Foreign policy in Belgium

IntroductionDoes economic integration between South and North Korea generate positive spillover effects on their relationship? Or, are geopolitical factors and security issues still powerful enough to dominate Korean politics, limiting the effect of economic integration? The level of economic integration between the two Koreas has deepened over time. The amount of bilateral trade was only about $1.1 million three years after they officially began their trade relationship in 1988. It increased to $400 million in 2000 and then $2 billion in 2012. Currently, South Korea is North Korea's second largest trading partner, accounting for about 38 percent of its total trade in 2007. Considerable research argues that economic integration generates positive spillover effects on economic partners socially and politically.2 Scholars of liberal peace, for instance, claim that bilateral economic interdependence reduces the likelihood of militarized conflict between trading partners.3 Strong economic ties and material gains generated from it may promote economic partners' incentive to maintain or strengthen their relationship and avoid threats that may disrupt their partnership. Frequent interactions can also increase common knowledge, understanding, and interest on various issues. To the extent it occurs, economic partners are likely to narrow their policy preference gaps over various foreign policy issues.4 In this regard, it is reasonable to suspect that increasing economic integration between the two Koreas may have promoted their foreign policy preference similarity, increasing political cooperation in international organizations.Meanwhile, from a realist perspective, military tension and external forces on the peninsula, such as the U.S. and China, are still powerful factors that drive Korean politics. From this perspective, inter-Korean relations and their foreign policies have been shaped and affected by geopolitical issues and regional super powers. Therefore, bilateral economic integration may have a negligible impact on inter- Korean relations.Both claims have solid theoretical grounds. Nevertheless, virtually no empirical studies have tested these claims and show whether economic integration has gen- erated any positive spillover effects on inter-Korean relations. This article examines whether deepening economic integration has promoted cooperation between the two Koreas by analyzing their voting (dis)similarity in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the time period, 1991-2011. Also, it tests whether their voting decisions are strongly influenced by the positions of the U.S. and China on the issues. Empirical results show no significant evidence that economic integration promotes cooperation between South and North Korea in the UNGA. However, the two Koreas show relatively similar voting patterns over economic issues and Palestinian issues, while they tend not to agree on nuclear, security, and human rights issues. Meanwhile, their vote coincidence is strongly influenced by the United States' and China's positions on votes. These results imply that political rather than economic factors are still significant in explaining non-cooperation on the Korean Peninsula.In the following pages, we first examine the theoretical basis of the relationship between economic integration and states' cooperation. Next, we explore states' voting behavior in the UNGA in general and that of the two Koreas in particular. Research design, the data and variables used in this article, and the empirical results are reported in the next section. Finally, we conclude with a summary of the findings and their implications.Economic Integration and Cooperation Between StatesEconomic integration, which is typically defined as the free flow of goods, capital, and labor across national borders, has deepened in many places in the world. The Korean Peninsula is not an exception from this global trend. Ever since the devastating Korean War in 1950-1953, the two Koreas lacked a formal economic relationship until 1988. …

The nature of interstate and international relations in the post - Napoleonic period was determined at the Vienna Congress of 1814-1815. Maintaining peace and stability in Europe, preserving the legitimacy of the ruling dynasties and controlling the balance of power were considered one of the main tasks of the Vienna system of international relations. The main obstacles to compliance with these principles were the revolutionary events of 1820-1830, which arose in different regions of Europe. The response to the “challenges” of the new system of international relations was both diplomatic and military measures to maintain the status quo of European states. The purpose of the article is to analyze the positions of the leading European states at the initial stage of the revolution in Belgium, which began in August 1830. In the context of the growing revolutionary crisis in Europe, it is important to understand what motives guided the Russian, French, Austrian, Prussian and English sides in developing their positions, what were the motives of their foreign policy in Belgium and how they influenced multilateral relations during the Belgian revolution. The study of the diplomatic correspondence of representatives of European countries through the channels of foreign ministries made it possible to identify the differences that existed between Russia, England, France, Austria and Prussia on the Belgian issue, to trace the changes in the positions of the countries in the process of developing a joint solution. An analysis of the process of European countries making decisions about the future of Belgium showed the desire of the participants of the “European concert” to comply with the principles of the Vienna system of international relations.

