MODERN STRATEGY OF “SOFT POWER” IN UZBEKISTAN

2020 ◽  
pp. 54-59
Author(s):  
Philipp Zakharov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asian Region ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
The Status ◽  
Current Leadership ◽  
The Republic

The foreign policy of Uzbekistan has become more dynamic and the country has moved confidently along the path of its interests since Shavkat M. Mirziyoyev came to power. The new President of Uzbekistan has launched an ambitious course to get the Republic the status of a regional leader. Uzbekistan actively uses soft power as one of the tools of its foreign policy. The author analyzes and compares the activities of the previous and current leadership of Uzbekistan in implementing integration processes and extending its influence to other states of the Central Asian region. In the conclusion, the author notes the pronounced course of modern Uzbekistan in interaction not only with the countries of the region, but also with such powers as Russia, China and the United States.

scholarly journals PECULIARITIES OF ARMENIAN NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES

2019 ◽  
pp. 4-13
Author(s):  
O. M. Andreeva ◽  
L. Avetisyan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
Armenian Diaspora ◽  
The World ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Republic

It is stated that the Armenian community in the USA is one of the largest and most influential in the world. It is proved that the numerous Armenian community of the USA plays a prominent role in the development of Armenian-American relations. It is shown that the urgent issues for the development of the Armenian Diaspora is to overcome contradictions and competition within the Armenian Diaspora, especially among its most active organizations dealing with political issues. It will solve specific foreign policy tasks and promote the unification of the Armenian Diaspora based on group identity and common goals. The Armenian organizations, acting separately, complicate integration and unification within the community itself, lead to competition and disunity in defending its interests not only in the United States, but also in the world. It is determined that numerous Armenian Diaspora, famous and influential personalities of Armenian origin, national organizations and lobby groups are the “soft power” of Armenia. The Diaspora provides significant and comprehensive support to Armenian diplomacy in advancing national interests, especially in matters of international recognition and condemnation of the Armenian Genocide, the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and overcoming the many economic problems that Armenia faces today. During the post-bipolar period, the Armenian Diaspora in America was quite active namely because of participation in various international organizations. To a certain extent, the Diaspora of Armenia followed the common tradition of using intergovernmental and intergovernmental associations to solve the problems of their states. On the other hand, the Armenian Diaspora confidently applied the method of "complementarily policy". This policy envisaged the deep involvement of the Republic of Armenia in the process of discussing and promoting projects of international organizations of various levels in the foreign policy of leading, influential states of the world and, first of all, the United States. In this regard, it is relevant to study the active and successful activities of the Armenian Diaspora in the United States. It is proved that Armenian Diaspora, with its rich international experience, seeks to integrate into American politics, which represents valuable experience for Ukraine, which has a significant Diaspora in the USA and Canada.

scholarly journals Foreign policy of Kyrgyzstan between Russia and the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (S4) ◽  
pp. 870-880
Author(s):  
Nurzat Namatbekova ◽  
Kalyynur T. Saliev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Multinational Corporations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Regional Powers ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
Current Leadership ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Political Economic

The relevance of the research topic is due to a number of factors. Studying the Central Asian region as a whole, as well as the individual states within it, it is necessary to take into account that this space is a place of intersection of the interests of major world political, economic players, as well as regional powers. The influence of these countries and large multinational corporations can be expressed in a variety of ways, both military and economic, which will be discussed in this article. In addition, it is necessary to take into account a number of challenges to regional (and in the future, global) security, which were either thrown in the past or remain relevant to the present. The purpose of the article is to create a descriptive description of the foreign policy of Kyrgyzstan, which is currently being implemented by the current leadership of the state, in addition, to build a forecast regarding the further steps of the Kyrgyz leadership to build a system of strategic and mutually beneficial cooperation primarily with the Russian Federation and the United States of America.

scholarly journals Features of the US Foreign Policy Towards the Central Asian States

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-81
Author(s):  
E. V. Kryzhko ◽  
P. I. Pashkovsky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Mineral Resources ◽  
Political Influence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
The Us

