DOCSLIB.ORG

Hearts and Minds: US Foreign Policy and Anti-Americanism in the Middle East an Analysis of Public Perceptions from 2002-2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hearts and Minds: US Foreign Policy and Anti-Americanism in the Middle East an Analysis of Public Perceptions from 2002-2011 Wright State University CORE Scholar Browse all Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2012 Hearts and Minds: US Foreign Policy and Anti-Americanism in the Middle East An Analysis of Public Perceptions from 2002-2011 Joshua I. Cummins Wright State University Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all Part of the International Relations Commons Repository Citation Cummins, Joshua I., "Hearts and Minds: US Foreign Policy and Anti-Americanism in the Middle East An Analysis of Public Perceptions from 2002-2011" (2012). Browse all Theses and Dissertations. 699. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all/699 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Browse all Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HEARTS AND MINDS: US FOREIGN POLICY AND ANTI-AMERICANISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST AN ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS FROM 2002-2011 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts By JOSHUA ISAAC CUMMINS B.A. History, Wright State University, 2010 2012 Wright State University WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES December 4, 2012 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Joshua Cummins ENTITLED Hearts and Minds: US Foreign Policy and Anti-Americanism in the Middle East BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Arts. ______________________________ Vaughn Shannon, Ph.D. Thesis Director ______________________________ Laura M. Luehrmann, Ph.D. Director, Master of Arts Program in International and Comparative Politics Committee on Final Examination: ___________________________________ Vaughn Shannon, Ph.D. Department of Political Science ___________________________________ Donna Schlagheck, Ph.D. Department of Political Science ___________________________________ Awad Halabi, Ph.D. Department of History ______________________________ Andrew T. Hsu, Ph.D. Dean, School of Graduate Studies ABSTRACT Cummins, Joshua Isaac. M.A., Department of Political Science, Wright State University, 2012. “Hearts and Minds: US Foreign Policy and Anti-Americanism in the Middle East, An analysis of Public Perceptions from 2002-2011”. The literature on anti-Americanism in the Middle East suggests that there is a strong relationship between US foreign policy and public attitudes of the United States in the region. This study analyzes Middle Eastern public opinion of the United States from 2002 until 2011, while using quantitative and qualitative analysis to determine whether US foreign policy in the Middle East correlates with approval levels of the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine if US foreign policy measures such as US support for oppressive regimes, US support for Israel, and US intervention in domestic affairs affects the way in which the average Middle Eastern publics view the United States. The study finds that there were quantitative and qualitative correlations between the three independent variables and anti-Americanism levels in the Middle East with the largest drop in approval of the US coming in 2003 after the US invasion of Iraq. The case of Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution also shows an effective policy that can be applied to the regime changes caused by the “Arab Spring”. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ……………… . 1 The Research Questions. .3 Literature Review. .4 The “Their Fault” Argument . .9 The “Our Fault” Argument . .12 Case Selection . .22 Variables and Operationalization. .23 Research Design. .26 II. UNITED STATES SUPPORT FOR OPPRESSIVE REGIMES . .31 History of US Support . 32 Which Middle Eastern Regimes are Oppressive? . .45 Analysis of US Support from 2002-2011 . .46 Analysis of Anti-Americanism from 2002-2011 . 52 Analysis of Arab Spring and Possible Policy Shifts. 67 III. UNITES STATES SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL. .72 History of US Support . 73 Analysis of US Support from 2002-2011 . .92 Analysis of Diplomatic Statements form 2002-2011. 96 IV. UNITES STATES INTEVENTION IN THE MIDDL EAST . .105 History of US Intervention . 108 Analysis of US Intervention from 2002-2011 . 126 iv V. CONCLUSION . 134 Analyzing the Hypotheses . .135 US Foreign Policy and Anti-Americanism Theory . 141 US Foreign Policy Implications . 142 Suggestions for Future Research . 146 APPENDIX . .150 BIBLIOGRAPHY . .182 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.1: Independent Variables and Operationalization . 26 2.1: Oppressive Regimes in the Middle East 2002-2011 . 46 2.2: Total Foreign Military Sales (FMS) in Millions. .47 2.3: Total Foreign Economic Aid (ESF) in Millions . .. .49 2.4a: Total International Trade Exports in Millions . .50 2.4b: Total International Trade Imports in Millions . .51 2.5: Yearly Totals of Anti-Americanism Levels in the Middle East . 53 2.6: Regional and Country by Country Correlation Data . .61 2.7: United States’ Support for Lebanon, 2002-2011 . .66 2.8: United States’ Support for Lebanon, Mean Totals . 66 3.1: United States’ Support for Israel, 2002-2011 . 93 3.2: Regional and Country by Country Correlation Data . .95 4.1: Operational Indicators from 2002-2011 . .126 4.2: Regional and Country by Country Correlation Data . .129 4.3: US Intervention and Anti-Americanism Levels . 131 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1: Yearly Totals of US Favorability Levels in the Middle East . 