This thesis argues that the debate over the relationship between Theory and political practice has reached a dead-end in IR. Most scholars taking part in this debate based their claims on meta-theoretical assumptions, which explains the inability to settle the debate. This logic not only discouraged empirical enquiries, but also undermined reflexivity. Instead, this thesis calls for the translation of these meta-theoretical assumptions into a methodology and into methods to produce empirical knowledge by which to explore the relationships between Theory and political practice on specific issues. To this end, the thesis investigates relationships between American IR academic discourse and senior officials discourse and their effects on US foreign policy towards Iran between 1998 and 2014. The thesis provides a typology to map and to assess the gaps in the debate over the relationship between Theory and political practice in IR. This typology is composed of four ideal-types: Theory to political practice, Theory vs. political practice, Theory as political practice and practice to political practice. The thesis also translates meta-theoretical assumptions drawn from Wittgenstein and Foucault into a methodology to generate empirical knowledge on specific relationships between Theory and political practice. This methodology enables to trace an evolving system of thoughts expressed in the Theory and political practice of the Iranian nuclear crisis and to expose what this system does to US society and foreign policy. Three elements compose this system: the certainty of democratic teleology, the certainty of uncertainty and the certainty of smart power. The thesis claims that IR knowledge production on Iran mostly acted as symbolic knowledge morphing uncertainties about Iran into certainties for US governmental power. Only then could senior officials produce a judgement against Iran and implement disciplinary measures in the form of sanctions, covert actions, and military threats.

Thesis (MA)--University of Stellenbosch, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This thesis aims to measure President Barack Obama’s level of presidential agency in foreign policy, in order to determine whether he will be able to achieve his ambitious goal of renewing US leadership in foreign affairs. To do so, this thesis will make use of a two-level analysis: The primary level of analysis will focus on the office of the president, and the constitutionally determined formal powers it confers on the president. It will also study the constraints placed on the president by the powers conferred on other branches of government, as well as the institutional and societal context in which the president must function. The second level of analysis will focus on the president as an individual, and the role that a number of personality traits and informal powers play in presidential agency. The central hypothesis of this thesis is that while all presidents are exposed to roughly the same set of institutional constraints, an individual president’s level of agency depends on their utilisation of a number of informal powers. In order to measure this hypothesis, a five-point framework will be developed by abstracting from the existing literature on informal powers. This framework will consist of five criteria believed to be a prerequisite for a high degree of presidential agency: (1) a favourable disposition to foreign affairs; (2) the ability to provide strong leadership in policy formulation; (3) a command over Pennsylvania Avenue politics; (4) the utilisation of the role of public opinion maker; (5) and the utilisation of the role of global statesmen. While Obama will be shown to do well against the framework, his lack of tangible accomplishments will be shown to stem from the magnitude of the challenges he faces; the larger foreign policy context in which he came to office; and the deep-seated distrust of the motives underlying US foreign policy in certain regions. Furthermore, the time constraints he faces, and the impact of the election cycle, will be identified as a limit to the pace of implementation and the extent of the changes he is able to make. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die doel van hierdie tesis is om President Barack Obama se vlak van presidensiële agentskap in buitelandse beleid te meet om te bepaal of hy sy ambisieuse doelwit om die VSA se leierskap in buitelandse sake te hernu, sal bereik. ’n Tweevlakkige analise sal vir hierdie doel aangewend word. Die analise sal op ’n primêre vlak fokus op die president as ampsdraer, en die formele magte wat deur die grondwet aan hom toegeken word. Dit sal ook die beperkinge wat op die president geplaas word as gevolg van die magte wat aan die ander takke van die regering toegeken word, bestudeer. Verder sal die institusionele en maatskaplike konteks waarin die president moet fuksioneer in ag geneem word. Die tweede vlak van analise sal op die president as individu fokus, en die rol wat sekere informele magte en persoonlikheidseienskappe in presidensiële agentskap speel. Die sentrale hipotese van hierdie tesis, is dat alhoewel alle presidente deur dieselfde institusionele beperkinge geaffekteer word, ’n spesifieke president se vlak van agentskap afhang van sy gebruik van informele magte. Hierdie hipotese sal gemeet woord deur ’n vyfpuntraamwerk te ontwikkel wat gebruik maak van die bestaande literatuur op presidensiële agentskap. Dié raamwerk bestaan uit vyf kriteria wat benodig word om ’n hoë vlak van agentskap te handhaaf: (1) ’n positiewe gesindheid teenoor buitelandse sake; (2) die vermoë om sterk leierskap in die beleidsformuleringsproses uit te oefen; (3) meesterskap oor Pennsyvanie Avenue politiek; (4) die gebruik van die rol van openbare ’n opinie maker; (5) en die gebruik van die rol van ’n globale staatsman. Die tesis sal wys dat alhoewel Obama suksesvol is wanneer hy teen die raamwerk gemeet word, sy tekort aan prestasies toegeskryf kan word aan die omvang van die probleme wat hy moet oplos; die groter buitelandse konteks waarin hy verkies is; en die wantroue in die VSA se onderliggende motiewe in sekere streke. Verder sal die tydsbeperkinge op sy presidentskap en die impak van die verkiesingsiklus geïdentifiseer word as ’n bepreking op die spoed waarteen hy veranderinge kan implementeer.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-29T13:48:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Ana Carolina de Angelo Camargo.pdf: 389840 bytes, checksum: 7154d19337424760c6159069e39a7aba (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-11-27 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The end of the Cold War led to questions about the international order and the position of the United States in particular. At the end of the conflict, the United States had political and military superiority as no other state throughout History. During this period, there was renewed the longstanding desire of America to remodel the order according to its image, ie. the promotion of its values around the world. Thus, the first two presidents elected after the end of the Cold War, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, retook the wilsonian approach to U.S. foreign policy. At the same time global and regional tensions and the lack of bipolarity influence enable the emergence of problems all around the globe. Not all were directly related to system stability, but still offered challenges for United States foreign policy. This paper seeks, based on the reading of various texts written about the period, to make an analysis on the use of wilsonianism over these governments, emphasizing two distinct periods: the strategy of engagement and expansion in the Clinton administration and the Bush doctrine. The analysis required in the research seeks to show that despite their differences, both used the approach for the same purpose: to justify their actions in foreign policy. The research also presents discussions around the concept of wilsonianism, based on its most fundamental characteristics. Finally, we tried to present the challenges to wilsonian approach in a world still in transformation / O fim da Guerra Fria provocou questionamentos sobre a ordem internacional e a posição dos Estados Unidos, em particular. Ao fim do conflito, os EUA possuíam uma superioridade militar e política como nenhum outro Estado tivera ao longo da história. Assim, durante esse período, ressurgiu o antigo desejo norte-americano de remodelamento da ordem à sua imagem e semelhança, ou seja, a promoção de seus valores pelo mundo. Nesse sentido, os dois primeiros presidentes eleitos após o fim da Guerra Fria, Bill Clinton e George W. Bush, retomaram a abordagem wilsoniana para a política externa dos Estados Unidos. Ao mesmo tempo, o descongelamento das tensões políticas globais e regionais e a ausência da influência bipolar possibilitaram o surgimento de inúmeros problemas nos mais diversos cantos do globo. Nem todos estavam diretamente relacionados à estabilidade do sistema, mas que mesmo assim ofereceram desafios na abordagem de política externa dos Estados Unidos. Assim, o presente trabalho procura, a partir da leitura de diversos textos escritos sobre o período, fazer uma analise sobre a utilização do wilsonismo ao longo desses governos, enfatizando dois momentos distintos: a estratégia do engajamento e expansão no governo Clinton e a doutrina Bush. A analise pretendida na pesquisa procura demonstrar que apesar das diferenças, os dois presidentes utilizaram a abordagem para o mesmo fim: justificar sua atuação em política externa. A pesquisa também apresenta as discussões em torno do conceito de wilsonismo, tendo como base suas características mais fundamentais. Por fim, procurou-se apresentar os desafios à abordagem wilsoniana em um mundo ainda em transformação