The article examines current issues of economic cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan taking into account the influence of the present-day geopolitical situation on its multi-vector foreign policy. Kazakhstan plays an important role in the Central Asian region, is a member of the EAEU and other organizations with the participation of Russia, an important trading partner of Russia in the post-Soviet space. Maintaining close ties and economic integration with Kazakhstan is of great strategic importance for the Russian economy. The article scrutinizes the transformation of Kazakhstan’s foreign economic strategy and presents the reasons for strengthening the multi-vector nature of Kazakhstan’s foreign policy. The change in cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan in the context of increasing sanctions pressure on the Russian economy is analyzed. Kazakhstan’s role in reorienting Russia’s trade flows during 2022–2024, as well as changes in its foreign economic policy as external pressure from Western countries and threats of secondary sanctions increase are examined.

The first few months of 2014 brought an unprecedented collapse of the Russian Federation's image on the world stage, the worst since the end of the Cold War. The events in Ukraine and the reaction to them by a significant number of countries in the international community, quickly demoted Russia to that group of countries whose foreign policy provokes harsh condemnation. For the first time in decades, international sanctions have been put in place against Russia, adopted by a large number of the world's largest countries, de facto downgrading Russia to the rank of a rogue state; these sanctions are intended to exert pressure on the elite, who are responsible for implementing certain foreign policy decisions. For many experts, the events are associated with a new and sudden sea-change in Russia's foreign policy. However, it appears to us that the current stage of cooling relations with the West is a logical consequence of the way in which the Russian state was constructed in recent years; in fact, a different scenario could hardly have been anticipated. This article presents the author's view of the mechanisms and logic that shaped Russia's foreign policy course, which has evolved through several iterations in the last three years. The below analysis could facilitate a fuller understanding of Russian motives in international relations, and help find opportunities and mechanisms for dialogue between Russia and the West.Vladimir Putin's new presidential term, which began in 2012, was typified by a significant transformation of Russia's foreign policy, both with respect to neighboring states, and world politics in general. The majority of pundits tend to link this transformation with domestic, social processes in Russia itself, an increasingly active public and a qualitative transformation of the Russian elite. However, we consider that Russia's current foreign policy concept is a complex combination of three factors, which are both foreign and domestic:A. The evolution of the political system, which took place as a result of competition between different groups within the Russian elite, over the past 3-5 years. As a result of these processes, Russia's political spectrum has a complex structure, which includes liberal-economic, conservative-political and oligarchic elements. Competition between these groups is a major factor behind the complex character of Russia's current foreign policy.B. The Eurasian economic and political integration project which, in the mindset of Russian leaders, is the key to Russian development in the 21st century. Success or failure in implementing the giant steps required to re-integrate post-So- viet space is seen as the main indicator of the effectiveness of the Russian political system today, and its foreign-policy strategies.C. The international security situation, which features a wide range of uncertainties and threats in the Middle and Far East, as well as Central Asia and Afghanistan.We consider it important to analyze how much the above factors influence current Russian foreign policy, and then ascertain how much each factor can influence policies. This analysis will offer answers to key issues about the dominant factors in foreign policy decision-making in today's Russia, e.g. whether policy-making is reactive or proactive, and what transformations the next few years will bring.The Russian EliteTo answer the questions raised, we must first determine the structure of the Russian elite today. This stratum can nominally be divided into two, deeply inter-connected segments. The first is a hierarchy: the distribution of economic and financial influence and interests within a ruling class that took shape during the first presidential terms of President Putin. The second is the values of the members of the elite who occupy the country's political governance system.The Russian elite, taken in general, are fairly well understood. Between 2000 and 2010, four main groups of influence emerged in Russia. …

The article explores the role of the Council on Foreign Relations in shaping the foreign policy strategy of the United States during World War II. It is demonstrated that the cooperation between the organization and governmental structures laid the foundations for the subsequent institutionalization of the influence of intellectual circles in the process of strategic decision-making in the war years. The author argues that the American intellectual elite, as a socio-political phenomenon, played a significant role in conceptualizing American foreign policy and national interest. Analyzing the activities of unofficial and semi-official actors, as well as the intellectual networks they created, allows for the reconstruction of a comprehensive picture of intellectual efforts aimed at revising the key directions of U.S. foreign policy during World War II. A prominent role in this process was played by the Council on Foreign Relations, which helped introduce the idea of American global leadership into the official agenda and provided the government with recommendations on how to implement this concept. An analysis of the documents and official records prepared by the Council on Foreign Relations provides grounds to assert the organization’s ideological influence on the Atlantic Charter of 1941, its subsequent political instrumentalization, and the creation of a new peace platform based on the United Nations format. Equally important is that the Council’s call for the U.S. to lead international processes during the war and in the post-war era was based not only on past historical experience but also on forecasting a confrontation with the Soviet Union. It makes the organization’s research findings especially valuable both for defining foreign policy objectives and for postulating a new vision of the socio-political reality and conditions for national life development as a whole.

