This book describes how American international policy alternates between engagement and disengagement cycles in world affairs. These cycles provide a unique way to understand, assess, and describe fluctuations in America’s involvement or non-involvement overseas. In addition to its basic thesis, the book presents a fair-minded account of four presidents’ foreign policies in the post-Cold War period: George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. It suggests recurring sources of cyclical change, along with implications for the future. An engaged or involved foreign policy entails the use of military power and diplomatic pressure against other powers to secure American ends. A disengaged on noninvolved policy relies on normal economic and political interaction with other states, which seeks to disassociation from entanglements.
The United States has never felt at home abroad. The reason for this unease, even after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, is not frequent threats to American security. It is America's identity. The United States, its citizens believe, is a different country, a New World of divided institutions and individualistic markets surviving in an Old World of nationalistic governments and statist economies. In this Old World, the United States finds no comfort and alternately tries to withdraw from it and reform it. America cycles between ambitious internationalist efforts to impose democracy and world order, and more nationalist appeals to trim multilateral commitments and demand that the European and Japanese allies do more. In At Home Abroad, Henry R. Nau explains that America is still unique but no longer so very different. All the industrial great powers in western Europe (and, arguably, also Japan) are now strong liberal democracies. A powerful and peaceful new world exists beyond America's borders and anchors America's identity, easing its discomfort and ending the cycle of withdrawal and reform. Nau draws on constructivist and realist perspectives to show how relative national identities interact with relative national power to define U.S. national interests. He provides fresh insights for U.S. grand strategy toward various countries. In Europe, the identity and power perspective advocates U.S. support for both NATO expansion to consolidate democratic identities in eastern Europe and concurrent, but separate, great-power cooperation with Russia in the United Nations. In Asia, this perspective recommends a shift of U.S. strategy from bilateralism to concentric multilateralism, starting with an emerging democratic security community among the United States, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, India, and Taiwan, and progressively widening this community to include reforming ASEAN states and, if it democratizes, China. In the developing world, Nau's approach calls for balancing U.S. moral (identity) and material (power) commitments, avoiding military intervention for purely moral reasons, as in Somalia, but undertaking such intervention when material threats are immediate, as in Afghanistan, or material and moral stakes coincide, as in Kosovo.
In the late 1970s, the United States often seemed to be a superpower in decline. Battered by crises and setbacks around the globe, its post–World War II international leadership appeared to be draining steadily away. Yet just over a decade later, by the early 1990s, America’s global primacy had been reasserted in dramatic fashion. The Cold War had ended with Washington and its allies triumphant; democracy and free markets were spreading like never before. The United States was now enjoying its "unipolar moment"—an era in which Washington faced no near-term rivals for global power and influence, and one in which the defining feature of international politics was American dominance. How did this remarkable turnaround occur, and what role did U.S. foreign policy play in causing it? In this important book, Hal Brands uses recently declassified archival materials to tell the story of American resurgence. Brands weaves together the key threads of global change and U.S. policy from the late 1970s through the early 1990s, examining the Cold War struggle with Moscow, the rise of a more integrated and globalized world economy, the rapid advance of human rights and democracy, and the emergence of new global challenges like Islamic extremism and international terrorism. Brands reveals how deep structural changes in the international system interacted with strategies pursued by Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush to usher in an era of reinvigorated and in many ways unprecedented American primacy. Making the Unipolar Moment provides an indispensable account of how the post–Cold War order that we still inhabit came to be.
