Advanced topics in US Foreign Policy

elective courses
elective seminars
general courses
obligatory courses

United States and the World 4219-AW005

No prerequisites. This course is an alternative to the lecture on United States Foreign Policy (W105) required of most M.A. students at American Studies. It is earmarked for students who hold a B.A. degree from American Studies Center and who have already completed the lecture on United States and the World (W005). Graduate students at the master's and doctoral level are welcome to join this course, particularly OGUN students. It will be helpful if participants have completed either the lecture on United States Foreign Policy (M.A. level) or United States and the World (B.A. level), without which consent of the Instructor is required. Qualified students from outside American Studies Center will be considered for enrollment to provide depth to this class, in discretion of the Instructor. Most will be doctoral students from within UW or outside, including the Instructor's own doctoral students or those considering the Instructor as their doctoral supervisor at UW or elsewhere.

This course will focus on Strategic Studies, regional security issues in the rising face of "hybrid" warfare mixing conventional, irregular and cyber strategies as the Russian Federation tries to reincarnate the "Soviet Union" and China creates new development banks designed transparently to undermine the United States as it attempts to dominate the seas along Asia's coast line. We will consider selected regions of the world beginning with Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) that have entered turbulence involving Ukraine because this region is most important to Poland and to the European Union (EU) generally. We will look at East Asia also, on account of its importance to trade with both the EU and United States. This course must address the role the United States is expected to play in maintaining regional security through its own assets, those of its Allies, and those of sponsored international organisations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) primarily.

Important Notice.

By decision of the American Studies Center Director agreed to by our Faculty, NO MORE THAN TWO (2) ABSENCES IN ANY COURSE WILL BE ALLOWED, with or without an excuse including a medical excuse. Upon the third absence for any reason, no grade will be entered and the Course must be repeated in another term. This rule applies to all ASC Courses from the first class meeting to the last class meeting, including the Examination. Questions should be directed to the counselor for student affairs and head of studies.

Is the world in "disarray," and is this because America is a country in "disarray," as the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, appears to contend in his 2017 book? Is America in retreat, as columnist Bret Stephens has written in a 2014 book? Does America have three (possibly four?) choices: to be "incoherent," to be "independent," to be a "moneyball" for the rest of the world, or to be "indispensable" to the free world, as political scientist Ian Bremmer has written in a 2015 book? What options will the administration of President Donald J. Trump select, for what reason(s), with what outcome?

Throughout Spring Term, we will address the challenges to be faced by the new President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, and his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, as they pursue what appears to be a 21st century version of "Dollar Diplomacy" worldwide, coupled with substantial deregulation, very pervasive opposition to "managed" trade in the form of the North American, Transatlantic, and Trans-Pacific trade partnerships, and a stated commitment to infrastructure investment. This changes the architecture of traditional United States foreign economic policy.

This course will focus on Strategic Studies, regional security issues in the rising face of "hybrid" warfare mixing conventional, irregular and cyber strategies as the Russian Federation tries to recreate a Soviet Union. We will consider some selected regions of the world beginning with Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) that have entered turbulence involving Ukraine, because this region is most important to Poland and to the European Union (EU) generally. We will look at East Asia also, on account of its importance to trade with both the EU and United States. This course must address the role the United States is expected to play in maintaining regional security through its own assets, those of its Allies, and those of sponsored international organisations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) primarily.

An issue that is derivative of (or possibly cause of) that conflict in Ukraine involves the "Atlantic Axis," or disagreement between the United Kingdom and United States, on the one hand, and many continental European nations such as Germany and Austria (but definitely not Poland) over the extent to which over reliance upon Russian energy (gas, oil) delivered through Russian pipelines to Central and Western European countries will compromise European security.

The overall objective of this course will be to balance globalization with fragmentation: since the end of the “Cold War,” have we reached One World, as Wendell L. Willkie and Peter Singer envisioned in their books by that title published 60 years apart in 1943 and 2004 respectively, or have we allowed or even encouraged our world to become fragmented into competing regions? If the latter, then what forms of regional security have emerged and how viable have they become? Does regional fragmentation inspire cooperation or provoke conflict economically, militarily, or in other respects, and for what reasons? Understanding answers to such questions becomes the primary objective of this course. Derivatively, is each region equal to the rest, or unique to itself? Understanding what contributes to stability or instability within different regions is an objective of this course, as is an understanding of what actors and what nations contribute the most within each region to stability or instability, and what concrete actions should be taken to optimize each region’s stability and contribution to global peace and prosperity.