The article examines the features of the US foreign policy towards the Central Asian states in the post-bipolar period. The imperatives and constants, as well as the transformation of Washington’s Central Asian policy, have been characterized. It is shown that five Central Asian states have been in the focus of American foreign policy over the past thirty years. In the process of shaping the US foreign policy in Central Asia, the presence of significant reserves of energy and mineral resources in the region was of great importance. Therefore, rivalry for Caspian energy resources and their transportation routes came to the fore. In addition to diversifying transport and logistics flows and supporting American companies, the US energy policy in Central Asia was aimed at preventing the restoration of Russia’s economic and political influence, as well as countering the penetration of China, which is interested in economic cooperation with the countries of the region. During the period under review, the following transformation of mechanisms and means of Washington’s policy in the Central Asian direction was observed: the policy of “exporting democracy”; attempts to “nurture” the pro-American elite; striving to divide states into separate groups with permanent “appointment” of leaders; involvement in a unified military system to combat terrorism; impact on the consciousness of the population in order to destabilize geopolitical rivals; building cooperation on a pragmatic basis due to internal difficulties and external constraints. Central Asian states sympathized with the American course because of their interest in technology and investment. At the same time, these states in every possible way distanced themselves from the impulses of “democratization” from Washington. Kazakhstan was a permanent regional ally of the United States, to which Uzbekistan was striving to join. The second echelon in relations with the American side was occupied by Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. A feature of the positions of the Central Asian countries is the maximum benefit from cooperation with Washington while building good-neighborly relations with Russia and China, which is in dissonance with the regional imperatives of the United States. In the future, the American strategy in Central Asia will presumably proceed from the expediency of attracting regional allies and stimulating contradictions in order to contain geopolitical rivals in the region.

Dealing with Let and Escaping Pakistan’s Nuclear Coercion

2019 ◽  
pp. 197-214
Author(s):  
C. Christine Fair
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
Policy Tool ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
The Status

Given Pakistan's strategic commitments and the risk aversion of policy-makers in the United States and India, what options exist for these states to deal with LeT specifically, or more generally, the problem of Pakistan's reliance upon terrorism as a key foreign policy tool? Admittedly, the options are few and not without risk. In this chapter, I lay out three broad sets of options: maintain the status quo; manage the narrow problem of LeT through enhanced counter-terrorism efforts and leadership decapitation; and develop a new complement of compellent policies to undermine Pakistan's heretofore successful nuclear coercion strategy. India cannot compel Pakistan to cease and desist from using terrorism as a tool of policy on its own; rather, the United States will have to assume the heaviest burden in this effort. However, there is important--if limited--space for Indian action even if the United States, per its historical record, declines to pursue this course of action

Foreign Policy of Saudi Arabia

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed Nuruzzaman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Purchasing Power Parity ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Arab Countries ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
Power Parity ◽  
Military Support

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a major actor in Middle Eastern as well as global politics. Founded in 1932 by King Abd al-Aziz Al Saud, commonly known as Ibn Saud, the kingdom rests on an alliance between the Al Saud royal family and the followers of 18th-century Islamic revivalist Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. The strategic and geo-economic significance of the kingdom originates from its location and possession of huge oil resources. It borders the world’s two immensely significant strategic sea trade routes—the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, boasts of being the world’s largest oil exporter, and is home to Islam’s two holiest sites—Mecca and Medina. Though not a militarily significant power, the kingdom’s vast oil wealth has gradually and greatly elevated its status as an influential global economic and financial power. Currently, it is the world’s seventeenth largest economy ($1.774 trillion, 2017 estimate based on purchasing power parity, or PPP) and a member of the elite G20 club of world economic powers. The economic good fortune notwithstanding, the Saudis have traditionally depended on the United States, especially after World War II, for security guarantees and pursued a foreign policy of restraint guided by preferences for soft power tools like mediation in regional conflicts, financial aid and investments, and diplomatic influence. Relations with the United States, mostly smooth but occasionally rocky (for example, the 1973 Saudi-led oil embargo on the West and the 9/11 attacks), has remained the cornerstone of Saudi foreign policy. A series of recent developments, most notably the rise of regional rival Iran following the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, the contagious effects of Arab pro-democracy movements, and the proclamation of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in the summer of 2014 forced a major overhaul in Saudi foreign policy. A fundamental shift from the traditional policy of restraint to a proactive foreign policy took root from the early 2010s. King Abdullah bin Abd al-Aziz sent troops to Bahrain in March 2011 to stifle the Shiʿa -led pro-democracy movements; incumbent King Salman bin Abd al-Aziz, soon after ascending the throne in January 2015, launched a massive air attack on Yemen to punish the allegedly pro-Iran Houthi rebels, and doubled down financial and military support for the pro-Saudi rebel groups fighting against the Iran- and Russia-backed Bashar Al-Assad government in Syria. The kingdom has justified this proactive foreign policy approach as a necessary response to force Shiʿa powerhouse Iran to scale back its presence in Arab countries and to keep Iranian power under check. Lately, the kingdom is pursuing policies to court Israel to jointly square off with their common enemy Iran and weaken pro-Iran Lebanese militia group Hezbollah’s military capabilities.

scholarly journals Uzbek Perspectives on Eurasia

2019 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ambassador Abdusamat A. Khaydarov ◽  
Ambassador Surat M. Mirkasymov
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Asian Region ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Insight Into

This article is a brief overview of the main trends in the foreign policy of Uzbekistan under the new leadership of the Republic of Uzbekistan. The sections on bilateral relations and interaction of Uzbekistan with international organisations give an important insight into the dynamics of a strategically important Central Asian region and Eurasia as a whole. The article also reflects Uzbekistan’s perception of Eurasia as a region that is experiencing several geopolitical shifts.