A gripping account of U.S.-Russian relations since the end of the Soviet Union The Limits of Partnership offers a riveting narrative on U.S.-Russian relations since the Soviet collapse and on the challenges ahead. It reflects the unique perspective of an insider who is also recognized as a leading expert on this troubled relationship. American presidents have repeatedly attempted to forge a strong and productive partnership only to be held hostage to the deep mistrust born of the Cold War. For the United States, Russia remains a priority because of its nuclear weapons arsenal, its strategic location bordering Europe and Asia, and its ability to support—or thwart—American interests. Why has it been so difficult to move the relationship forward? What are the prospects for doing so in the future? Is the effort doomed to fail again and again? Angela Stent served as an adviser on Russia under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and maintains close ties with key policymakers in both countries. Here, she argues that the same contentious issues—terrorism, missile defense, Iran, nuclear proliferation, Afghanistan, the former Soviet space, the greater Middle East—have been in every president's inbox, Democrat and Republican alike, since the collapse of the USSR. Stent vividly describes how Clinton and Bush sought inroads with Russia and staked much on their personal ties to Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin—only to leave office with relations at a low point—and how Barack Obama managed to restore ties only to see them undermined by a Putin regime resentful of American dominance and determined to restore Russia's great power status. The Limits of Partnership calls for a fundamental reassessment of the principles and practices that drive U.S.-Russian relations, and offers a path forward to meet the urgent challenges facing both countries.
There is much discussion these days about public diplomacy—communicating directly with the people of other countries rather than through their diplomats—but little information about what it actually entails. This book does exactly that by detailing the doings of a US Foreign Service cultural officer in five hot spots of the Cold War - Germany, Laos, Poland, Austria, and the Soviet Union - as well as service in Washington DC with the State Department, the Helsinki Commission of the US Congress, and the National Endowment for Democracy. Part history, part memoir, it takes readers into the trenches of the Cold War and demonstrates what public diplomacy can do. It also provides examples of what could be done today in countries where anti-Americanism runs high.
This book examines the use of military force as a coercive tool by the United States, using lessons drawn from the post-Cold War era (1991–2018). The volume reveals that despite its status as sole superpower during the post-Cold War period, US efforts to coerce other states failed as often as they succeeded. In the coming decades, the United States will face states that are more capable and creative, willing to challenge its interests and able to take advantage of missteps and vulnerabilities. By using lessons derived from in-depth case studies and statistical analysis of an original dataset of more than 100 coercive incidents in the post-Cold War era, this book generates insight into how the US military can be used to achieve policy goals. Specifically, it provides guidance about the ways in which, and the conditions under which, the US armed forces can work in concert with economic and diplomatic elements of US power to create effective coercive strategies. This book will be of interest to students of US national security, US foreign policy, strategic studies and International Relations in general.
For Latin America, the Cold War was anything but cold. Nor was it the so-called “long peace” afforded the world’s superpowers by their nuclear standoff. In this book, the first to take an international perspective on the postwar decades in the region, Hal Brands sets out to explain what exactly happened in Latin America during the Cold War, and why it was so traumatic. Tracing the tumultuous course of regional affairs from the late 1940s through the early 1990s, Latin America’s Cold War delves into the myriad crises and turning points of the period—the Cuban revolution and its aftermath; the recurring cycles of insurgency and counter-insurgency; the emergence of currents like the National Security Doctrine, liberation theology, and dependency theory; the rise and demise of a hemispheric diplomatic challenge to U.S. hegemony in the 1970s; the conflagration that engulfed Central America from the Nicaraguan revolution onward; and the democratic and economic reforms of the 1980s. Most important, the book chronicles these events in a way that is both multinational and multilayered, weaving the experiences of a diverse cast of characters into an understanding of how global, regional, and local influences interacted to shape Cold War crises in Latin America. Ultimately, Brands exposes Latin America’s Cold War as not a single conflict, but rather a series of overlapping political, social, geostrategic, and ideological struggles whose repercussions can be felt to this day.
