This thesis analyzes the US response to the 1994 Rwandan genocide. It argues that in 1994, the US was retooling its stance on humanitarian intervention because of the disastrous US-led Operation Gothic Serpent in Somalia in 1993. Therefore, the American response to the genocide in Rwanda became a casualty of Washington’s reassessment of its humanitarian intervention policy in the 1990s. The reason behind the US adoption of a more muscular humanitarian intervention policy was due in part to the end of the Cold War in 1991. Thus, the US was able to focus on other issues in international affairs, such as human security, which became a focal point of George H.W Bush’s New World Order. This policy plan outlined areas in which the US could assist the world with human rights issues through cooperation with the United Nations. In 1993, the Clinton Administration expanded the principles of Bush’s New World Order to create a muscular American foreign policy platform that imposed US domestic ideas of human rights on international affairs. Subsequent polarizing events would force the US to retreat from humanitarian intervention. This resulted in a new, lukewarm approach to humanitarian intervention by the Clinton Administration. The new cautious approach to humanitarian intervention affected the US response to the genocide in Rwanda. This thesis aims to reassess how the US reacted to this particular genocide.

For all their efforts to avoid a nuclear North Korea, the Clinton and Bush administrations failed to achieve this goal, the most important policy objective of the United States in its relations with North Korea for decades, mainly because of inconsistencies in U.S. policy. This dissertation seeks to explain why both administrations ultimately failed to prevent North Korea from going nuclear. It finds the origins of this failure in the implementation of different U.S. policy options toward North Korea during the Clinton and Bush administrations. To explain the lack of policy consistency, the dissertation investigates how the relations between the executive and the legislative branches and, more specifically, different government types—unified government and divided government—have affected U.S. policy toward North Korea. It particularly emphasizes the role of Congress and partisan politics in the making of U.S. policy toward North Korea. This study finds that divided government played a pivotal role. Partisan politics are also central to the explanation: politics did not stop at the water’s edge. A divided U.S. government produced more status quo policies toward North Korea than a unified U.S. government, while a unified government produced more active policies than a divided government. Moreover, a unified government with a Republican President produced more aggressive policies toward North Korea, whereas a unified government with a Democratic President produced more conciliatory policies. This study concludes that the different government types and intensified partisan politics were the main causes of the inconsistencies in the United States’ North Korea policy that led to a nuclear North Korea.

This paper deals with the privatisation of security and analyzes its role in US foreign policy. It is composed of four separate sections, two of which are theoretical and the other two analytical. The first chapter presents available definitions and a historical overview explaining the origin and historical development of private military forces' involvement in armed conflicts. The second part assesses the development of the role of private military companies in US foreign policy. The analytical section aims to answer two key questions: (1) which advantages and disadvantages does PMC utilization present the US government with?; and (2) how can we regulate PMC activities, so that their cooperation with the US government both lives up to the client's expectation and satisfies international human-rights norms? The third chapter therefore assesses the main argument for a and against PMC utilization from the perspective of the USA and the fourth analyzes existing regulation frameworks - national, international and self-regulation.

No description available.

Since the start of the Iraq conflict, world-renowned security expert Paul Rogers has produced a series of monthly reports scrutinising developments in the occupation and the Iraqi response to it, drawing on the unique range of contacts and material available to the prestigious Oxford Research Group. They have become the standard source material for journalists, policymakers and campaigners writing about Iraq. Now, for the first time, Paul Rogers has brought these reports together to provide a detailed and authoritative analysis of the last year in Iraq. A disturbing picture emerges, in which coalition forces repeatedly misread the direction of the insurgency, in which radical groups gain strength through the ongoing (and underreported) loss of civilian lives at the hands of the occupying forces, and in which the US's determination to secure the Persian Gulf's oil and gas resources lock it further and further into a destructive, intractable, and ultimately counter-productive war in the Middle East. Concisely-written and highly accessible, "Iraq and the War on Terror" is an indispensable book for anyone interested the Middle East, US foreign policy and international security. Its conclusions about the extent of the damage caused by the war, and how long the occupation looks set to last, will send shockwaves through policymakers in the US and the UK alike.

No description available.

In recent years, the people of Latin America have organized and elected political leaders traditionally excluded from their nation's established political systems. In Venezuela and Bolivia, the shifts to the left may have been the most drastic. This research will look to what extent United States Foreign Policy led to a radical restructuring in the Venezuelan and Bolivian political systems. Additionally the research will examine the effect of America' War on Drugs and other misguided policies that led to a rejection of the old era of American cooperation and in turn an embrace of a new vision. Utilizing the Dependency Theory as a framework and applying the Blowback Theory, the research synthesizes the contemporary history of the two nations and popular opinion of cooperation with the US. Specifically, research will also focus on the effect undemocratic policies have had on fostering an environment of solidarity among people to come together and link their struggles against hegemonic American policies. Cooperation with the US has often led to the adoption of market-centered economic policies that left the two countries in states of severe poverty where the only way for the people to survive was to collectively organize.

The second election of President Bush is the climax of twelve years of successful activity by the Republicans. Rarely before could an American president rely on a majority in both houses of the Congress. Consequently, Bush has ever since his re-election conveyed the impression that he is committed to follow the paths he had taken during his first term at home and in international affairs without any concessions. Therefore, also his new initiatives towards Europe seem to be aimed only to improve the transatlantic atmosphere but not to develop a more cooperative American foreign policy.

Rachel Corrie was a young American woman who died at the age of twenty-three in Gaza in 2003. She was killed when an Israeli Occupation Force bulldozer ran over her while she was defending a Palestinian house from demolition. Her martyr's death, combined with the force of her descriptions of her experiences as an activist in Palestine, not only provoked response from other activists; it became material for a number of theatrical projects, among them productions by the Royal Court Theatre in London, Bread and Puppet Theatre in the US, and in a production I recently wrote and directed here in New Zealand. This thesis considers the example of Rachel Corrie's activism in Palestine and the theatrical performances it engendered in order to examine the role of theatre in and as an activist project. The theatre is an important component of the ongoing movement for social change. It assembles temporary communities and it portrays issues in ways that are both accessible and open to debate. But theatricality is just as often a key component of activist actions outside the theatre building: in street performances and demonstrations, and also in the way some activists can be seen to pursue their political objectives on a daily basis. Finally, the theatre is a material act of production which can challenge the dominant model of production and thus has the potential to be become an activist project as itself. As a result of my analyses of this material, I hope to provide a framework of understanding both for myself and others, of the likely role of theatre in and as an activist project, and this understanding will be of assistance in the cultural task of shifting beliefs in the movement for social change. The key theorists used in this thesis are Walter Benjamin and Raymond Williams.

The subject of this thesis is the embargo imposed by the United States on Cuba. The first part of the thesis examines embargo as an instrument of foreign policy as well as its place in US foreign policy. The second part deals with the evolution of the embargo toward Cuba in political context from events preceding its declaration until recent months. The last part analyses impact of the embargo on the economies of Cuba and the United States.