U.S.-Uzbek Partnership and Democratic Reforms

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahram Akbarzadeh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
Positive Impression ◽  
Former Soviet Republics

In March 2002 the United States and Uzbekistan signed a Declaration of Strategic Partnership. This document marked a qualitative break in the international relations of Uzbekistan and, to some degree, the United States' relations with Central Asia. Uzbekistan had sought closer relations with the United States since its independence in September 1991. But the course of U.S.-Uzbek relations was not smooth. Various obstacles hindered Tashkent's progress in making a positive impression on successive U.S. administrations in the last decade of the twentieth century. Tashkent's abysmal human rights record and the snail's pace of democratic reforms made the notion of closer ties with Uzbekistan unsavoury for U.S. policy makers. At the same time, Washington was more concerned with developments in Russia. Other former Soviet republics, especially the five Central Asian states, were relegated to the periphery of the U.S. strategic outlook. But the dramatic events of September 11 and the subsequent U.S.-led “war on terror” changed the geopolitical landscape of Central Asia. The consequent development of ties between Tashkent and Washington was beyond the wildest dreams of Uzbek foreign policy makers. Virtually overnight, Uzbek leaders found themselves in a position to pursue an ambitious foreign policy without being slowed by domestic considerations.

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-279
Author(s):  
Marian Nash ◽  
(Leich)
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
International Bank ◽  
Legal Adviser ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Contemporary Practice

In response to a request from the court to the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, by a letter dated November 29, 1995, the United States submitted a Statement of Interest in Meridien International Bank Ltd. v. Government of the Republic of Liberia. The United States stated that the executive branch had determined that allowing the (second) Liberian National Transitional Government (LNTG II) access to American courts was consistent with U.S. foreign policy. The court, the United States maintained, should therefore accord that Government standing to assert claims and defenses in the action on behalf of the Republic of Liberia.

scholarly journals Bosnia and Herzegovina on the uncertain path towards the membership in NATO

2019 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-360
Author(s):  
Dragan Djukanovic
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Western Balkans ◽  
Policy Document ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
The Republic

The path of Bosnia and Herzegovina towards NATO membership began after its entry into the Partnership for Peace in November 2006. In just a few years, Bosnia and Herzegovina has achieved an intensive dialogue with NATO (2008) and the launch of negotiations on the Membership Action Plan (2010), which was however activated in December 2018. In the meantime, there have come to a discord between the key internal political factors in Bosnia and Herzegovina and particularly clear distinction between the Bosniak and Croat elites that unequivocally support NATO membership, and representatives of Serbs at the state level and the Republic of Srpska who are currently against it. Moreover, in October 2017, the National Assembly of the Republic of Srpska took a stand by which it proclaimed the military neutrality of this entity and in that regard insisted on consultations with the neighboring state - the Republic of Serbia. However, in March 2018, the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted a five-year strategic foreign policy document which stipulates that NATO membership is one of its foreign policy foundations. This document only added to the confusion regarding BiH?s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Following the general elections held in October 2018, this issue has now posed a specific problem over the formation of the Council of Ministers. Neighbors of Bosnia and Herzegovina - Serbia, Croatia and Montenegro have different opinions concerning the possibility of membership of this country in NATO. Accordingly, Croatia declaratively expresses support and emphasizes its interest in integrating BiH into NATO to prevent cross-border security challenges. Serbian officials are quite restrained about BiH?s entry into NATO, saying that this should be the result of the compromise of the elites of the three constituent nations. The global race between the United States and the Russian Federation represents a turning point in terms of BiH?s membership in NATO. The United States strongly supports this process, believing that it will secure the post-conflict Western Balkans project, while Russia retains the explicit position that any new enlargement poses a problem for its security.

scholarly journals POPULISME DAN KEBIJAKAN LUAR NEGERI DI INDONESIA

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
Imelda Masni Juniaty Sianipar
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Politics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Order ◽  
The West ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Western Countries ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Hugo Chavez

On October 20, 2014, Joko Widodo or familiarly known as Jokowi was sworn in as the Seventh President of the Republic of Indonesia. The majority of Indonesian society supports Jokowi because He is simple, honest and populist. The presence of populist leaders in international politics often attracts the attention of Western countries, particularly the United States. Populist leaders are often considered as the authoritarian leaders, anti-democratic, anti-Western, anti-foreign and anti-market. Hugo Chavez from Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from Iran are the examples. Chavez and Ahmadinejad are considered as threats by the United States because they challenge the United States led regional and global order. This article will examine the direction of Jokowi’s foreign policy. This article argues that Jokowi is a moderate populist leader. Jokowi is friendly to other countries including the West but still prioritize the national interests. Thus, Indonesia under Jokowi is not a threat to other countries and the West. In fact, they can work together to achieve their common national interests. Keywords: populism, foreign policy, Indonesia, jokowi, moderate populism

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document