Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Foreign Policy
Description
The unprecedented rise of terrorist network ISIL has brought the revolutionary Salafi agenda to the forefront of global politics. This thesis provides an analysis of the ideology and an overview of ISIL. The research is comprised of reports on the organization from prominent think-tanks, books analyzing the tenets and thinkers of Salafi radicalism and original source material confiscated from ISIL's predecessor al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). An international coalition is posited as a solution to the threat as well as the Middle Eastern terrorist threat more broadly. However, the likelihood of such international cooperation is minimal, and the commitment it would require may make it unfeasible.
ContributorsSims, Alyssa Gabrielle (Author) / Simon, Sheldon (Thesis director) / Ripley, Charles (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
"The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened".
- John F Kennedy
For over a century now, the United States has publicly professed a commitment to upholding human rights around the world, yet to this day economically supports numerous dictatorships and undemocratic regimes that flout human rights on a daily basis. The rhetoric of American politicians would imply that human rights and democracy are a priority in America's foreign policy, yet given US support for autocracies, both of these principles seem forgotten. If not respect for democracy and human rights, what is truly influencing America's relationship with these countries? I hypothesize that a country's resource availability will be the best predictive factor for its economic relationship with the US, followed by its military involvement with the US, and finally, human rights records will be the least predictive factor. The study found that a country's military cooperation with the US is the best predictive factor regarding our economic relationship, resource availability comes with a weak correlation, and human rights abuses very rarely substantively impact our economic relationships.
- John F Kennedy
For over a century now, the United States has publicly professed a commitment to upholding human rights around the world, yet to this day economically supports numerous dictatorships and undemocratic regimes that flout human rights on a daily basis. The rhetoric of American politicians would imply that human rights and democracy are a priority in America's foreign policy, yet given US support for autocracies, both of these principles seem forgotten. If not respect for democracy and human rights, what is truly influencing America's relationship with these countries? I hypothesize that a country's resource availability will be the best predictive factor for its economic relationship with the US, followed by its military involvement with the US, and finally, human rights records will be the least predictive factor. The study found that a country's military cooperation with the US is the best predictive factor regarding our economic relationship, resource availability comes with a weak correlation, and human rights abuses very rarely substantively impact our economic relationships.
ContributorsPlummer, Gage (Author) / Hanson, Margaret (Thesis director) / Ripley, Charles (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
This piece highlights the Trump administration's history of diplomatic relations with states in East Asia (specifically North Korea (DPRK), South Korea (ROK), Japan, and China). The research in this essay primarily focuses on Trump's public attitudes towards these states during his presidential campaign, and seeks to establish if any negative statements towards East Asian states have affected social and diplomatic relations after Trump's inauguration. Overall, residents of Japan and South Korea had an overwhelmingly negative view of Trump during his campaign, primarily due to cultural differences and dissatisfaction with Trump's blunt, unpredictable demeanor which clashes with Japanese and Korean social norms. While public opinion of Trump was still low in mainland China, Trump's attitude is reminiscent of Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution which serves as the societal and governmental framework of the modern People's Republic of China. Therefore, individuals living in China were more likely to be attracted to Trump's personality \u2014 this evident through the popularity of Trump "fan clubs" which gained popularity on Chinese social media websites during the American presidential campaign period. In terms of the bilateral relations between the U.S. and each East Asian state, Donald Trump's negative statements towards China, Japan, and South Korea during his campaign did not significantly impact diplomatic relations during his presidency. While Trump is vocally opposed to certain initiatives that are supported by these heads of state, he has demonstrated a willingness to discuss issues with these leaders. While this openness is not completely evident in U.S. \u2014 Southeast Asian relations, the leaders of Northeast Asia have set aside Trump's controversial campaign statements and have reciprocated his willingness to discuss important issues.
ContributorsGarvey, Lauren Agnes (Author) / Simon, Sheldon (Thesis director) / Ripley, Charles (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
Out of all of the participants in World War I, the most curious, in my opinion, is Great Britain. With the English Channel guaranteeing a navally superior Britain could guarantee its independence indefinitely, joining a world war does not seem like the obvious move to make. Despite this, on August 4th, 1914 Britain was at war with Germany. In my paper, I will argue that the invasion of Belgium provided the catalyst for a great power conflict due to the institutional, material, and personal realities that set the two nations on a collision course.
ContributorsKlein, Julian (Author) / Harper, Tobias (Thesis director) / Ripley, Charles (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies, Sch (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2024-05