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-29T13:48:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Carlos Gustavo Poggio Teixeira.pdf: 901500 bytes, checksum: 0a8e16b840bc145e69525fa0c65ce7c8 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-03-29 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The end of the Cold War led to a reorientation of the basis of the American conservative thought in foreign policy, in general, and of neoconservatism in particular. For the last one, emerged in the mid 1970´s, and which defined itself in opposition to communism, the demise of the Soviet Union was a blow that many analyses, including among its most prominent spokesmen, considered mortal. The events of September 11th, 2001 proved that these evaluations were mistaken and reinforced the proposition of this research that the neoconservative thought in foreign policy is not a mere configuration of transient opinions, but a coherent set of ideas, distinct of others approaches within the American debate. By using a number of writings of its participants, this research aimed to identify the elements composing the neoconservative thought in foreign policy, without ignoring the historical context s influences over it. Thus, this work offers an original timeline of this thought, as well as it identifies its basic themes present in some way since its conception. The research also intended to situate the neoconservative thought in foreign policy within the wider international relations debate, basing on classical theoretical approaches of the discipline, in order to demonstrate that neoconservatism possesses such a combination of elements that hinders its categorization under any of these approaches, requiring a separate theoretical elaboration that takes into consideration its expression as a typically American phenomenon / O final da Guerra Fria levou a uma reorientação das bases do pensamento conservador norte-americano em política externa, em geral, e do neoconservadorismo, em particular. Para este último, surgido em meados da década de 1970, e que se definia principalmente enquanto oposição ativa ao comunismo, o desaparecimento da União Soviética foi um golpe que muitas análises, inclusive entre seus mais destacados porta-vozes, consideravam mortal. Os eventos de 11 de setembro de 2001 serviriam para provar que essas avaliações estavam equivocadas e para reforçar a proposta desta pesquisa de que o pensamento neoconservador em política externa não constitui uma mera configuração passageira de opiniões, mas sim um conjunto de idéias coerente e distinto de outras posições no debate norte-americano. A partir da utilização de diversos textos escritos pelos seus participantes, esta pesquisa procurou identificar os elementos que compõem o pensamento neoconservador em política externa, sem desconsiderar as influências do contexto histórico sobre o mesmo. Assim, o presente trabalho oferece uma periodização original desse pensamento, bem como identifica seus temas fundamentais presentes de alguma forma desde a sua concepção. A pesquisa também pretendeu localizar o pensamento neoconservador em política externa no debate mais amplo de relações internacionais, tomando como base abordagens teóricas consagradas da disciplina, a fim de demonstrar que o neoconservadorismo possui uma combinação de elementos tal que impede sua classificação sob quaisquer dessas abordagens, necessitando de elaboração teórica à parte, e que leve em consideração sua manifestação como um fenômeno tipicamente norte-americano

The presented thesis is an analysis of American foreign policy thinking applying comprehensive analysis of three presidential administrations. The analysis is embedded in the historical context of the Suez Crisis, and provides a picture of the change in US foreign policy after the Suez Crisis comparing the three foreign policy doctrines related to this particular period of history - D. D. Eisenhower, J. F. Kennedy and L. John Johnson. The foreign policy doctrine represents a particular expression, image of foreign policy of a given state. The American political system is known by several historically and politically significant foreign policy doctrines. The thesis describes how the US foreign policy is created and what leads to the process of formulation of the presedential doctrines. An important element in the background of the analysis is the Cold War itself. Besides the theoretical definition, the work also provides the complex features of the administrations of the three presidents submited to analysis. Part of the characteristic is the analysis of individual foreign policy doctrines that points out the difference among administrations derived from the historical moment of the Suez crisis. The results of the comparison will draw conclusions on the similarity as well as possible differences...

No description available.

