Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Foreign Policy
- Creators: Benkert, Volker
- Creators: Ripley, Charles
- Creators: Machander, Sina
- Member of: Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection
- Resource Type: Text
Description
The purpose of this paper is to examine why the Russian government has been taking political, economic, and military actions in Belarus and Ukraine, and the extent to which the Russian people support these actions. Many observers in the West seem to believe that the Russian government is forcing its political will onto Russian citizens. However, public opinion research indicates that Russian citizens express a genuine support for the regime's political behavior in neighboring countries. Russian citizens seem to support the decisions to build closer relations with countries they consider culturally significant or culturally similar to themselves. Perhaps the clearest examples of these sentiments occur in relationships with Belarus and Ukraine. This is especially apparent when compared to Russian relations with the Baltic nations. Although these nations are home to a large numbers of Russians, the citizens of Russia do not consider the Baltics as significant as Belarus or Ukraine because of pronounced cultural differences. In this context, it seems as though Russian public opinion drives government action toward international relations with the Near Abroad nations perhaps just as much as the government influences public opinion.
ContributorsFranko, Blake Isaac (Author) / Siroky, David (Thesis director) / Von Hagen, Mark (Committee member) / Benkert, Volker (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
Created2014-05
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
In the sixty-seven years following the end of World War II, West Germany and Japan underwent a remarkable series of economic and social changes that irrevocably altered their respective ways of life. Formerly xenophobic, militaristic and highly socially stratified societies, both emerged from the 20th Century as liberal, prosperous and free. Both made great strides well beyond the expectations of their occupiers, and rebounded from the overwhelming destruction of their national economies within a few short decades. While these changes have yielded dramatic results, the wartime period still looms large in their respective collective memories. Therefore, an ongoing and diverse dialectical process would engage the considerable popular, official, and intellectual energy of their post-war generations. In West Germany, the term Vergangenheitsbewältigung (VGB) emerged to describe a process of coming to terms with the past, while the Japanese chose kako no kokufuku to describe their similar historical sojourns. Although intellectuals of widely varying backgrounds in both nations made great strides toward making Japanese and German citizens cognizant of the roles that their militaries played in gruesome atrocities, popular cinematic productions served to reiterate older, discredited assertions of the fundamental honor and innocence of the average soldier, thereby nurturing a historically revisionist line of reasoning that continues to compete for public attention. All forms of media would play an important role in sustaining this “apologetic narrative,” and cinema, among the most popular and visible of these mediums, was not excluded from this. Indeed, films would play a unique recurring role, like rhetorical time capsules, in offering a sanitized historical image of Japanese and German soldiers that continues to endure in modern times. Nevertheless, even as West Germany and Japan regained their sovereignty and re-examined their pasts with ever greater resolution and insight, their respective film industries continued to “reset” the clock, and accentuated the visibility and relevancy of apologetic forces still in existence within both societies. However, it is important to note that, when speaking of “Germans” and “Japanese,” that they are not meant to be thought of as being uniformly of one mind or another. Rather, the use of these words is meant as convenient shorthand to refer to the dominant forces in Japanese and German civil society at any given time over the course of their respective post- war histories. Furthermore, references to “Germany” during the Cold War period are to be understood to mean the Federal Republic of Germany, rather than their socialist counterpart, the German Democratic Republic, a nation that undertook its own coming to terms with the past in an entirely distinct fashion.
ContributorsPiscopo, Michael (Author) / Benkert, Volker (Thesis director) / Moore, Aaron (Committee member) / Machander, Sina (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (Contributor)
Created2012-12
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