Impressum





Ausgabe 3-2008

Themenschwerpunkt: Kontinuität US-amerikanischer Außenpolitik / Continuity in US Foreign Policy

INHALT

Editorial | download full article as pdf
Seite III

Themenschwerpunkt: Kontinuität US-amerikanischer Außenpolitik

Beiträge aus Sicherheitspolitik und Friedensforschung

Neuerscheinung
Seite 172

Annotationen
Seite 173

Besprechungen | download full article as pdf
Seite 174

ENGLISH ABSTRACTS

Kann die neue amerikanische Administration Hegemonie provozieren? Nach George W. Bush zeichnet sich ein neuer außenpolitischer Konsens ab
Thomas Jäger
The article aims to inform about the international role that the United States may play in the coming years. The form that the American role will take is of signifi cance for all other states. A redefi nition of the U.S. role and policy is likely after George W. Bush leaves offi ce. A new president may set a different agenda. The article contrasts the different positions of the presidential candidates on various international issues. However, it is suggested that the U.S. will aim for a hegemonic position in the world. The impact of the future American policy on German foreign policy is examined.

Amerikanische Außenpolitik: Mehr Kontinuität als Diskontinuität in der strategischen Grundorientierung
Peter Rudolf
The article argues that US foreign policy will continue to be conceived of in terms of a broad hegemonic role. The Bush administration’s hegemonic strategic paradigm is too deeply rooted in ideological features of the US foreign policy tradition to simply wither away with a new administration. Current foreign policy discourse very much revolves around two versions of a hegemonic grand strategy which share a global view of US interests and a common perception of threats and are wedded to maintaining US primacy and leadership. They mainly differ in the importance attached to international legitimacy and to the role of international institutions in US foreign policy.

Die transatlantischen Beziehungen nach der Ära Bush
Karsten D. Voigt
Whenever a new US President takes power, there are hopes for a fresh start in American foreign and security policy. The administration due to take office in 2009 will be no exception. The election of a new President and a new Congress could be an opportunity for closer transatlantic cooperation on major issues. However, hopes for cooperation without disagreements are unrealistic. The US will not give up the option of acting unilaterally when important US interests are at stake, and Europe still lacks the will and the capability to assume a much greater share of the burden of maintaining international security and stability. Yet the new US administration can be expected to become more pragmatic and restrained in rhetoric and style in order to secure the Europeans’ support for US policy in the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan and other trouble spots. Washington may even be willing to truly consult its allies before acting. The new administration will engage more in non-traditional foreign policy topics, such as climate change and energy security, which could bring US policies more in line with European priorities. In its own interest, the EU should respond positively to American overtures, because it only stands a chance of becoming a strong and relevant international actor in partnership with the United States.

The Battle for World Opinion
F. William Smullen
America’s standing in the world is at stake. Nations and peoples around the world feel a deep and abiding anger and resentment towards the United States. This affects America’s ability to influence the judgment and actions of those who resist her sense of being able to do whatever she wants to do as a nation. This article suggests changes in American policy that are necessary to bring about the results America seeks.
download full article as pdf

The UN-US pas de deux
Ramesh Thakur
This chapter examines the relationship between the United States as the universal power and the United Nations as the universal organisation in terms of four critical areas: the use of force, peace operations, nuclear weapons and climate change. Neither the US nor the UN can dispense with the other, yet their mutual dependence is asymmetrical. The material capacity to deploy and use force globally is concentrated in the United States, while the authority to do so is legally vested in the UN Security Council. The latter is the proper locus of authorising and legitimising the creation, deployment and use of military force under international auspices. Multilateralism remains important to US foreign policy, and the US is the pivot of multilateral action for the maintenance of international peace and security. Because the US will remain the main financial underwriter of UN peacekeeping costs, it will continue to exercise unmatched influence on UN peace operations. The hard core of negotiations on issues of nuclear stockpiles will be conducted among the nine nuclear powers directly. But they can draw on world moral authority via the UN. On climate change, Washington and the UN will have to work cooperatively to convert the formula of common but differentiated responsibility into action. During the primary campaign, the candidates Clinton, McCain and Obama showed interesting differences on these issues as an anticipatory guide to how their administrations might frame policies

Die Strategien der Administrationen Bill Clinton und George W. Bush gegenüber dem Iran im Vergleich
Bernd W. Kubbig und Sven-Eric Fikenscher
This article examines the policies of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations towards the Islamic Republic of Iran. It analyses continuity and change and terms of both the “Grand Strategy” and operational US policy with its objectives and preferred instruments. Since 2005, a significant feature of the second term of the Bush administration has been the competing policies of the neoconservatives and the conservative realists. This contribution concludes that the latter group has prevailed so far mainly due to the catastrophic situation in Iran’s neighbour Iraq. From today's perspective it seems that during the remaining months of the current US government, neither a “regime change” nor a military option in the form of a bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities is realistic (both objectives have been favoured by “Neocons”). Nevertheless, the conservative realists led by Condoleezza Rice, who have increasingly supported a policy of containment, reject the option of selective and unconditional engagement with Tehran via direct diplomacy – an approach which had been favoured by the outgoing Clinton administration.

Sicherheit auf See – Risiken weltweit und in deutschen Hoheitsgewässern
Uwe Jenisch
Safety and security at sea are a key issue for all maritime states. Traditionally, maritime law has included a well developed body of safety rules, including rules for the management of environmental risks. However, security risks have increased recently due to piracy, terrorism and organised crime. This article analyses the full spectrum of modern maritime security risks and the relevant legal instruments that are already in force or are in the process of being negotiated. Apart from the legal aspects, control and enforcement at sea, i.e. an efficient coast guard with the competence and the power to intervene, are crucial when terrorists or pirates attack. The role of navies versus “police-type” organisations is also at stake. Detailed emergency plans exist to deal with major accidents and environmental disasters in German waters, but a centralised coast guard service with preventive and executive powers is still under discussion, while the German constitution prevents the Navy from intervention.

Erste Schritte zu einer Polizeidoktrin für UN-Friedenseinsätze, 2001-2006
Philipp Rotmann
As a response to the rapid expansion of the role and numbers of UN police involved in peace operations, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) has started to develop a formal doctrine to guide the work of its police officers in missions around the world. Based on published and unpublished sources as well as a series of interviews with UN officials and external experts, the article surveys the establishment of an institutional infrastructure for doctrine development and the first steps toward a UN police doctrine. For a number of recent processes of doctrine development, it analyses the key contributing factors to their success or failure.