006 quadrennial review.


1987 ◽  
Vol 20 (04) ◽  
pp. 866-872
Author(s):  
Robert A. Scalapino

Federalism ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 156-171
Author(s):  
V. V. Mikheev ◽  
S. V. Ignatev

Currently, the topic of strategic planning is very relevant for Russia. This applies not only foreign policy, but also certain economic, social, and humanitarian areas, which are all crucial for the development of the country. In this regard, it is interesting to study the world experience, in particular the experience of the Asian region countries. The article is devoted to analysis of the main components of the strategic planning of socio-economic and political development in China, Japan, and South Korea. This study is carried out with the help of a comprehensive study of the fundamental foreign policy documents of the above countries. The authors pay special attention to analyzing the latest Chinese  initiatives of the Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road Initiative of the XXI century, their possible link with similar Japanese, Russian and South Korean initiatives, problems and difficulties in their implementation. The authors express their vision of practical opportunities and risks for Russia in the light of new trends in strategic planning in the countries of the studied region.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document