From the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 through two world wars, many conflicts and 21st Century terror challenges, American foreign policy is shaped in part by the country's domestic political scene, which is changing constantly. Part of this lecture will address the shortcomings of the Allied and American effort to rebuild a democratic Russian Federation upon fall of the Soviet Union, and the consequence that is having in 2014 and beyond with an effort by some Russian leaders to reconstruct a Soviet Union for the 21st century. With so many parts of the world depending upon the United States of America for their continued freedom in the face of open predators, America can ill afford to make repeated mistakes that tempt adversaries to exert challenges never dreamed of during strong presidencies. Is the world properly divisible into "sectors" such as a "Russian Sector" to encompass the region the Soviet Union used to dominate or a "Chinese Sector" in the Western Pacific rim, or should it be clearly dominated North and south, East and West, by United States hegemony? In the face of blatant challenges, should the United States and its Allies respond mildly with economic sanctions or ferociously with mighty military force to dominate the air, the land, and the seas with "drone" and "stealth" vehicles and the unimaginable ordnance they have the capability to deliver?

Related questions emerge concerning "Monroe Doctrines" for regions outside the Western Hemisphere, such as a "Chinese Monroe Doctrine" in the Western Pacific Rim or a "Russian Monroe Doctrine" in some or all of the territory formerly controlled by the Soviet Union, perquisites of which the Russian Federation claims to have inherited. Clearly, the Monroe Doctrine itself was the outcome of negotiations between the United States and the Russian Empire directly, also involving Great Britain's foreign secretary George Canning indirectly. Should the Russian Federation persist in rewriting history, such as by occupying the Crimean Peninsula or other regions of Ukraine, does this effectively vacate the outcome of the 1945 Yalta Conference pursuant to what we might call a theory of dependent relative revocation (applied from an Anglo-American doctrine pertaining to changes in last wills and testaments), entitling the West to recover much of Western Ukraine that used to belong to Poland and Konigsberg that was German before the Soviet Union seized it at Yalta and renamed it Kaliningrad? With more than 57 countries including many from the EU and all ASEAN bloc having opted to become founding members of the Chinese designed Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in the face of strong United States opposition, should the United States retaliate such as by withdrawing its "Missile Defense" (MD) shield intended to safeguard the United Kingdom from Iran or Russia, and transfer its NATO assets from Germany into Poland to safeguard Eastern Europe with conventional weaponry, a move that undoubtedly would please the Russian Federation and inspire concessions such as returning Konigsberg and withdrawing missiles from Iran, thereby strengthening Israel's defence?

Should a similar course be steered in Southeast Asia, where each of the 10 ASEAN bloc countries joined the AIIB: should the United States withdraw from the South China Sea and adopt a neutrality posture, functionally giving a "green light" to Chinese expansion into Myanmar (Burma) in return for China giving a "green light" to regime change in North Korea forthwith? To what if any extent will President Trump tolerate the hostile rhetoric and burgeoning nuclear threats advanced by North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un? What are America's options?

Does "The New Silk Road" or the "New Maritime Silk Route" China is financing across Eurasia from Pakistan to Belarus pose a threat to the Russian Federation economically or militarily? Have they formed a "String of Pearls" that already has encircled India, and will they encircle Russia, leaving the latter redundant in relations with the other states that once were provinces of the Soviet Union, possibly redundant in relations with the EU, drawing Russia closer to the United States? If so, what impact if any will this have on Russian Federation efforts to form a military alliance with Argentina to compromise the security of United Kingdom control over the Falkland Islands, in direct contravention of the Monroe Doctrine that British foreign secretary George Canning crafted with American secretary of state John Quincy Adams in 1823 as an agreement with Imperial Russia itself and that has been expanded by the Theodore Roosevelt Corollary, Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, and other presidential doctrines?