On November 9, 1989, a mob of jubilant Berliners dismantled the wall that had divided their city for nearly forty years; this act of destruction anticipated the momentous demolition of the European communist system. Within two years, the nations of the former Eastern Bloc toppled their authoritarian regimes, and the Soviet Union ceased to exist, fading quietly into the shadows of twentieth century history and memory. By the end of 1991, the United States and other Western nations celebrated the demise of their most feared enemy and reveled in the ideological vindication of capitalism and liberal democracy. As author Hal Brands compellingly demonstrates, however, many American diplomats and politicians viewed the fall of the Soviet empire as a mixed blessing. For more than four decades, containment of communism provided the overriding goal of American foreign policy, allowing generations of political leaders to build domestic consensus on this steady, reliable foundation. From Berlin to Baghdad incisively dissects the numerous unsuccessful attempts to devise a new grand foreign policy strategy that could match the moral clarity and political efficacy of containment. Brands takes a fresh look at the key events and players in recent American history. In the 1990s, George H. W. Bush envisioned the United States as the guardian of a "new world order," and the Clinton administration sought the "enlargement" of America's political and economic influence. However, both presidents eventually came to accept, albeit grudgingly, that America's multifaceted roles, responsibilities, and objectives could not be reduced to a single fundamental principle. During the early years of the George W. Bush administration, it appeared that the tragedies of 9/11 and the subsequent "war on terror" would provide the organizing principle lacking in U.S. foreign policy since the containment of communism became an outdated notion. For a time, most Americans were united in support of Bush's foreign policies and the military incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq. As the swift invasions became grinding occupations, however, popular support for Bush's policies waned, and the rubric of the war on terror lost much of its political and rhetorical cachet. From Berlin to Baghdad charts the often onerous course of recent American foreign policy, from the triumph of the fall of the Berlin Wall to the tragedies of 9/11 and beyond, analyzing the nation's search for purpose in the face of the daunting complexities of the post–Cold War world.
Safeguarding Democratic Capitalism gathers together decades of writing by Melvyn Leffler, one of the most respected historians of American foreign policy, to address important questions about U.S. national security policy from the end of World War I to the global war on terror. Why did the United States withdraw strategically from Europe after World War I and not after World War II? How did World War II reshape Americans’ understanding of their vital interests? What caused the United States to achieve victory in the long Cold War? To what extent did 9/11 transform U.S. national security policy? Is budgetary austerity a fundamental threat to U.S. national interests? Leffler’s wide-ranging essays explain how foreign policy evolved into national security policy. He stresses the competing priorities that forced policymakers to make agonizing trade-offs and illuminates the travails of the policymaking process itself. While assessing the course of U.S. national security policy, he also interrogates the evolution of his own scholarship. Over time, slowly and almost unconsciously, Leffler’s work has married elements of revisionism with realism to form a unique synthesis that uses threat perception as a lens to understand how and why policymakers reconcile the pressures emanating from external dangers and internal priorities. An account of the development of U.S. national security policy by one of its most influential thinkers, Safeguarding Democratic Capitalism includes a substantial new introduction from the author.
Since the disintegration of the Ottoman State, the Balkan region is one of the most penetrated, divided, and unstable regions in the world. Therefore, the term Balkanization, which has a strong negative connotation, began to refer to the division of a larger region into many small and hostile political entities and the instability of the region as a result of many ethnic and religious movements and conflicts. Ironically, in today’s unstable world, the Balkans is relatively stable and peaceful, especially compared with the chaotic Middle East. However, the current peaceful atmosphere is quite vulnerable and fragile; it seems that historical hatred and enmity may restart anytime. Unfortunately, today there are many uncertainties in the Balkans and hence the region is at a new crossroads, not only at the domestic level, but also at the international level. At the domestic level, the Balkan countries are in a longtime transitory period and so far, the regional countries could not complete this process. On the one hand, most of the countries in the region have not finished their state transformation and institutionalization processes as yet. They need to accelerate their respective reformist policies and complete their respective transition periods. In particular, legal changes are required to consolidate their state institutions. The most dramatic example is the complex political and