In this book Peter Schraeder offers the first comprehensive theoretical analysis of US foreign policy toward Africa in the postwar era. He argues that though we often assume that US policymakers 'speak with one voice', Washington's foreign policy is, however, derived from numerous centres of power which each have the ability to pull policy in different directions. The book describes the evolution of policy at three levels: Presidents and their close advisors; the bureaucracies of the executive branch; and Congress and African affairs interest groups. Most importantly, the evidence presented demonstrates that the nature of events in Africa has itself affected the operation of the US policymaking process, and the substance of US policy. Drawing on over 100 interviews, and detailed case studies in Zaire, Ethiopia-Somalia and South Africa, this book provides a unique analysis of the historical evolution of US foreign policy towards Africa from the 1940s to the 1990s.

In the context of the accelerating transformation of the international system and globalization, China's modern foreign policy demonstrates an evolution from defensive strategies to proactive leadership in shaping international rules and standards. The purpose of this study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the transformation of China's foreign policy from 1949 to the present. The results of the research show that China has gone through three stages in its foreign policy: the first stage (1949–1978) was characterized by a policy of confrontation with blocs and support for national liberation movements, and the second stage (1979–2013) focused on economic integration within the framework of globalization; the third stage, “Striving for Development” (1978-2012), “Rule-making” (from 2013 to the present) in which China actively participated in the development of international standards and global governance initiatives, was followed by the results of the study. Modern Chinese diplomacy combined economic, technological, and institutional instruments of influence to demonstrate institutional strengthening in multilateral formats. It promoted the “One Belt, One Road” initiative and actively participated in creating new standards for digital economy and climate regulations. Within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative, it was necessary to update the paradigm of South-South Cooperation and create a “Global Partnership Network” covering 128 countries to achieve mutually beneficial cooperation and shared development. In conclusion, it is emphasized that China continues to form a new model of foreign policy activity focused on a balanced combination of national interests and the responsibilities of a great power in the context of an increasingly complex global dynamic.

The Future of Europe focuses on the main policy areas where European leaders must take decisions over the coming years. The issues discussed include the EC’s policies for enlargement, greater depth, economic and monetary integration, foreign affairs, defence and citizenship rights. The author, Peter Coffey, offers a considered assessment of the move towards European integration, praising the achievements but also expressing concern about the lack of democratic control in the EC and its inability to co-ordinate its economic, monetary and foreign policies. European union, he argues, must be a selective coming together – a Europe à la carte – if the rights of the individual are to be reconciled with the necessity of creating a common front in selected critically important areas. Written in an accessible and informative style, this key policy book introduces students, teachers and others to the central economic, social and political issues facing present-day Europe.

This article argues that while South Africa’s post-apartheid foreign policy on Africa has largely emphasized state-led continental political and economic integration, the country’s Multinational Corporations (MNCs) have led in the practical articulation of integration as an integral part of their expansion strategies in search for increased market share and the establishment of new markets on the continent. It assesses the intersection between South Africa’s foreign policy on Africa’s integration and the role of the country’s MNCs. The article adopts a three-part juxtaposition approach to determine the convergence between South Africa’s foreign policy goal of continental integration with the case studies of expansion strategies pursued by two of the country’s MNCs namely, Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (Standard Bank) and Shoprite Holdings Limited (Shoprite). African Union member states should ensure that they design foreign policies that align the interests of MNCs with national and continental goals of integration.

