US Policy of Regime Change: Interplay of Systemic Constraints, Leaders' Perceptions, and Domestic Pressures
How are the systemic constraints transformed through the transmission belt of leader's idiosyncrasies and domestic pressures in order to result in the outcome, which is the pursuance or non-pursuance of regime change policy by the United States? This study analyses the foreign policy decision making of President Bush vis-a-vis Iraq, President Obama vis-a-vis Libya, and President Trump vis-a-vis Iran. It raises the following questions: What is the US policy of regime change, and why and how has it pursued this policy? Why were the US policies different in Iraq, Libya, and Iran, and what have been the implications of these policies upon the region as a whole? While using neoclassical realism as the theoretical paradigm and using qualitative content analysis, this study hypothesizes that the interplay of systemic and domestic level variables results in the foreign policy outcomes in the form of action or inaction towards a particular issue.
-
Regime Change, Systemic Constraints, Domestic Pressure, Leaders' Idiosyncrasies, United States, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Bush, Obama, Trump
-
(1) Muhammad Nadeem Mirza
Faculty Member, School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, Pakistan.
(2) Ayesha Nayab
MPhil Graduate, School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, Pakistan.
China's Grand Strategic Response over Global Unipolarity
The USA, the victor of the Cold War, became supper power in 1992 and started to exercise its hegemony in the world. China, a Cold War ally of the US, became a stronger economy and came forward to encounter the Primacy of the US in Asia. In the name of peaceful development and cooperation, China has become the supreme exporter of the world and the second economy of the world. The advancement PRC has made in the arena of technology, military, space technology, its engagements in different regions, its soft balancing strategy in the world displays that China wants to perform as a forthcoming hegemon of the world. This paper analyze both the soft and hard balancing tactics of China to counter the omnipotence of the US in different regions of the world. The strategies of China illustrates that it is searching for a multipolar world.
-
China, United States, Middle East, Soft Balancing, Africa
-
(1) Shabnam Gul
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Lahore College for Women University, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
(2) Aftab Alam
PhD Scholar, Centre for south Asian studies, University of Punjab, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
(3) Muhammad Faizan Asghar
MPhil, Peace & Counter Terrorism Studies, Minhaj University Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
01 Pages : 1-23
http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2017(II-II).01 10.31703/gssr.2017(II-II).01 Published : Dec 2017Pak-US Relations: Understanding of the Misunderstandings
This paper critically analyses the US and Pakistan relations in historical context and thereby comprehends the causes of misunderstandings between them, especially under the new administration of Donal Trump. Like other states in our world both Pakistan and USA have priorities to secure their national interests as both have their own way of protecting their interest in short, medium or long terms. The paper finds that unlike the US which makes a policy that focuses only on the current scenarios, Pakistan keeps in view the lessons from past betrayals from US and her future needs arising from her security issues related to her neighbours i.e. Afghanistan and India. Pakistan also fears Indian involvement in Afghanistan and the US support to India in Afghanistan in general and particularly in the region. Pakistan needs to understand US mistrust for rapid proliferation (even legal) to earn easy money to strengthen its weak economy. From the US perspectives, it strategy regarding Pakistan is no different from that of a major powers as she only focuses short terms objectives. USA needs to realize that the strategic location of Pakistan and the nuclear capability makes her an important country that bestows on her the right to be treated like medium power in the region. It not only about dealing with mutual misunderstandings related to realization of mutual concerns but it is also about peace, security and future of every sixth human being on earth who lives in the region or maybe its impacts can go far beyond to the whole world. Therefore, both Pakistan and the US need to address each other's concern and work on converging lines.
-
Pakistan, United States of America, Afghanistan, Indian factor, Afghan War, Security, Nuclear proliferation.
-
(1) Asghar Khan
Lecturer, Department of Regional Studies, University of Peshawar, Peshawar, Pakistan
(2) Ayaz Ahmad
Lecturer Department of English, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan, Mardan, Pakistan.
(3) Amjad Ali Dadda
Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management, UK
Comparative Perspective: War and the Interests of Major Powers in the Regions
Great power is a sovereign state that is recognized as having the ability and expertise to exert its influence on a global scale. Great powers characteristically possess military and economic strength, which inspires states to enhance influence in strategically important regions. The Middle East region has always remained the centre of attraction for major powers due to its geostrategic importance and huge energy resources. The civil war in Syria is a prolonged armed conflict that began in 2011. U.S and Russia, being involved from the beginning in the conflict, have different interests and campaigns. Over the last four decades, another most important region has become a source of turmoil and unease, Afghan crises in the region that has always persisted as the source of concern for the global powers and a cornerstone for regional powers. Moscow's mistake to intervene in Afghanistan revealed its unassailable vulnerability. After the Soviet Union disintegration, Kabul has again become the focal point of US policy in the region post 9/11 terror attacks.
-
Civil War, Civilian Protests, Violence, ISIS, Chemical Weapons, United States, Russia
-
(1) Nargis Zaman
Lecturer, Department of Political Science, Women University Mardan, KP, Pakistan.
(2) Arif Khan
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Bunir, KP, Pakistan.
(3) Saiful Islam
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Buner, Buner, KP, Pakistan.