Regional security in the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) is essential to the survival of Europe generally. As Miniter has written, Putin worries more about Poland than the United States, because when the Obama administration cancelled America's MD program, Poland went it alone, identifying four options as contractors to design then implement its own MD shield (Minter, 2014), then selected Raytheon Company as the best option, awarding it a contract to install "Patriot Missiles" in Poland. Very early in 2017, the outgoing Obama Administration deployed 4,000 American troops to Poland along with 2,800 combat vehicles, the largest NATO deployment into Central or Eastern Europe since the fall of communism in 1981.

Attendance is mandatory for each scheduled class in its entirety. Late arrivals or early departures may be so noted by the instructor.

Readings assigned will be at each student's discretion to select what s/he considers to be most important and interesting.

U.S. Government Accountabi8lity Office (GAO). 2010. National Defense: Hybrid Warfare. GAO Publication 10-1036R. Washington: U.S. Government Accountability Office. 10 Sep. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-1036R

Adamczyk, Artur, and Przemyslaw Dubel. 2014. Poland and Turkey in Europe: Social, Economic and Political Experiences and Challenges. Warsaw: Centre for Europe, University of Warsaw.

Adamczyk, Artur, and Kamil Zajaczkowski. 2012. Poland in the European Union: Adjustment and Modernisation. Warsaw: 2012, Centre for Europe, University of Warsaw, and Lviv: Faculty of International Relations, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv.

Allison, Graham. 2017. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Barbones, Salvatore. 2017. American Tianxia: Chinese money, American power and the end of history. Bristol: Policy Press.

Billias, George Athan. 2011. American Constitutionalism Heard Round the World, 1776-1989: A Global Perspective. New York: New York University (NYU) Press.

Bobrow, Davis B., and Mark Boyer. 2005. Defensive Internationalism: Providing Public Goods in an Uncertain World. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Bobrow, Davis B., ed. 2008. Hegemony Constrained: Evasion, Modification, and Resistance to American Foreign Policy (The Security Continuum). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Bremmer, Ian. Superpower: Three Choices for America's Role in the World. New York: 2015. Portfolio/Penguin Random House.

Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. 2000. International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press USA.

Buzan, Barry, and Ole Waever. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

Cheever, Daniel S. 1978. "American Objectives as the Law of the Sea," in Finger, Seymour Maxwell, and Joseph R. Harbert, eds. U.S. policy in international institutions: defining reasonable options in an unreasonable world. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Cheever, Daniel S. 1984. "The Politics of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea," Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 37, No. 2, 247-252. Winter.

Cheever, Daniel S., and H. Field Haviland, Jr. 1952. American Foreign Policy and the Separation of Powers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2011. Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order. New York: Seven Stories Press.

Cornell, Savante and Spector, Regine. “Central Asia: more than Islamic extremists” The Washington Quarterly 25:1 (2002) 193-206.

Cornell, Svante. “The narcotics threat in greater Central Asia: from Crime-Terror nexus to state infiltration?” China and Eurasian Forum Quarterly 4:1 (2006) 37-67.

Der Ghoukassian, Khatchick. “Instability in the imperial periphery: a conceptual perspective of the “turbulent frontiers” in the Caucasus and Central Asia” Caucasian Review of International Affairs 2:3 (2008).

Durden, Tyler. "American Troops "Roll Into Poland" In Largest Deployment Since The Cold War," ZeroHedge.com. 12 January 2017. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-12/american-troops-roll-poland-largest-deployment-cold-war

Gökhan Yandaş, Osman. “Emerging regional security complex in Central Asia: Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and challenges of the post 9/11 world” PhD dissertation. Middle East Technical University, 2005.

Haass, Richard. 2017. A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order. New York: Penguin Books.

Huntington, Samuel P. 2005. Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's National Identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Jackson, Nicole. “International organizations, security dichotomies and the trafficking of persons and narcotics in post-Soviet Central Asia: a critique of the securitization framework” Security Dialogue 37:3 (2006) 299-317.

Jackson, Nicole. “The trafficking of narcotics, arms and humans in post-Soviet Central Asia: (mis)perceptions, policies and realities” Central Asian Survey 24:1 (2005), 39-52.