54 2.2 Regional Mean of US Favorability, 2002-2011 . 55 2.3: Level of approval for the US in Egypt, 2002-2011 . .56 2.3: Level of approval for the US in Jordan, 2002-2011 . 57 2.5: Level of approval for the US in Morocco, 2002-2011 . 58 2.6 Level of approval for the US in Saudi Arabia, 2002-2011 . 59 2.7 Level of approval for the US in Turkey, 2002-2011 . 60 2.8 Level of approval for the US in Lebanon, 2002-2011 . 63 vii LIST OF ACRONYMS AIOC: Anglo Iranian Oil Company ARAMCO: Arab American Oil Company AWACS: Airborne Warning and Control System BP: British Petroleum CIA: Central Intelligence Agency CPA: Coalition Provisional Authority ESF: Economic Support Funds FMS: Foreign Military Sales JSAP: Joint Security Assistance Planning Group NGO: Non-Governmental Organization OPEC: Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries PA: Palestinian Authority PLO: Palestinian Liberation Organization PNC: Palestinian National Council SAVAK: Sāzemān-e Ettelā'āt va Amniyat-e Keshvar SOCAL: Californian Oil Company TEXACO: Texas Oil Company UN: United Nations UNESCO: United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UNSCOP: United Nations Special Committee on Palestine US: United States of America USAID: United States Agency for International Development viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Completing this thesis has been the most challenging and rewarding aspect of my academic career. First, I would like to thank my thesis committee, especially my thesis director, Dr. Vaughn Shannon, whose knowledge and guidance was essential during the writing process. I would also like to thank Dr. Donna Schlagheck. Your advice and guidance set me on this path when I started Model United Nations as an undergraduate, and without that experience I would not be where I am today. I would like to show my appreciation to Dr. Laura Luehrmann for believing in me and giving me the chance to accomplish this. I would also like to thank all of my history professors including Dr. Awad Halabi, Dr. Edward Haas, and Dr. David Dorn. Without their advice and support throughout my college career, I would not have made it this far. Finally, I would like to express the deepest gratitude to my family and friends, especially my parents, Doug and Rebecca Cummins and my sister, Alex Cummins. Their love and support never faltered during this long process, and for that, I am forever grateful. ix 1. Why Do “They” Hate “Us”?: How did the United States Lose the Middle East? “Policy differences, not cultural differences, are the basis for Muslim anti- Americanism.” Stephen Brooks1 1.1 Introduction Do perceptions matter? This question is intrinsically significant when addressing the United States’ relationship with the Middle East. Mark Tessler and Michael Robbins argue that negative public perceptions of the United States in the Middle East can be a significant factor contributing to an increase in terrorism. “Societal support, whether implicit or explicit,” Tessler and Robbins write, “is often a critical facilitator for terrorist organizations, allowing them to conduct operations more frequently and more easily.”2 Those who harbor negative perceptions of the United States might not necessarily become terrorists themselves, but they would more likely support acts of terrorism against the United States. Steven Kull contends that societal support for terrorism in the Middle East is directly linked with public perception. “Hostility toward the United States in the broader society plays a critical role in sustaining terrorist groups,” Kull writes, “even if most disapprove of those groups’ tactics. The essential ‘problem,’ then, is one of America’s relationship with Muslim societies as a whole.”3 Shibley Telhami agrees that the threat of terrorism remains a huge concern and makes Middle Eastern public opinion much more important than it may have been in the past. Telhami also claims that public perception in the Middle East matters because public opinion does have an effect on state 1 Stephen Brooks, As Others See Us: The Causes and Consequences of Foreign Perceptions of America, (Ontario: Broadview Press, 2006) 132. 2 Mark Tessler, Michael D.H. Robbins, “What Leads Some Ordinary Arab Men and Women to Approve of Terrorist Acts Against the United States?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 51, no. 2 (April, 2007), 305. 3 Steven Kull, Feeling Betrayed: The Roots of Muslim Anger at America, (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2011), 8. 1 policy. With the expansion of information technology and social networks, states no longer have the ability to withhold information from their publics.4 This popular support of terrorism is a necessary condition for terrorist organizations to achieve if they wish to sustain their agenda.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Overview of Russian Foreign Policy
    02-4498-6 ch1.qxd 3/25/02 2:58 PM Page 7 1 AN OVERVIEW OF RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY Forging a New Foreign Policy Concept for Russia Russia’s entry into the new millennium was accompanied by qualitative changes in both domestic and foreign policy. After the stormy events of the early 1990s, the gradual process of consolidating society around a strengthened democratic gov- ernment took hold as people began to recognize this as a requirement if the ongoing political and socioeconomic transformation of the country was to be successful. The for- mation of a new Duma after the December 1999 parliamen- tary elections, and Vladimir Putin’s election as president of Russia in 2000, laid the groundwork for an extended period of political stability, which has allowed us to undertake the devel- opment of a long-term strategic development plan for the nation. Russia’s foreign policy course is an integral part of this strategic plan. President Putin himself has emphasized that “foreign policy is both an indicator and a determining factor for the condition of internal state affairs. Here we should have no illusions. The competence, skill, and effectiveness with 02-4498-6 ch1.qxd 3/25/02 2:58 PM Page 8 which we use our diplomatic resources determines not only the prestige of our country in the eyes of the world, but also the political and eco- nomic situation inside Russia itself.”1 Until recently, the view prevalent in our academic and mainstream press was that post-Soviet Russia had not yet fully charted its national course for development.
