Oil, Illiberalism, And War: An Analysis Of Energy And US Foreign Policy Andrew T. Price-13

The crisis had a major impact on international relations and created a rift within NATO. Some European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from United States foreign policy in the Middle East to avoid being targeted by the boycott. Arab oil producers linked any future policy changes to peace between the belligerents. To address this, the Nixon Administration began multilateral negotiations with the combatants. They arranged for Israel to pull back from the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. By January 18, 1974, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had negotiated an Israeli troop withdrawal from parts of the Sinai Peninsula. The promise of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Syria was enough to convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in March 1974.[3] and again during the 1979 energy crisis.

Oil, Illiberalism, and War: An Analysis of Energy and US Foreign Policy Andrew T. Price-13

Download Zip: https://urlcod.com/2vGsPs

This course will explore foreign direct investment in the United States from the national security perspective through an analysis of the Executive Branch inter-agency body known as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Students will review the evolution of CFIUS from the Exon-Florio amendment, to the Committee as it exists today, including, but not limited to, the relevant authorities, policy implications, case law, and transactional risk analysis frameworks upon which CFIUS. The course will also examine current events in the national security space to determine how those events have informed recent legislative action taken by Congress with respect to CFIUS and how those legislative changes are implemented by the committee in regulation.

This report aims to provide Congress information, analysis, and a variety of perspectives on these issues. In particular, it provides brief conceptual background on democracy and on democracy promotion's historical role in U.S. policy, analyzes aggregate trends in the global level of democracy using data from two major democracy indexes, and discusses some of the key factors that may be broadly affecting democracy around the world. Finally, the report includes a synthesis of debates over democracy promotion in U.S. foreign policy and a selection of related policy issues and questions for Congress in the current period and beyond.

Some experts contend that authoritarian states often pursue narrow economic and geopolitical interests in their foreign policies, with support for autocrats or the undermining of democracy sometimes instrumental or incidental to the pursuit of these other ends. In this argument, Russia's support for authoritarian governments, for instance, has often been opportunistic, rooted in the desire for control over energy resources or other economic or geopolitical ends. It is also limited in scope by a cultural emphasis on the "Russian world."85 Some analysts, however, assert that Russia's desire to insulate itself against potential democratic political change does color its foreign policy in ways that include an interest in influencing the regime types of its neighbors.86 2ff7e9595c