Jones, David A. 2017. "Four Leagues of the Pacific: United Kingdom, United States, China, Russia, Where Trust in Trade Meets Distrust in Security, A Pacific-Indian Treaty Organisation (PINTO) is Needed for a ‘Community of Nations’,” International Journal of Political Science, Law & International Relations, Vol. 7, No. 5, 11-28. Oct. http://tjprc.org/view-archives.php?keyword=&from_date=&to_date=&id=&jtype=2&journal=52&page=5

Jones, David A. 2017. “Cooperation or Confrontation? Assessing the American ‘Pivot’ to Asia in Context --Is It a Western ‘Neo-Liberealism’ Response to China’s New ‘Open Door’ Approach to Europe?” in Kamiński, Tomasz, ed. 2017. Overcoming Controversies in East Asia. Łódź: University of Łódź Press. 158-177.

Jones, David A. 2017. "Revival of 'Dollar Diplomacy' As United States Foreign Economic Policy in 2017: Tradeoffs Exchanged to Maintain Trade and Restore Peace Along the Tottering Western Pacific Rim," Archives of Business Research, Vol. 5, No. 9, 31-41. Sep.

http://scholarpublishing.org/index.php/ABR/article/view/3667/2099

Jones, David A., and Hanzhen Liu. 2017. "Management of Chinese Foreign Direct Investment: 'One Belt, One Road' Across Eurasia to Africa and Europe Amidst Maritime Tensions in the South China Sea Region,” Journal of International Relations & Diplomacy, Vol. 5, No. 8, 486-500. Aug. http://www.davidpublisher.org/Public/uploads/Contribute/59cf3c2bbc994.pdf

Jones, David. 2016. “Is Liber-Realism on the Horizon? Rule, Serica! Serica Rules the Waves? Private Sector Management Approaches to Explaining then Deescalating Conflict and Confrontation Along the Western Pacific Rim,” International Journal of Business Management & Research (IJBMR), Vol. 6, Ni. 5, 71-96. Oct. http://www.tjprc.org/view-archives.php?year=2016&id=32&jtype=2&page=3

Jones, David A. 2016. “From A Desert to A Garden in A Lifetime: Rapid, Robust, Expeditionary Transformation of ‘Failed States’ to Avoid the Appearance or Reality of Social Control,” The International Manager, Vol. 3, No. 11, 97-117. Sep. http://www.issnjournals.com/uploads/admin/paper/97-117%20_The%20International%20Manger%20_%20FROM%20A%20DESERT%20TO%20A%20GARDEN%20IN%20A%20LIFETIME%20_%20%20Dr.%20David%20A.%20Jones.pdf

Jones, David A. 2016. “Social Class in the First Two Decades of the 21st Century America: Has Class Structure Been Altered by the Financial Crisis?” Swift Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity, Vol. 2, No. 4, 36-42. Sep. http://www.swiftjournals.org/sjssh/pdf/2016/september/David2.pdf

Jones, David A. 2016. “Microfinancing Abroad along China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’: Replicating the Wokai, Kiva and Other Experiments Worldwide and the American ‘War On Poverty’ Experience Internationally,” Proceedings of the Ninth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking (AP16 Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978 1 943579 68 6 Hong Kong SAR. 1-10. 11-13 Aug. Paper ID HK631.

http://globalbizresearch.org/HongKong_Conference_2016_Aug/docs/doc/Global%20Business,%20Economics%20&%20Sustainability/HK631_Abstract.pdf

Jones, David A. 2016. “Territorial Sovereignty, Maritime Interests, Power Allocation As Defined by China’s Supreme People’s Court: Impact on Foreign Private Sector Management Across the ‘New Silk Road’ and ‘New Maritime Silk Route’,” Proceedings of the Ninth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking (AP16 Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978 1 943579 68 6 Hong Kong SAR. 13 Aug. Paper ID HK637.

http://globalbizresearch.org/HongKong_Conference_2016_Aug/docs/doc/Global%20Business,%20Economics%20&%20Sustainability/HK637_Abstract.pdf

Jones, David A. 2016. "Private Sector Management Approaches To Explaining then Deescalating Conflict and Confrontation Along the Western Pacific Rim,” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Social Sciences and Business, Tokyo, Japan, 750-771. 25-27 Aug. ISBN 978 986 87417 7 5.