    [Show full text]
  • Tuesday, November 15, 2016 Global Trumpism Why Trump's Victory Was
    11/21/2016 Global Trumpism Home > Global Trumpism Tuesday, November 15, 2016 Global Trumpism Why Trump’s Victory Was 30 Years in the Making and Why It Won’t Stop Here Mark Blyth Mark Blyth is Eastman Professor of Political Economy at Brown University. Trump’s victory was predictable [1], and was predicted [2], but not by looking at polls. Polling has taken a beating recently having failed to predict the victory of David Cameron’s Conservative Party in the British general elections [3], then Brexit [4], and now the election of Donald Trump [5]. One can argue about what’s wrong with the methods involved, but more fundamentally what polls do is to treat these phenomena as isolated events when they are in fact the product of a common set of causes 30 years in the making. There are two issues at play here. The first is known as Galton’s problem, after Sir Francis Galton, the inventor of much of modern statistics. Galton’s problem is that when we treat cases as independent—the British election, Brexit, the U.S. election—they may not actually be independent. There may be links between the cases—think of Brexit’s Nigel Farage showing up at Trump's rallies [6]—and there could be subtler contagion [7] or mimicry [8] effects in play as information from one case “infects” the other, changing the dynamics of the system as a whole. Could there then be a higher set of drivers in the global economy [9] pushing the world in a direction where Trump is really just one part of a more global pattern of events? Consider that there are many Trumpets blowing around the developed world, on both the right and the left.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lost Generation in American Foreign Policy How American Influence Has Declined, and What Can Be Done About It
    September 2020 Perspective EXPERT INSIGHTS ON A TIMELY POLICY ISSUE JAMES DOBBINS, GABRIELLE TARINI, ALI WYNE The Lost Generation in American Foreign Policy How American Influence Has Declined, and What Can Be Done About It n the aftermath of World War II, the United States accepted the mantle of global leadership and worked to build a new global order based on the principles of nonaggression and open, nondiscriminatory trade. An early pillar of this new Iorder was the Marshall Plan for European reconstruction, which British histo- rian Norman Davies has called “an act of the most enlightened self-interest in his- tory.”1 America’s leaders didn’t regard this as charity. They recognized that a more peaceful and more prosperous world would be in America’s self-interest. American willingness to shoulder the burdens of world leadership survived a costly stalemate in the Korean War and a still more costly defeat in Vietnam. It even survived the end of the Cold War, the original impetus for America’s global activ- ism. But as a new century progressed, this support weakened, America’s influence slowly diminished, and eventually even the desire to exert global leadership waned. Over the past two decades, the United States experienced a dramatic drop-off in international achievement. A generation of Americans have come of age in an era in which foreign policy setbacks have been more frequent than advances. C O R P O R A T I O N Awareness of America’s declining influence became immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic and by Obama commonplace among observers during the Barack Obama with Ebola, has also been widely noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Mustang Daily, April 14, 1997
    Campus Opinion Sports Cal Poly's most dedicated student Petition peeves pro-Poly Plan people. The Cal Poly football team has hired a employee was honored new coach. Find out who the lucky Thursday. applicant is. 8 CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY SAN LUIS OBISPO usdvng aiiy M APRIL 14, 1997 VOLUME D LXI, No. 98 , M O N D A Y Expert discusses Middle East peace Upcoming Barry Rubin attributes problems to economic student vote development, recognition of existing governmentsworries By Emily Brodley Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan Doily Staff Writer University in Tel Aviv, Israel. His expertise in terrorism led The Middle East is a region of him to appearances on television Committee conflict and turmoil, but according programs such as “Nightline,” By Emily Bradley to speaker Barry Rubin, it is also a “CBS News,” ‘The MacNeil-Lehrer Daily Stoff Writer place of hope. NewsHour” and “Larry King Live.” He has also edited three books lV Optimism flowed during the Tensions are rising for the Cal talk “Conflict and Peacemaking in on terrorism and his articles have appeared in The New York Times, Poly Plan Steering Committee as the Middle East” Thursday night, it rounds the final stretch of the presented by an authority on ter­ the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The New Republic planning process before the April rorism and the Middle East to 29 and May 1 student votes. more than 45 students and com­ and the Jerusalem Post. Thursday night’s topics focused In its meeting Thursday munity members in the on the long-term issues facing the evening, the committee (composed Performing Arts Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Xi Jinping's Address to the Central Conference On
