‘At least 2001’: US security policy and exit strategy in Bosnia

This article describes and analyzes the United States’ security conduct in Bosnia since the Dayton Accords of November 1995, and its involvement in the multilateral conflict resolution and peacebuilding effort. From this analysis, the conclusion is that it will be difficult for the US to exit from its engagement in Bosnia. Various explanations are offered for the formulation of American policy: norms and values, alliance politics and the role of NATO, bureaucratic and congressional influence, as well as presidential leadership. The most important factor remains affirmation of US leadership to make the peacebuilding mission in Bosnia a successful one.     

The European Union’s common foreign and security policy reforms and its implications for Northeast Asia

The European Union (EU) is at a turning point. With the bipolar order of the Cold War fast becoming a distant memory, the European Union must quickly establish itself on the global stage before it loses the opportunity to do so. With Northeast Asia fast emerging as a new economic giant and political center for world affairs, the EU must reform its Common Foreign and Security Policy in order to develop a reputation and image as a global actor of soft power, based on its long-standing values and peaceful diplomacy. However, despite major reforms in the Lisbon Treaty (2009), the EU has not been able to form cohesion amongst its members, thus hindering its progress in achieving such international recognition. This paper therefore analyses the reforms taken place so far and suggests further reforms that will build a strong foundation for a united and cohesive foreign policy. It will then look at how the reformed framework will allow the EU to establish itself as a global actor in political affairs, in particular in Northeast Asia.     

The common European security and defence policy and the ‘third‐country’ issue

The Common European Security and Defence Policy (CESDP) of the European Union (EU) was launched in 1999 and has been perceived as a landmark step toward European security cooperation, particularly in the field of crisis management. Still in its early stages, some difficult issues have become apparent. Of these, the so‐called ‘third‐country’ issue may prove to be among the most significant. This problem refers to the necessity of associating states outside the EU with CESDP. In this regard, three states stand out — the United States, Turkey and Russia — and this article considers their concerns and the European response in detail. This is prefaced by a general overview of how the third‐country problem emerged and what the EU has done to address it. It concludes by suggesting that third‐country considerations could well determine where and how EU‐led missions operating under the auspices of CESDP are deployed.     

‘Groping toward coexistence’: US China policy during the Johnson years

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, vol. XXX, China (United States Government Printing Office: Washington, 1998).     

Extreme nationalism and violent discourses in Scandinavia: ‘the resistance’, ‘traitors’, and ‘foreign invaders’

This is a comparative analysis of neo‐Nazis and anti‐immigration activists in Norway, Denmark and Sweden with regard to their rhetoric and justifications for violence against ‘foreigners’ and political opponents, and actual patterns of violence and harassment. Different traditions of nationalism in the three Scandinavian countries, and highly dissimilar historical experiences ‐ especially during World War II ‐influence the rhetorical strategies of the two types of extreme nationalists, and their respective abilities to appropriate national symbols. However, based on divergent historical analogies, most extreme nationalist groups present themselves as a ‘resistance movement’ fighting ‘foreign invaders’ and ‘traitors’.     

The “sleep-walking giant” awakes: resetting German foreign and security policy

A quarter of a century after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the role of the Bundesrepublik in Europe is once again the focus of international scrutiny and academic debate. Having long been seen as a “reflexive multilateralist” and “tamed power”, with a “leadership avoidance reflex” and a “civilian power” strategic culture, the Eurozone crisis has pushed the Berlin Republic into the role of “reluctant hegemon”. At the same time, however, Germany has been widely criticized by its EU and NATO partners for its half-hearted commitment to the Afghan war and its failure to support its allies in the Libyan intervention. Prompted by a call by Federal President Joachim Gauck in 2013 for Germany to live up to its international responsibilities, new themes in foreign and security policy have recently emerged. At the Munich Security Conference in February 2014, a more active and engaged approach was outlined by both the Foreign and Defence Ministers. This paper will examine recent shifts in the discourse of German foreign and security policy, and considers the extent to which these have been accompanied by significant shifts in policy outcome and implementation – particularly in the light of the Ukrainian crisis.     

Role of business in India’s foreign policy

The paper examines if the business sector in India has had a tangible influence on India’s foreign policy. It suggests several factors for which private business failed to have any influence on India’s foreign policy during the first three decades after Independence. It suggests a conceptual typology of the principal drivers of India’s foreign policy, which, according to the author, provides an effective framework for understanding the role of the private sector since it began to wield some influence in the mid-1980s. The paper uses this threefold classification to argue that, in the period from the 1980s to today, contrary to the general perception, the role of the Indian business sector (and especially of industry associations) on India’s foreign policy has been marginal and restricted to some specific sectors.     

The US–Russian security ‘reset’: implications for Central-Eastern Europe and Germany

Abstract

The article examines the reactions of selected European states to the US-performed ‘reset’ in relations with Russia and explores the ways in which they have been adapting to the new set-up. The article is divided into three parts: after the discussion of the substantive continuity and limited change in US foreign and security policy (USFSP), the multilateral and bilateral dimensions of USFSP procedure are examined through John Ruggie's theoretical observations. The second part of the article deals with implications of the USFSP for Central-Eastern European countries. This part begins with a discussion of Russian attempts to wheedle Europe into embracing its plans for new European security architecture. The next section sheds light on the unexpected process of strategic realignment of the region (USA/NATO/EU/CSDP) and simultaneous transformation of the special relationship with the USA into ‘normal life’. The third part of the article tackles the implications of heightened US–Russian bilateralism for Germany. Authors' findings, many of them based on conducted elite interviews, suggest the contrary process, namely Germany's strengthened multilateral commitment to the EU and specifically to European Security and Defence Policy, limiting the bilateral option to energy trade with Russia. What follows are concluding remarks.     