When the new South African government took power in 1994, the United States (US) pictured a bright future with a strategic country. They envisioned a strong partnership in political, economic and security realms. Although the US has consistently labeled their bilateral relationship with South Africa as ‘excellent,’ government officials from both countries at the end of 2008 expressed concern about the perceived crisis that US-South African relations was in. Against this backdrop, this thesis explores the bilateral relationship between the US, a global power, and South Africa, a regional power, assessing the key issues from 1994-2008. This thesis attempts to achieve an understanding of the relationship by using a new paradigm developed by Professor Brantly Womack of the University of Virginia (US), entitled asymmetry theory. His theory, which was developed after decades of studying the political landscape between states in Southeast Asia, addresses the effects of national disparities on asymmetric bilateral relationships. This thesis breaks new ground by testing Womack’s asymmetry theory in relation to the US and South Africa, two countries located outside the continent of Asia. Moreover, this is the first study where the theory has been applied to a relationship between a global and regional power. This thesis argues that there was a considerable downward swing in US-South African relations during the Bush Administration due to the confliction of several vital principles in each country’s foreign policy, the structural implications of asymmetry, and the lack of an institution were US and South African government officials could quickly communicate to clarify any disputes or misperceptions that may have arisen. This thesis argues that the bilateral relationship has changed from normalization to normalcy throughout the time period although there are still significant hurdles to overcome in the future. Additionally, this thesis argues that the value of asymmetry theory has proven itself in its illumination of the dynamics of the relationship. / Political Sciences / D. Litt. et Phil. (International Politics)

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-29T13:48:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Fabio Arroyo Favero.pdf: 1018837 bytes, checksum: e2c703d670621b1dfd076ae8a9766694 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-04-24 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The objective of this dissertation is to make an investigation about the impact and influence that diplomacy in its multilateral expression may have in the option of using military forces abroad by members of the government of the United States. The analysis is developed for the specific case of the Iraq war, which started in March 2003. First we present one conceptual understanding of unilateralism and multilateralism as categories of classification of the degree of openness and influence of others actors in the foreign affairs of one State. After this we make one bibliographical review of the history of United States foreign affairs, identifying the meanings and the possible sources of unilateralism and multilateralism in its development, and which are their specificities. Then, we develop the proposed analysis, through the details about the context of the Iraqi crisis and north American involvement in it, and afterwards we identify in the United States action the degree in which its diplomatic action involved others actors and interests, for the purpose of having a scale of its multilateralism or unilateralism. Then we evaluate if these categories are useful for the better understanding of the role diplomacy may have in the United States foreign policy, specifically in the case of the war. Our conclusions points out a complex balance, since our sources indicate a strong unilateral tendency in the choice about the military option to disarm Iraq. However, at the same time we could see an wide and systematic effort to convince allies and specially the UN Security Council of the legitimacy and the need of the military action against Iraq. This effort appears to not have been more insistent on the account of the favorable domestic conditions for the war, with the support of US Congress, and the threat of a veto openly made by others member of the UN, fact which would potentially neutralize any chance of approval of one second resolution with an explicit authorization about the use of military force. This diplomatic effort confirm the limits of classifying the Iraq War as strictly unilateral, and the importance that such a diplomatic legitimation may have upon members of the United States government as to the use of military force abroad / O objetivo desta dissertação é fazer uma investigação a respeito do impacto e influência que a diplomacia, em sua vertente multilateral, pode ter sobre a opção dos membros do governo dos EUA em fazer uso de suas forças armadas no exterior. A análise é desenvolvida com base no estudo de caso específico da Guerra contra o Iraque, que teve início em março de 2003. Primeiramente desenvolvemos uma delimitação conceitual do que entendemos por unilateralismo e multilateralismo como sendo categorias de classificação do grau de abertura e influência de outros atores na política externa de um determinado Estado. Em seguida, fazemos uma revisão bibliográfica da história da política externa norte-americana, identificando os sentidos e possíveis fontes respectivas do unilateralismo e multilateralismo neste panorama, e quais as suas especificidades. Finalmente, desenvolvemos a análise proposta, através da contextualização da questão iraquiana e do envolvimento norte-americano nela, para em seguida identificarmos na ação dos EUA o grau em que sua