    Xi Jinping’s Address to the Central Conference on Work Relating to Foreign Affairs: Assessing and Advancing Major- Power Diplomacy with Chinese Characteristics Michael D. Swaine* Xi Jinping’s speech before the Central Conference on Work Relating to Foreign Affairs—held November 28–29, 2014, in Beijing—marks the most comprehensive expression yet of the current Chinese leadership’s more activist and security-oriented approach to PRC diplomacy. Through this speech and others, Xi has taken many long-standing Chinese assessments of the international and regional order, as well as the increased influence on and exposure of China to that order, and redefined and expanded the function of Chinese diplomacy. Xi, along with many authoritative and non-authoritative Chinese observers, presents diplomacy as an instrument for the effective application of Chinese power in support of an ambitious, long-term, and more strategic foreign policy agenda. Ultimately, this suggests that Beijing will increasingly attempt to alter some of the foreign policy processes and power relationships that have defined the political, military, and economic environment in the Asia- Pacific region. How the United States chooses to respond to this challenge will determine the Asian strategic landscape for decades to come. On November 28 and 29, 2014, the Central Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership convened its fourth Central Conference on Work Relating to Foreign Affairs (中央外事工作会)—the first since August 2006.1 The meeting, presided over by Premier Li Keqiang, included the entire Politburo Standing Committee, an unprecedented number of central and local Chinese civilian and military officials, nearly every Chinese ambassador and consul-general with ambassadorial rank posted overseas, and commissioners of the Foreign Ministry to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macao Special Administrative Region.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S.-China Relations: the Search for a New Equilibrium Ryan Hass
    U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS: THE SEARCH FOR A NEW EQUILIBRIUM RYAN HASS FEBRUARY 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY it did not actively seek to change the existing order on a magnitude corresponding to China’s ambitions For over 40 years following President Richard Nixon’s today, nor did it have the capabilities to do so.) Third, first tentative steps in China in 1972, the relationship China’s rise from a low-wage manufacturing hub to between the United States and the People’s Republic a technology power has introduced friction into the of China (PRC) navigated many ups and downs, but economic relationship, as both economies increasingly generally developed along a trajectory of deepening move from being complementary to competitive with social, economic, people-to-people, and diplomatic one another. And fourth, unresolved questions about ties. In recent years, that trajectory has been broken. the nature of ideological or systems competition are Now, the relationship has reached what respected fueling tensions. China scholar David M. Lampton describes as a “tipping point.”1 This paper will explore how the relationship Looking ahead, the paper argues that Washington and reached its current moment, why the relationship has Beijing each will need to take steps to allow conditions been nose-diving, and what steps the United States to emerge over time that would make possible the could take to protect its interests in its relationship emergence of a new equilibrium for the relationship. with China going forward. Such an outcome would bolster each side’s confidence in their ability to protect their own vital interests, This paper argues that neither the United States prevent a mutually harmful deterioration in relations, nor China own a monopoly of responsibility for the and enable both sides to focus more on improving downturn in relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Morality and Foreign Policy Author(S): George F. Kennan Source: Foreign Affairs, Vol
    Morality and Foreign Policy Author(s): George F. Kennan Source: Foreign Affairs, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Winter, 1985), pp. 205-218 Published by: Council on Foreign Relations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20042569 Accessed: 22-06-2015 15:26 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Council on Foreign Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Foreign Affairs. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 165.123.107.217 on Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:26:59 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions George F. Kennan MORALITY AND FOREIGN POLICY JLn a small volume of lectures published nearly thirty-five to years ago,1 I had the temerity suggest that the American statesmen of the turn of the twentieth century were unduly of legalistic and moralistic in their judgment of the actions an other governments. This seemed to be approach that carried them away from the sterner requirements of political realism and caused their statements and actions, however impressive to the domestic political audience, to lose effectiveness in the international arena. These observations were doubtless brought forward too a cryptically and thus invited wide variety of interpretations, an or not excluding the thesis that I had advocated amoral, even immoral, foreign policy for this country.