administrative structure in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has never functioned well since its establishment by the Dayton Agreement. Due to the veto power of the three main ethnic groups, namely Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats, in the legislative and administrative institutions at different levels of government, it is almost impossible to make necessary decisions to govern the country. In order to get rid of the administrative deadlock, they must take confidence building measures and establish a functional state system. On the other hand, the Balkan countries have many economic problems such as poverty, unemployment, underdevelopment, and emigration. There are too many structural economic problems, but they have too few resources to mobilize. Because of the high unemployment rate, most of the qualified population of the Balkan countries migrates to the developed European countries such as Italy, Germany, and Switzerland. As a result of many detrimental developments in social and political life including ethnic tensions, population problems, and unemployed youth, the future of the Balkan states is still ambiguous. At the regional level, the Balkan countries have been experiencing many problems emanating from the dismemberment of the region during the modern period. The Balkans was politically divided twice: the first time (the collapse of the Ottoman State) was in the late-19th and early-20th centuries, and the second (the collapse of Yugoslavia) was in the late 20th century. After the disintegration of Yugoslavia, national and ethnic enmities were renewed and quickly resulted in severe violent clashes, mass killings, including the genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. A number of regional issues have remained unsolved and the initiated solution processes were stopped. One of the main regional crises is the normalization of relations between Serbia and Kosovo. The EU stipulates the normalization with Kosovo as a precondition of Serbia’s accession to the Union. Unless it recognizes the state of Kosovo, it is impossible for Serbia to become a full member of the EU. However, for the moment, there is no concrete improvement in the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue process. In spite of the continuance of negative relations among some regional actors, there are some positive developments as well. The solution of the Macedonian name dispute in 2018 was a historical moment for the region, because it demonstrated that the regional states have an intention to solve political problems and provide alternative solutions. At the global level, the Balkan region continues to attract many global powers such as the U.S., the EU, China, and Russia. Each global power has its own strategy and perception of the region. The most involved global actor is the EU, who wants to integrate the region with itself and thus bring stability and peace to this contiguous region. Therefore, after the regional stability was secured with the support of the global powers, most Balkan countries began to develop cooperative relations with the EU and its leading member states, because the first priority and strategic preference of most Balkan countries is the integration with the EU. Their expectations from the EU membership are economic prosperity and the prevention of future regional clashes. On the other hand, the U.S. has been trying to integrate the Balkan countries with NATO, thus decreasing the influence of other global powers. Besides Greece which became a member in 1952, six Balkan countries, namely Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Croatia, Slovenia, and Montenegro, have also more recently become NATO members. Some other countries such as North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina are in the accession process. NATO membership, together with the EU membership, is the most important positive agenda of the Balkan countries. Russia has had an imaginary vision and historical patronage over the Balkans since the second half of the 19th century. Religious, ethnic, and linguistic affinity was the main motivation for Russia to improve its relations with the region, which was an alternative route for reaching the warm seas. However, nowadays Russia faces challenges from the Western countries, who have taken the lead in the region. The integration process with both the EU and NATO limited the Russian influence in the Balkans. Furthermore, Russia has insufficient resources to solve the domestic political and economic problems of the regional countries. Another global power that has begun to show up in the region is China. The Chinese presence in the Balkans is mainly in the economic sphere, especially its investments in infrastructure and energy sectors. Compared with the other three global actors, the Chinese role in the region is quite limited. The Balkans is almost at the heart of the European continent; therefore, it is very difficult for China to influence regional politics as much as the Western countries. However, since the Balkans is a penetrated region, the impact of global rivalry is very noticeable in the region. The conflictual policies of global powers may activate the dormant regional fault lines and trigger the renewal of ethnic and religious conflicts. This new issue of Insight Turkey brings to the readers various manuscripts which touch upon domestic and regional issues and the impact of the external