atuação diplomática envolveu outros atores e interesses, com vistas a realizarmos uma gradação do seu multilateralismo ou unilateralismo e se esta categorização serve para o melhor entendimento do papel que a diplomacia teria na política externa dos EUA especificamente no caso da guerra resultante deste processo. Nossas conclusões apontam para um balanço complexo, pois as fontes trabalhadas indicam uma forte vocação unilateral na escolha da opção militar para desarmar o Iraque. Porém, ao mesmo tempo é possível notar que houve um amplo e sistemático esforço de convencer aliados e especialmente o Conselho de Segurança da ONU da legitimidade e da necessidade da ação militar contra o Iraque. E este esforço parece não ter sido mais insistente por conta de condições domésticas favoráveis a guerra, como o apoio do Congresso dos EUA, e a ameaça de um veto feito abertamente por parte de outros membros da ONU, sendo que este último fator neutralizaria qualquer chance de aprovação de uma resolução explícita quanto ao uso da força militar contra o Iraque. Este esforço diplomático confirma os limites da qualificação da Guerra contra o Iraque como sendo estritamente unilateral, e a importância que tal legitimação diplomática parece ter para os membros do governo dos EUA quanto ao uso da força militar no exterior

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / A dissertação objetiva analisar a influência da Islamofobia no processo decisório em política externa nos Estados Unidos após a data de 11 de setembro de 2001 por meio de sua apropriação por atores sociais considerados como potencialmente influentes no referido processo. A Islamofobia será conceituada a partir de um medo cultural que converte as culturas islâmicas em uma fonte de ameaça. Alinhando-se a uma perspectiva teórica que aponta para a força criativa dos discursos, se procederá à análise de alguns discursos ilustrativos para se sugerir a construção da ideia de ameça islâmica, bem como as formas através das quais o medo inspirado por tal concepção de uma ameaça islâmica alcançou as instâncias decisórias em política externa nos Estados Unidos. Por intermédio de uma análise de conteúdo que se utilizará de uma bibliografia de apoio multidisciplinar, serão abordados temas relativos à problemática de se representar as culturas, à dimensão social do medo, e às diretrizes gerais da política externa dos Estados Unidos após os Atentados Terroristas de 11 de Setembro, considerando que o desenvolvimento de tais questões subsidiará o alcance do objetivo principal do trabalho. Trata-se, em última instância, de um estudo que busca conjugar considerações sobre a política externa dos Estados Unidos com uma análise antropológica acerca da problemática das culturas, expressa a partir da conversão de uma cultura determinada em uma fonte de ameaça. Nesse sentido, a dissertação pode ser caracterizada como de natureza exploratória, uma vez que busca situar um tema pouco explorado no horizonte teórico, sobretudo em estudos sobre política externa. / The thesis intends to show the circulation of Islamophobia in the foreign policy decision making process in the United States after September 11, 2001, through its appropriation by social actors considered to be potentially influential in said process. We conceptualize Islamophobia as a cultural fear that converts islamic cultures in a threat source. By aligning with a theoretical perspective that points out the criative force of discourses, we will analyze some illustrative discourses in order to suggest the discursive construction of the islamic threat, so that we can indicate that the fear inspired by the conception of a islamic threat has reached the foreign policy decision-makers in the United States. Through a content analysis that will rely on a multidisciplinar literature, we will approach subjects such as the problem of representing cultures, the social dimension of fear, and the general guidelines of US foreign policy after the September 11 attacks, considering that such questions will subsidize the achievement of the main objective.It is ultimately a study that intends to articulate considerations on United States foreign policy with an anthropological analysis about the problem of cultures, expressed as the conversion of cultures in a threat. In this sense, we consider it to be an exploratory thesis that seeks to situate a subject little explored in theoretical horizon, especially in studies about foreign policy.

This dissertation is an examination of the American oil industry in Saudi Arabia and its influence on United States foreign policy. The study examines the Americans who went to Saudi Arabia, the effect of the oil companies on Saudi- American relations, and the American government's response to oil company actions. There is an attempt to answer such questions as: Did the oil companies exert pressure on the American government to influence governmental policy? How effective was this pressure? And, what benefits did the oil companies have from their relationship with the government? The study concludes that Aramco was instrumental in bringing official and nonofficial contact and representation between Saudi Arabia and the United States. Moreover, Aramco was instrumental in involving the American government directly in Saudi Arabia through the extension of lend-lease aid to that country. American government involvement thwarted potential British ambitions in the Saudi oil resources and resulted in the American dominance of oil interests in that kingdom. In addition, Senate investigations showed that the oil companies grossly overcharged the United States Navy on oil purchases and that the financial assistance to Saudi Arabia was made for the protection of Aramco's oil concession.