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering George Kennan Does Not Mean Idolizing Him
    UNITED STATES InsTITUTE OF PEACE www.usip.org SPECIAL REPORT 1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063 ABOUT THE REPORT Melvyn P. Leffler This report originated while Melvyn P. Leffler was a Jennings Randolph Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace. He was writing his book on what appeared to be the most intractable and ominous conflict of the post–World War II era—the Cold War. He was addressing the questions of why the Cold War lasted as long as it did and why it ended when Remembering it did. As part of the ongoing dialogue at the United States Institute of Peace, he was repeatedly asked about the lessons of the Cold War for our contemporary problems. George Kennan His attention was drawn to the career of George F. Kennan, the father of containment. Kennan was a rather obscure and frustrated foreign service officer at the U.S. embassy in Lessons for Today? Moscow when his “Long Telegram” of February 1946 gained the attention of policymakers in Washington and transformed his career. Leffler reviews Kennan’s legacy and ponders the implications of his thinking for the contemporary era. Is it Summary possible, Leffler wonders, to reconcile Kennan’s legacy with the newfound emphasis on a “democratic peace”? • Kennan’s thinking and policy prescriptions evolved quickly from the time he wrote the Melvyn P. Leffler, a former senior fellow at the United States “Long Telegram” in February 1946 until the time he delivered the Walgreen Lectures Institute of Peace, won the Bancroft Prize for his book at the University of Chicago in 1950.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump, American Hegemony and the Future of the Liberal International Order
    Trump, American hegemony and the future of the liberal international order DOUG STOKES* The postwar liberal international order (LIO) has been a largely US creation. Washington’s consensus, geopolitically bound to the western ‘core’ during the Cold War, went global with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the advent of systemic unipolarity. Many criticisms can be levelled at US leadership of the LIO, not least in respect of its claim to moral superiority, albeit based on laudable norms such as human rights and democracy. For often cynical reasons the US backed authoritarian regimes throughout the Cold War, pursued disastrous forms of regime change after its end, and has been deeply hostile to alternative (and often non-western) civilizational orders that reject its dogmas. Its successes, however, are manifold. Its ‘empire by invitation’ has helped secure a durable European peace, soften east Asian security dilemmas, and underwrite the strategic preconditions for complex and pacifying forms of global interdependence. Despite tactical differences between global political elites, a postwar commit- ment to maintain the LIO, even in the context of deep structural shifts in interna- tional relations, has remained resolute—until today. The British vote to leave the EU (arguably as much a creation of the United States as of its European members), has weakened one of the most important institutions of the broader US-led LIO. More destabilizing to the foundations of the LIO has been the election of President Trump. His administration has actively
    [Show full text]
  • 33Rd Annual U.S. Foreign Affairs Doctoral Dissertations List By
    33rd Annual U.S. Foreign Affairs Doctoral Dissertations List By Edward A. Goedeken SECTION I FOREIGN AFFAIRS A. Arms Control, Arms Race, and Antiwar Efforts Higuchi, Toshikhiro. “Radioactive Fallout, the Politics of Risk, and the Making of a Global Environmental Crisis, 1954-1963,” Georgetown University, 2011, DA 3473069, Je. 2012. Israel, Matthew Winer. “Paradigms of Protest: American Artists Against the Vietnam War,” New York University, 2011 (ART HISTORY), DA 3445296, Dec. 2011. Kim, Daejung. “Constructing Regional Denuclearization: The NPT, Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, and North Korea,” American University, 2011 (PS), DA 3468029, Apr. 2012. Reardon, Robert J. “Nuclear Bargaining: Using Carrots and Sticks in Nuclear Counter- Proliferation,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010, (PS), n.o.n., Nov. 2011. Wellerstein, Alex. “Knowledge and the Bomb: Nuclear Secrecy in the United States, 1939-2008,” Harvard University, 2010, DA 