actors, i.e. EU, NATO, Russia, China, and Turkey, in the Balkans. As mentioned above, the normalization of the relations between Kosovo and Serbia are crucial for the region as it may prove to be a regional destabilizer in the future. This issue gained more attention after the discussions on a possible territorial exchange between the two states. Aleksander Zdravkovski and Sabrina P. Ramet discuss this topic through historical and political lenses and contend that this process can have serious repercussions, both in the Western Balkans and internationally. The name dispute between North Macedonia and Greece is another important topic that impacts the whole Balkans region. In their commentaries, Cvete Koneska and Zhidas Daskalovski bring different perspectives on this issue, yet both of them raise questions regarding the success of the agreement. Albania is one of the most important states in the region and in recent years has been suffering from political turmoil and economic downturn which can very easily be translated into regional instability. Isa Blumi in his article analyses the role of the U.S., NATO, and the EU in the Albanian slide and cautions that the current situation may turn violent. Croatia, another important state in the Balkans considering its experience with the EU, is at the center of Senada Šelo Šabić and Emir Suljagić’s articles. Croatia joined the EU in 2013 and this was considered an important step for all the Western Balkans because Croatia would serve as an example for their accession. However, Senada Šelo Šabić contends that Croatia’s experience of the EU accession and membership is only partially relevant for the Western Balkans’ EU enlargement, mainly due to its domestic issues. Emir Suljagić, on the other hand, focuses on the Croatian interference in Bosnia and Hercegovina and brings to the readers a new viewpoint in terms of the “otherization” of Bosnia’s Muslim population. In order to explain this, Suljagić uses the notion of antemurale Christianitatis, which has been visible in Croatian politics since the 15th century. The external interventions have never been missing in the Balkans. Especially since the dissolution of Yugoslavia, transatlantic relations have become crucial for the region. In this context, Oya Dursun-Özkanca’s article argues that NATO accession acts as a prelude to the eventual EU accession, ensuring that the countries stay the course of engaging in reforms and contributing to Euro-Atlantic security while confirming their commitment to democracy. Yet, in recent years, other actors –Russia, China, and Turkey– have started to play an important role in the region, both politically and economically. While a withdrawal of Russia came to the fore after the fall of communism in the Balkans, lately it is trying to regain position in the region. Vsevolod Samokhvalov in his article argues that Russia and the Balkans states are exploring new ways of cooperation considering that Russia is applying a more assertive foreign policy, while the Balkan states are being more pragmatic. China is not lagging behind Russia in the Balkans; yet it is following a different path from Russia as China is acting generally on economic grounds. Within this framework, Liu Zuokui analyses China’s investments in the Balkans and its impact in the region. Lastly, Turkey is one of the main countries whose role in the region is increasing day by day. The commentary of Mehmet Uğur Ekinci provides a comprehensive analysis of Turkey’s Balkans policy; while Ilya Roubanis discusses Turkey’s role in the Balkans as part of the broader narrative of European integration. Yet, Turkey’s policies in the Balkans have not been unchallenged by other powers. The EU and especially Germany have started to see Turkey as an emerging threat in the region, especially in terms of economy. Elif Nuroğlu and Hüseyin H. Nuroğlu focus exactly on this issue and argue that even while currently the commercial competition between Turkey and Germany in the Balkans is not serious; in the forthcoming years Turkey has the potential to be a serious competitor to Germany. Religion is an important aspect of Turkey’s foreign policy; yet, this is true for Saudi Arabia as well. Focusing on the case of Bulgaria, Ismail Numan Telci and Aydzhan Yordanova Peneva evaluate the activities of Turkey and Saudi Arabia in the religious sphere. By doing so, the article explains the motivations behind such actions and addresses the impact of this activism on the Bulgarian society. The last article of this issue is that of Muhidin Mulalic, where he evaluates the trilateral relations between Turkey, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina and concludes that this tripartite diplomatic relation has been quite successful and has resulted in successful economic and trade cooperation. To conclude, the Balkans once considered as a powder keg is currently in a state of relative stability. Yet, this stability to some extent is threatened by the internal domestic and regional issues. Concurrently, the Balkans strategic position attracts external powers to intervene in the regional affairs. All this considered, the Balkan states find themselves at a crossroads and consequently are trying to create a balance between their domestic, regional, and international affairs. This issue of Insight Turkey aims at analyzing the above mentioned issues and provide to its readers a general framework of the most important and current events in the Balkans.
