Foreign Policy in Focus

A wise U.S. foreign policy would be one that is sensitive to Ukraine’s function as a bridge between Russia and the Western military alliance.

U.S. defense contractors were full participants in the last election cycle

Many see self-interest behind U.S. claims to be upholding high moral principles, and they also see hypocrisy in the U.S. government’s reluctance to be bound by the same instruments it is so ready to apply to others.

Even other Persian Gulf countries have moderated their positions toward Saddam in light of his ostentatious and highly popular condemnation of Israel’s violent retaliation against the new Palestinian Intifada.

While Latin America may be off the maps of key political pundits, the Bush administration faces immediate and extremely important policy challenges that will shape U.S.-Latin American relations over the course of President Bush’s tenure in the White House

For those who see George W. Bush as a dummy, the question is, who are his ventriloquists?

A Bush presidency portends a return to the blatantly anti-African policies of the Reagan-Bush years, characterized by a general disregard for black people and a perception of Africa as a social welfare case.

Bush and his East-European ties

The U.S. has a long history, spanning both Republican and Democratic administrations, of advocating openness and accountability at the IFIs.

There is little in the above record to suggest a major departure in Middle East policy when Bush takes office in January.

Foreign policy issues were mostly an afterthought during the 2000 presidential campaign, and they continue to take a back seat in President-elect George W. Bush’s discussions of the priorities of his incoming administration.

An analysis of defense under Bush, in light of the new defense secretary nominee.

It is difficult to say what any new administration’s policy will be by the end of the president’s term of office.

Smirked the Statesman of Calcutta, “Foreigners are watching with bemusement the spectacle of Americans tying themselves up in knots over election results.

As President Clinton goes to Vietnam this week, he carries with him a heavy weight of legacy from America’s longest war.

Contentious debates in Zimbabwe resonate across Southern Africa, reflecting the post-apartheid struggles for human rights, economic redistribution, and security.

With the likelihood that Texas Governor George W. Bush will become the next president of the United States, there needs to be serious thought as to what kind of foreign policy can be expected over the next four years.

In the recent debate on “permanent normal trade relations” (PNTR) with China, some progressives argued that failure to ratify the bilateral deal would constitute a retreat into “unilateralism.”

We should not accept, as fate, the feeling that, if our leaders do not lead, nothing can be done.

The United States should certainly maintain its commitment to Israel’s legitimate security needs. What needs to be questioned is the Clinton administration’s support for Israel’s ongoing occupation and its violations of basic human rights.