Since the end of the Cold War, Germany has assumed a greater profile in addressing global security concerns. This article analyzes the evolution of Germany's approach to peacebuilding in the post Cold War era. It argues that while Germany could play a unique and important role in such missions, it has largely demurred. The muted quality of German leadership in international peacebuilding reveals a foreign policy role identity that remains circumscribed by a culture of restraint (Kultur der Zurückhaltung). From a constructivist perspective, this “culture of restraint” acts as a cognitive map for political leaders and policy makers, privileging a set of norms that guide policy-making. Peacebuilding missions present opportunities for Germany to operationalize the most fundamental tenets undergirding Germany's postwar foreign policy identity: the preference to cooperate with other states through multilateral institutions, the use of economic instruments to obtain foreign policy goals, and support for supranational institutions to address global problems. But such opportunities are not seized due to the absence of political elite consensus, inter-party, and inter-ministerial dissensus, institutional fragmentation and insufficient material support for international peacebuilding endeavors.

The end of the Cold War has precipitated a major rethinking of the United States' international commitments in both the scholarly and policymaking communities. For the first time in nearly half a century, the United States is fundamentally reconsidering both its military and economic relations with the outside world. However, the debate over how to restructure US foreign policy has generally focused on Europe. When analysts have referred to Asia, the emphasis has generally been on economic problems in the region. Similarly, the thrust of these works has tended to remain short-term, looking at the immediate future. This paper challenges these viewpoints. It argues that East Asia is as important as Europe to the United States, for security as well as economic reasons. The paper looks at the long-run as well as short-run trends in East Asia, and argues that the issues the US will face in the future will not arise solely from its traditional adversaries-a major problem will be managing conflicts within alliances.

[ 208 ] asia policy military exchanges have also resumed. Perhaps Abe will be Japan’s Goldilocks. Or, to stick with the theme of Northern European children’s stories, perhaps Abe will more closely resemble the wolf in sheep’s clothing; he certainly appeared in that guise when fumbling for an explanation in the case of the comfort women issue. The challenge for China is how to become socialized into a world order with rules and norms valuing democracy and human rights. Beijing’s test earlier this year of an anti-satellite weapon was not a step in the right direction. For the rest of us—particularly the United States—the challenge is to socialize ourselves to an emerging new order that makes room not only for Japanese sovereignty, but also for Chinese power—even in terms of moral authority.  Author’s Response: The Primacy of Foreign Policy in Modern Japan Kenneth B. Pyle Iam honored to have this group of leading political scientists commenting on my book and to have it paired with the valuable new work of Dick Samuels, one of our preeminent interpreters of Japanese politics. My intention in writing this book was not to “apply a political science theory,” as Mike Mochizuki suggested in his thoughtful commentary—although I found the international relations literature immensely suggestive. Rather, as T. J. Pempel observed, my approach was that of an historian working inductively from study of the evidence provided by the Meiji, prewar, and postwar eras where I have done my research. My interest was in what has motivated the Japanese in their foreign policy. What were the sources of Japan’s international conduct? Were there recurrent patterns or characteristics? Does Japan have a distinctive Kenneth B. Pyle is the Henry M. Jackson Professor of History and Asian Studies at the University of Washington, Co-Chairman of the Asia Policy Editorial Board, and Founding President of The National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR). He is also founding editor of the Journal of Japanese Studies, a founding member of the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation (1981–88), and from 1992 to 1995 was Chairman of the Japan-U.S. Friendship Commission. In 1999 he was decorated by the Emperor of Japan with the Order of the Rising Sun. [ 209 ] book review roundtable • japan rising & securing japan style? Above all, I wanted to understand what are “the profound forces” that have shaped modern Japan. I found that, owing in great part to its extraordinary staying power over this entire history, the conservative elite was the source of Japan’s distinctive style and strategy in dealing with the external order. Having deep roots in Japanese culture and history, this style and strategy manifested itself in a cluster of characteristics, especially in an extraordinary attentiveness to the configuration of power in the international system and its implications for Japan’s interests. So vulnerable was Japan as a backward and resource poor state that foreign policy had to take priority. Each time the international order changed, Japan’s pragmatic and opportunistic elite ensured that the nation would organize itself internally to succeed externally. Each of the major changes in Japanese strategy has been an adaptation to the new configuration of power in the world. Each however has been different—a variation on the theme of the primacy of foreign affairs in shaping a strategy and its supporting institutions. With the end of the Cold War system, the Yoshida Doctrine, the most brilliant and complex of all the modern adaptations to the external order, has been steadily unraveling. Seven of the eight self-binding restrictions that had been adopted to preclude entanglement in foreign commitments are being incrementally modified. These restrictions which were the essence of this grand strategy are the Eight No’s: no dispatch of JSDF abroad, no collective defense arrangements, no power projection ability, no more than 1% of GNP for defense, no nuclear arms, no sharing of military technology, no exporting of arms, no military use of space. Only the nuclear weapons restriction remains untouched (although now openly discussed). Because these restrictions were self-imposed, Japan has been able to calibrate the pace of change, as its leaders assess developments in the...

