Characteristics and Trends of the Biden Administration’s Latin American Policy

Since taking office in 2021, US President Joe Biden has rectified former President Trump’s domestic and foreign policies. However, Biden has continued the Trump administration’s idea of “excluding China and protecting the courtyard,” which permeates the entire process of policy adjustment on Latin America. The purpose is to damage and hinder China–Latin America relations and cooperation. After the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine conflict, the Biden administration intensified efforts to exclude extraterritorial forces represented by China and Russia that seek to regain control of the backyard to a greater extent. The Biden administration has made progress in easing the antagonism between the US and Latin America and repairing ally system in the western hemisphere, however, its efforts to reshape U.S.–Latin America relations have encountered many challenges.

The Historical Evolution of American Policy Toward Tibet

Tibet is well known around the world today. The Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) is one of China’s five ethnic minorities’ autonomous regions. However, to some in the West, Tibet’s political position seems open to dispute.It is obviously that no one can reach a proper understanding of this issue without consulting history. In ancient times, Tibet was a vague geographical concept to Western world, but it did witness competition between the great powers in modern times. Originally the so-called "Great Game" brought Russian and British monk-spies and, eventually, the British Indian army, into Lhasa. Then, during World War II, the US established the famous air

American Foreign Policy and Diplomacy During and After the Arab Spring, the Challenge of Democratization ＆ the Legacy of President Obama＇s Administration

Recent scholarship on great-power foreign policy and diplomacy undermines President Obama＇s realist approach compared to his predecessor Bush＇s neoconservative idealism approach to the Middle East＇s geopolitical enduring Arab-Israeli conflict, the rising power of political Islam, the unexpected events of the Arab Spring, along with the challenge of democratization. This article genealogically examines President Obama＇s foreign policy and diplomacy in response to the chronology of the unfolding events of the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen that witnessed the Arab Spring of 2011. President Obama and his top diplomats＇ performances in response to each country recounting events were assessed, critically analyzed, and compared to the other in terms of the U.S. bilateral relations with each country, U.S. national interests, and her strategic goals in the Middle East region. The researcher analyzed the aforementioned issues within the complicated realities of the Palestinian/Arab Israeli conflict, the rising power of political Islam on the Middle East＇s ground manifested by the Muslim Brotherhood rise to power in Egypt, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and Libya, and the rivalry between Sunni and Shia＇a---supported by Iran in Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen. The research findings indicate that in a broader sense Obama＇s foreign policy and diplomacy has been a movement away from the U.S. foreign policy and diplomacy since World War II, particularly when he （Obama） decided that the U.S. should abstain from exercising the veto power at the United Nations （UN） on resolution 2334 in support of the Palestinian right to have their own state, thus following the consensus of other permanent members of the UN security council and international law.

BRICS and Geopolitics： A Match Made in Heaven？

We are living in a multi-polar world under the greater influence of one power. After the shutdown of the government in the US, it can be said that the sole power is about to be challenged. This paper hopes to establish the fact that the future of the international system will continue to be multi-polar. Economic groupings like the Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa （BRICS）, Mexico, Indonesia, Singapore and Turkey （MIST） and others denote to this. These groupings may present an alternative to geographically locked but indispensible European Union. Despite the system being multi-polar, the United States dominates the international system. This paper deals with the BRICS countries that propose a bid for power in international relations. Will they have equidistant power form one another or will there be a hierarchy in between them？ Can they take/make economic or political decisions？ Is a geographically spread power structure more effective in controlling the balances between war and peace？ Can they remain objective on trouble spots that may arise in Europe, the Middle East, the Balkans, Asia and the Americas？ This paper hopes to achieve the goal of providing a framework for understanding a multi-polar approach to international relations based on the collaboration of BRICS countries. The first part will be the theoretical framework of the paper. The second part will be concerned with American supremacy in foreign relations and the need to question it. The third part will deal with emerging powers but since the most influential ＂power politics＂ are steered by China and Russia the main emphasis will be on them. The last part will come to the conclusion.

A Corpus-Based Critical Discourse Analysis of Trump and Biden Administrations’China Policies

The theory of proximization is an effective discourse strategy to study the speaker’s ability to achieve his own legitimacy or reinforce the other’s illegitimacy,and its superiority can be maximized by means of quantitative and comparative analysis.In this study,we collected reports on Trump’s and Biden’s policies on China to build two small corpora,with a total of 11,030 words in the Trump corpus and 17,566 words in the Biden corpus.The critical discourse analysis is combined with proximization theory.With the help of BFSU Qualitative Coder 1.2,Antconc 3.5.7,and Log-Likelihood and Chi-Square Calculator 1.0,a critical cognitive score of the relevant discourse was conducted from the perspective of proximization theory.It has been found that:(1)Both Trump and Biden administrations resort to a large number of spatial proximization strategies to build ODCs converging to IDCs with China as the ODC,posing a threat to internal physical IDCs;(2)in the use of temporal proximization strategy,both administrations use primarily modal verbs and various entities to construct ODCs that extend indefinitely into the present and future,emphasizing the urgency and the threat of the effect and reinforcing the legitimacy of their actions;(3)in terms of axiological proximization strategy,the two administrations differ greatly from each other,indicating that there are still discursive biases.