Jones, David A. 2015. Four Eagles and a Dragon: Successes and Failures of Quixotic Encirclement in Foreign Policy, An Analysis. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, Plc. 394 pp. ISBN 9 789385 436826.

Jones, David A. 2015. “Hybrid Conflict and Encirclement: Reconfiguration of Eastern Europe

by NATO, Trade Barriers, and a Chinese Solution for Greece.” Journal of International Relations and Diplomacy, Vol. 3, No. 8, 497-510. Aug.

http://www.davidpublisher.org/Public/uploads/Contribute/55ebfd364c909.pdf

Jones, David A. 2014. “Quid pro Quo: Dependent Relative Revocation and Quixiotic Military Dis-encirclement,” Studia Europejskie, Vol. 17, No. 4, 99-120.

Jones, David A. 2014. “The Management of Trade for International Security: An Analysis of Some Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,” International Journal of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 3, 499-507.

Jones, David A. 2014. "On the Road away from Mandalay: Heading West along the 'Silk Road' as China Moves Its Investments into Europe, around Russia," Journal of Business & Economics, Vol. 5, No. 6, 249-263. Jun.

Mierzejewski, Dominik. 2010. "From Pragmatism to Morality: The Changing Rhetoric of Chinese Foreign Policy," in Guo, Sujian,, and Baogang Guo. 2010. Thirty Years of China-U.S. Relations: Analytical Approaches and Contemporary Issues. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Lexington Books, 175-196. http://www.gbv.de/dms/sub-hamburg/621420948.pdf

Mierzejewski, Dominik. 2012/2013. "Reading Years of Humiliation. Sino-Russian Border and China’s National Identity," Sensus Historiae, Vol. VIII, 59-70.

http://www.academia.edu/6902197/Reading_Years_of_Humiliation._Sino-Russian_Border_and_China_s_National_Identity

Milczarek, Darius, Artur Adamczyk, Kamil Zajączkowski (eds.), Introduction to European Studies. A New Approach to Uniting Europe. Warsaw: 2013, Publishing Programme of Centre for Europe University of Warsaw, s. 770

Miniter, Robert. 2014. "Why Putin Worries About Poland, but Not Obama," Forbes. 15 May. http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardminiter/2014/05/15/why-putin-is-worries-about-poland-and-raytheon-but-not-obama/?partner=yahootix

Piketty, Thomas, and Arthur Goldhammer. 2014. Capital in the twenty-First Century. Boston: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Singer, Peter. 2004. One World. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Stephens, Bret. 2014. America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder. New York: Sentinel/Penguin/Random House.

Willkie, Wendell L. 1943. One World. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Asia Pacific

Buzan, Barry, and Michael Cox. “China and the U.S.: Comparable Cases of ‘Peaceful Rise’?” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 6:2, 109-132 (Summer 2013). http://cjip.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/2/109.full.

Biswal, Nisha Desai. “U.S. Foreign Policy in South Asia: A Vision for Prosperity and Security.” Washington: U.S. Department of State (16 April 2014). http://www.state.gov/p/sca/rls/rmks/2014/224914.htm.

Csernatoni, Raluca. “The Asia-Pacific Security Complex – Rewriting the Regional Security Architecture,” International Security and Information Service (ISIS) (17 April 2014). http://isiseurope.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/the-asia-pacific-security-complex-rewriting-the-regional-security-architecture/

Wang, Jiangli and Buzan, Barry. “The English and Chinese Schools of International Relations: Comparisons and Lessons,” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 7:1, 1-46 (Spring 2014). http://cjip.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/1/1.full.pdf+html.

EurAsia

Carney, Christopher and Moran, John. “Imagining communities in Central Asia: Nationalism and interstate affect in the post-Soviet era” Asian Affairs 26:4 (2000) .

Cornell, Savante and Spector, Regine. “Central Asia: more than Islamic extremists” The Washington Quarterly 25:1 (2002) 193-206.

Cornell, Svante. “The narcotics threat in greater Central Asia: from Crime-Terror nexus to state infiltration?” China and Eurasian Forum Quarterly 4:1 (2006) 37-67.