The relevance of the subject under study is conditioned by the fact that in the context of Russian aggression, Ukraine is undergoing a new stage of state development, which primarily concerns its future position on the political map of the world and its role in the system of international relations. The purpose of this study was to analyse the geopolitical situation and foreign policy activities of Ukraine at the present stage of its historical development. General scientific and special research methods, including comparative, historical, and systemic, structural and functional, forecasting, institutional, and other methods, were used to solve the tasks set. The findings of this study can be considered as the identification of the stages of Ukraine’s development in the diplomatic space, and the formulation of the state’s foreign policy guidelines. The study described Ukraine’s geopolitical strategy since independence and the state of its partnership potential at present. The study analysed the principal areas of foreign policy activities of the state authorities and the country’s prospects in terms of its advancement on the world stage. The participants also identified the priorities of Ukraine’s foreign policy and the problems of asserting the state in the international arena in the context of Russian aggression and the struggle for territorial integrity. The results of this study are important for government officials whose responsibilities include the development of the state’s foreign policy course, as well as for scholars whose research interests include foreign policy in the European-Atlantic context and Ukraine’s cooperation with foreign countries

China’s Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB) has emerged as a transformative force in the geopolitical landscape of Central Asia since its inception in 2013. While the existing literature has evaluated the economic impact of the mega-project, research on the foreign policy adjustments of the individual states has been limited. This paper explores how Uzbekistan reorients its foreign policy approach in response to the SREB, balancing the US, China and Russia. It also discusses the opportunities and challenges presented to the recipient state in the milieu of SREB. This study discusses the shifts in the foreign policy of Uzbekistan since its independence in 1991. Furthermore, it also aims to highlight the role of SREB in the changing geopolitical dynamics and shifting balance of power in the region. The data used in this paper is collected from different secondary sources like books, articles etc. and the design of the research is case study. This study infers that SREB has made Uzbekistan transform its foreign policy from isolationism to economic engagement and regional integration. Although some concerns regarding debt trap are there, but the region is experiencing a clear shift in the balance of power due to increasing economic of China. This research contributes to the emerging geopolitical dynamics of Central Asia and foreign policy realignment of individual states in response to these shifts

Strategies of communicative influence and model of public diplomacy of the Kingdom of Spain in the globalised world of the 21st century: National Branding Experience for Ukraine (Institutional and Image Discourses) Post published:15.01.2024 Post category:Issue XXIV Viacheslav Tsivatyi PhD in History, Associate Professor, Merited Education Worker of Ukraine, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Member of Board of the Scientific Society of History of Diplomacy and International Relations DOI: Abstract. The article examines the features of the development of public diplomacy in Spain and analyses its key directions of activity at different stages of historical development. The study is devoted to methodological problems, institutional origins, and achievements of the diplomacy of the Kingdom of Spain. Special attention is paid to the expediency of implementing in Ukraine the best diplomatic examples (models) and achievements of Spanish diplomacy in the conditions of a globalised world system. The focus is on the activity of the main governmental agencies that stimulate the development of full-fledged Spanish foreign cultural policy as the means both for the promotion of Spanish culture abroad and for the presentation of other cultures in Spain. At the same time, much attention is given to the new forms of cultural exchange, which promote the development of cultural dialogue between nations. The institutional development, the strategies of communicative influence and the model of national branding of the Kingdom of Spain are analysed. The historical legacy and modern practical experience of the diplomacy of the Kingdom of Spain have not lost their relevance to this day, and bilateral Spanish-Ukrainian relations firmly connect Spain and Ukraine through the millennia of European history. The focus is on the modern diplomatic system and model of Spanish diplomacy, national features of the Spanish school of diplomacy, the effectiveness of the diplomatic toolkit and the art of the negotiation process of Spain’s diplomats in the conditions of the globalised world system. The project Marca España proved to be an important step towards improving Spain’s national management system. Keywords: international relations, foreign policy, foreign cultural policy, diplomacy, public diplomacy, institutionalisation, national branding, Marca España, Ukraine, Spain