3435567, Jl. 2011. B. Congress C. Domestic Groups, Organizations, and Politics Cornell, Andrew. “For a World Without Oppressors: U.S. Anarchism from the Palmer Raids to the Sixties,” New York University, 2011 (AS), DA 3445283, Dec. 2011. Gardner, Kathryn Lynn. “Constructing and Deconstructing Islam in the Western State: A Comparative Look at the Politicization of Religion in France, Great Britain, and the United States, 1945-2008,” University of Notre Dame, 2010 (PS), DA 3441549, Sept. 2011. Leslie, Grace Victoria. “United for a Better World: Internationalism in the U.S. Women’s Movement, 1939-1964,” Yale University, 2011, DA 3467511, Apr. 2012. Miller, Robert David. “American Indians, American Imperialism, and Defying Empire at Home and Abroad,” University of California, Riverside, 2011, DA 3465354, Apr. 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Henry Kissinger and Universal Jurisdiction
    1 Kissinger Henry Kissinger and Universal Jurisdiction The BBC reported: On May 29, 2001, a US embassy told a French judge probing the 1970s disappearance of French citizens in Chile that it did not want him to question Henry Kissinger. French Judge Roger Le Loire was looking into allegations that five French citizens who disappeared in Chile during General Augusto Pinochet's military regime were kidnapped and tortured. French justice officials delivered a summons to a Paris hotel where Mr. Kissinger was staying on a private visit. The US embassy in Paris told a French court that Mr. Kissinger had other obligations and was unable to appear. The former US Secretary of State under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, was under no legal obligation to answer the summons. A spokesman for the US embassy said officials wished the court had not gone directly to Mr. Kissinger with the request. In July, 2001, Judge Juan Guzman initiated proceedings to put questions to Henry Kissinger about the murder in Chile of US filmmaker Charles Horman in 1973. On August 10, 2001, a judge in Argentina announced that he would ask Mr. Kissinger to testify in an investigation of an alleged 1970s plot for South American military dictators to kidnap and kill dissidents. There have been consistent allegations that the US Government knew about the scheme, known as Operation Condor. More than 3,000 people were killed or tortured under the Pinochet regime in Chile between 1973 and 1990, while as many as 30,000 were killed in Argentina under the military rulers that governed from 1976 to 1983.
    [Show full text]
  • India's Foreign Affairs Strategy
    Copyright © 2020 Brookings Institution India Center No. 6, Second Floor, Dr. Jose P Rizal Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi - 110021 Recommended citation: Menon, Shivshankar. “India’s Foreign Affairs Strategy” Brookings India Impact Series 052020-02, May 2020. Brookings Institution India Center. The Brookings Institution India Center serves as a platform for cutting-edge, independent, policy-relevant research and analysis on the opportunities and challenges facing India and the world. The Center is based in New Delhi, and registered as a company limited by shares and not for profit, under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. Established in 2013, the Center is the third and newest overseas center of the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution. Our work is centered on the Brookings motto of “Quality. Independence. Impact.” All content reflects the individual views of the author(s). Brookings India does not hold an institutional view on any subject. Designed by Mukesh Rawat IMPACT SERIES | MAY 2020 INDIA’S Foreign Affairs Strategy SHIVSHANKAR MENON* Distinguished Fellow, Brookings India * The author gratefully acknowledges the excellent research assistance from Nitika Nayar and production assistance from Rohan Laik and Mukesh Rawat at Brookings India. India’s Foreign Affairs Strategy India finds itself in an increasingly dangerous world, one that is fragmenting and slowing down economically. It is a world in transition, one in which India’s adversaries — state or non-state, or both as in Pakistan’s case — are becoming increasingly powerful. If the external world is becoming more unpredictable and uncertain, so are internal politics and security in most of the powers. These are challenges that traditional institutions and state structures are not well-equipped to handle, mitigate, or solve.
    [Show full text]