The Obligation of Empire: United States\u27 Grand Strategy for a New Century

Some of the nation\u27s most respected scholars of international affairs examine the debates over U.S. grand strategy in light of U.S. security policies and interests in tactical regions around the world. The contributors begin by describing the four grand strategies currently competing for dominance of U.S. foreign policy: neo-isolationism argues that the United States should not become involved in conflicts outside specifically defined national interests selective engagement proposes that the United States, despite its position as the world\u27s only remaining superpower, should limit its involvement in foreign affairs cooperative security advocates that the United States is not and should not act as an imperial country primacy asserts that the United States is an empire and therefore it should conduct an expansive foreign policy. Focusing on regions that present new challenges to U.S. grand strategy, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, the contributors offer the most current examinations of U.S. policies and assess the effectiveness of competing strategies in each region. The Obligation of Empire offers an innovative set of foreign policy initiatives that explore the tensions between global agendas and regionalist approaches. Contributors: Andrew J. Bacevich, Doug Bandow, Dale Davis, Thomas Donnelly, James J. Hentz, Clifford Kiracofe, Charles Kupchan, Jeffrey Stark, S. Frederick Starr, and Brantley Womack. James J. Hentz, associate professor of international studies at the Virginia Military Institute, is the coeditor of New and Critical Security and Regionalism: Beyond the Nation State. A balanced analysis of the relative strengths and weaknesses of privacy, selective engagement, liberal internationalism, and isolationism as grand strategies for the U.S. in the post-9/11 world. . . . Sophisticated yet still accessible to undergraduates just beginning to study U.S. foreign policy. Recommended. —Choice An insightful guide for US foreign policy analysis. . . . Succeeds in broadening the scope of understanding by offering a regional perspective through which more practical approaches can be identified. —Journal of Conflict Studieshttps://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_political_science_international_relations/1024/thumbnail.jp

Major flaws in conflict prevention policies towards Africa : the conceptual deficits of international actors’ approaches and how to overcome them

Current thinking on African conflicts suffers from misinterpretations oversimplification, lack of focus, lack of conceptual clarity, state-centrism and lack of vision). The paper analyses a variety of the dominant explanations of major international actors and donors, showing how these frequently do not distinguish with sufficient clarity between the ‘root causes’ of a conflict, its aggravating factors and its triggers. Specifically, a correct assessment of conflict prolonging (or sustaining) factors is of vital importance in Africa’s lingering confrontations. Broader approaches (e.g. “structural stability”) offer a better analytical framework than familiar one-dimensional explanations. Moreover, for explaining and dealing with violent conflicts a shift of attention from the nation-state towards the local and sub-regional level is needed.Aktuelle Analysen afrikanischer Gewaltkonflikte sind häufig voller Fehlinterpretationen (Mangel an Differenzierung, Genauigkeit und konzeptioneller Klarheit, Staatszentriertheit, fehlende mittelfristige Zielvorstellungen). Breitere Ansätze (z. B. das Modell der Strukturellen Stabilität) könnten die Grundlage für bessere Analyseraster und Politiken sein als eindimensionale Erklärungen. häufig differenzieren Erklärungsansätze nicht mit ausreichender Klarheit zwischen Ursachen, verschärfenden und auslösenden Faktoren. Insbesondere die richtige Einordnung konfliktverlängernder Faktoren ist in den jahrzehntelangen gewaltsamen Auseinandersetzungen in Afrika von zentraler Bedeutung. Das Diskussionspapier stellt die große Variationsbreite dominanter Erklärungsmuster der wichtigsten internationalen Geber und Akteure gegenüber und fordert einen Perspektivenwechsel zum Einbezug der lokalen und der subregionalen Ebene für die Erklärung und Bearbeitung gewaltsamer Konflikte

How nations cooperate: Institutional cooperation in Southern Africa. SADC(C), and South Africa in transition

Regional integration/cooperation theory focuses on how institutions affect actors\u27 expectations, and not on how institutions reflect actors\u27 expectations and does not address why one form of cooperation is chosen over another. This dissertation examines how states\u27 interests shape processes of cooperation. The Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC) and transitional South Africa are used to examine institutional cooperation in southern Africa. SADCC\u27s original institutionalization, and its change to the Southern African Development Community (SADC), shows that states\u27 interests determine how cooperation is institutionalized. The chapters on South Africa continue this theme by examining the domestic and international determinants of South Africa\u27s regional policy. It is argued that South Africa\u27s regional interdependence determines its preferences for how cooperation should be institutionalized in southern Africa. The research was completed during an academic year in South Africa, 1993-1994. Data collected includes: approximately 50 interviews with government, political and business leaders; relevant policy documents; and indicators of transitional South Africa\u27s policy debate (i.e newspapers)

How nations cooperate: Institutional cooperation in Southern Africa. SADC(C), and South Africa in transition

Regional integration/cooperation theory focuses on how institutions affect actors\u27 expectations, and not on how institutions reflect actors\u27 expectations and does not address why one form of cooperation is chosen over another. This dissertation examines how states\u27 interests shape processes of cooperation. The Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC) and transitional South Africa are used to examine institutional cooperation in southern Africa. SADCC\u27s original institutionalization, and its change to the Southern African Development Community (SADC), shows that states\u27 interests determine how cooperation is institutionalized. The chapters on South Africa continue this theme by examining the domestic and international determinants of South Africa\u27s regional policy. It is argued that South Africa\u27s regional interdependence determines its preferences for how cooperation should be institutionalized in southern Africa. The research was completed during an academic year in South Africa, 1993-1994. Data collected includes: approximately 50 interviews with government, political and business leaders; relevant policy documents; and indicators of transitional South Africa\u27s policy debate (i.e newspapers)