Der Ghoukassian, Khatchick. “Instability in the imperial periphery: a conceptual perspective of the “turbulent frontiers” in the Caucasus and Central Asia” Caucasian Review of International Affairs 2:3 (2008)

Gökhan Yandaş, Osman. “Emerging regional security complex in Central Asia: Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and challenges of the post 9/11 world” PhD dissertation, Middle East Technical University, 2005.

Jackson, Nicole. “International organizations, security dichotomies and the trafficking of persons and narcotics in post-Soviet Central Asia: a critique of the securitization framework” Security Dialogue 37:3 (2006) 299-317.

Jackson, Nicole. “The trafficking of narcotics, arms and humans in post-Soviet Central Asia: (mis)perceptions, policies and realities” Central Asian Survey 24:1 (2005) 39-52.

Kolstø, Pål. Russians in the former Soviet Republics (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1995).

Lake, David and Morgan, Patrick. Regional orders: building security in a new world (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997).

Legvold, Robert. “Great power stakes in Central Asia” in: Thinking strategically: the major powers, Kazakhstan, and the Central Asian nexus, ed. Robert Legyold (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003).

McDonald, Matt. “Securitization and the construction of security” European Journal of International Relations 14 (2008)

McLean, Wayne. Regional Security Complex Theory and Insulator States: the Case of Turkey. UN Office for the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs, “Central Asia: US trade pact seen as unlikely to yield immediate benefits” (7 June 2004).

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=24369>

Menon, Rajan, “The new great game in Central Asia” Survival 45:2 (2003) 187-204.

Benjamin Miller, States, Nations, and the Great Powers: The Sources of Regional War and Peace. Cambridge: 2007, Cambridge University Press.

Nourzhanov, Kirill. “Changing security threat perceptions in Central Asia”, Australian Journal of International Affairs 63:1 (2009)

Reynolds, Julius. “An empirical application of Regional Security Complex Theory: the securitization discourse in China’s relations with Central Asia and Russia” PhD dissertation, Central European University, 2009.

UN Office for the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs, “Central Asia: US trade pact seen as unlikely to yield immediate benefits” (7 June 2004). http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=24369>

Weitz, Richard. “Storm clouds over Central Asia: revival of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)?” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 27 (2004).

Western Hemisphere.

Western Hemisphere Defense Policy Statement. Washington: U.S. Department of Defense (October 2012). http://www.defense.gov/news/WHDPS-English.pdf.

Upon completing this Lecture, students should understand:

1. Basic Strengths and Weaknesses of world regions such as

Asia: East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia

Middle East: Iran and Shia people, Saudi Arabia and Suni people, Israel and Palestine

Europe: Central and Eastern Europe (CEEC), Western Europe, the European Union

Africa: Northern Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa

Oceana: Australia, New Zealand

Western Hemisphere: North America, Central America, South America

2. The most important aspirations and objectives of each region and country within region.

3. The main opportunities for cross-regional cooperation.

4. Some potential threats for cross-regional conflict.

5. The proper role the United States should play to maintain peace and stability by region.

6. The role other countries appear to play to maintain or disrupt regional peace or stability.

7. Divisions within the World Trade Organisation (WTO), by region, by development

8. The role played by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank

9. The role of major regional international organizations:

African Union, Arab League, Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), Organization of American States (OAS), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

10. The role of major international military alliances: the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) that includes some Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) that were a part of the former Soviet Union: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan in addition to the Russian Federation, formed in 1992, soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

11. Specific changes the 45th United States President, Donald J. Trump, must make including but not limited to changes in United States foreign economic policies to steady the course following the inaction of the Barrack Obama Presidency.

12. Detailed reactions of world leaders and world popular opinion to specific changes in United States foreign policies including foreign economic policies to be proposed and implemented by the 45th United States President, Donald J. Trump, as they unfold.

This course will be assessed primarily by an Examination at end of course. Additional criteria will be possible, including but not limited to a Term Paper clearly of publishable quality and an in class presentation to the Class using PowerPoint slides, plus a Midterm Examination to provide progressive feedback. If each criterion is used, the Course will be evaluated as follows:

10 percent Class Attendance and Participation

20 percent Midterm Examination

20 percent Class Presentation

50 percent Term Paper with Documentation