Contextualizing change in Turkish foreign policy: the promise of the ‘two-good’ theory

The level of activism in Turkey's foreign policy has reached unprecedented levels during the country's modern history. This increased activism contrasts starkly with Turkey's characteristically traditional status quo orientation evinced during the Cold War. This study aims to establish a theoretical foundation to explain this multifaceted change in Turkish foreign policy. In doing so, it contends that the ‘two-good’ theory of foreign policy renders considerable analytical leverage for contextualizing recent changes in Turkish foreign policy. The theory posits that change in a country's foreign policy is contingent upon its willingness and capability to actively promote its interests. Furthermore, the ‘two-good’ theory postulates the method a country might employ to implement its foreign policy is a function of these two factors as well. The theory leads to two testable hypotheses regarding Turkish foreign policy. This study supports these hypotheses with qualitative and quantitative evidence.     

Transgovernmental networks and rationalist outputs? The partial social construction of EU foreign policy

ABSTRACT

The European Union (EU) foreign policy has gone beyond intergovernmentalism. It is largely formulated by (Brussels-based) national officials, in a process characterised by a high number of cooperative practices, diffuse sentiments of group loyalty and possibly argumentative procedures. Yet, in many cases, the most likely output of this process reflects the lowest common denominator of states’ positions or the preferences of the biggest states. The article intends to investigate this puzzle. In the first part, it corroborates its existence by using answers from an original database of 138 questionnaires and 37 interviews with EU negotiators. Next, it argues that cooperative practices remain often subordinated to nationally oriented ways of doing things. Consequentialist practices perform an anchoring function, in that they define the parameters around which (social) practices operate. The last section looks more closely at the sites of and meanings attached to EU foreign policy-making. By discussing national diplomats’ conspicuous leeway in Brussels, it also argues that negotiating practices are performed through a mix of partial agency and persistence of national dispositions. On the whole, changing practices is difficult, even in dense and largely autonomous settings such as EU foreign policy. The social construction of EU foreign policy occurs only to a partial extent.     

India’s public opinion and foreign policy: a view from New Delhi

ABSTRACT

Incoherent, or even nonexistent, is the common criticism leveled at India’s public opinion. Given this criticism, scholars of Indian foreign policy often do not consider public attitudes in their research. Contrary to this, I trace the evolution of India’s public opinion and foreign policy connections since the early 1990s to demonstrate that the Indian public has opinions on foreign policy and that those opinions have limited but growing impact on the country’s foreign policy.     

Promotion of democracy as a foreign policy instrument of ‘Europe’: Limits to international idealism

The promotion of democracy abroad was a much published issue in ‘European’ foreign policy during the 1990s. Based on five case studies, this article argues that the policy had very clear limitations to it. The limits were mainly imposed by the high priority given to security, and secondly they were the result of the institutional structure and the political‐bureaucratic culture of the European Community. However, it would be wrong to conclude that the policy declarations on democracy were not important to the European Community/European Union and to the member states. The issue was definitely important, but that was because it served other purposes. First, the promotion of democracy abroad was conceived as one among a number of instruments promoting European security in the post‐cold war era. Secondly, promotion of democracy internationally contributed to the higher profile in world affairs that Europe had sought since 1958. And thirdly, this international profile might have pushed the integration process forward within Europe.     

Indian and Chinese foreign policy imperatives and strategies vis-à-vis Afghanistan

In this article, the authors conduct a comparative review of the strategic imperatives driving Sino-Indian policy on Afghanistan in the post-2014 scenario. The article argues that divergent strategic imperatives make cooperation difficult and/or unlikely. This analysis is based on a broader consideration of both contemporary history and geopolitical dynamics shaping the foreign policy considerations of these two countries, and an assessment of the impact of ongoing bi-lateral and regional aspirations. The authors begin by highlighting the salient dynamics that have historically characterized and driven Indian and Chinese foreign policy in general and on Afghanistan. They find that Afghanistan, although not a primary focus of either state’s foreign or security policy, historically, is increasing in importance for both; India and China compete on a range of economic and security issues.     

‘The camp’ and ‘the lesser evil’: humanitarianism in Sri Lanka

This article examines the 2009 humanitarian disaster in Sri Lanka through fieldwork conducted at the time and through theoretical lenses supplied by Arendt, Foucault and Agamben. The article suggests that this catastrophe represents a salutary example of the consequences of promoting a ‘lesser evil’ in the context of a government-fuelled human rights disaster. In line with Arendt's critique of the ‘lesser evil’, the case illustrates the limits to prioritising compromise, quietude and ‘access’. At the same time, while ‘democracy’ and ‘terror’ have frequently been posed as opposites, this tragedy shows how democratic forces, nationally and even internationally, can embrace something that approximates to Agamben's ‘camp’, a state of emergency in which entire groups of people lose their rights and can, at the extreme, be killed with impunity. Meanwhile, a pervasive official language of ‘care’ and ‘humanitarianism’ (corresponding to Foucault's politics of ‘life’) not only proved entirely consistent with ethnic cleansing and the large-scale killing of civilians; it also actively assisted in this endeavour by creating a smokescreen behind which massacres could be carried out.