• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Издания446
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы1477
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации245
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs
«Foreign Affairs» (Фо́рин аффе́рс) — американский журнал по тематике международных отношений и внешней политики США, выходящий шесть раз в год. Издатель — Совет по международным отношениям. Журнал считается наиболее авторитетным в вопросах внешней политики США. Ж ...

«Foreign Affairs» (Фо́рин аффе́рс) — американский журнал по тематике международных отношений и внешней политики США, выходящий шесть раз в год. Издатель — Совет по международным отношениям. Журнал считается наиболее авторитетным в вопросах внешней политики США.

Журнал выходит с 1922 года; основателем и первым редактором (до 1927 года) был Арчибальд Кэри Кулидж.

Тираж журнала рос:

  • 1922 год — 5 тысяч экземпляров;
  • 1959 год — 27 тысяч;
  • 1963 год — 57 тысяч;
  • 1976 год — 72,5 тысячи;
  • 2014 год — 170 тысяч

Позиция по отношению к СССР

Уже первый номер содержал статью самого Кулиджа «Россия после Генуи и Гааги», которая после анализа новой экономической политики и дипломатических усилий большевистского государства высказывала сомнения в долговечности текущего курса большевиков и предлагала «четыре очевидных возможности» развития (контрреволюция, экономическая реставрация капитализма, раскол партии большевиков с возвратом к жёсткой коммунистической идеологии и рост экономических проблем, в результате которых страна «впадет в анархию, развалившись на куски»). За первые 50 лет существования в журнале были опубликованы 220 статей по советской тематике (почти по одной статье в каждом номере). По утверждению Р. С. Овинникова, «ни одна из них не была дружелюбной» Вики


Foreign Affairs — семнадцатый эпизод девятого сезона мультсериала «Гриффины».


Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
22 февраля, 02:48

Supreme Court Torn Over Whether Constitution Should Apply To Cross-Border Shootings

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― As the administration of President Donald Trump readies a new crackdown on undocumented immigrants, the Supreme Court on Tuesday weighed a difficult case that could open federal courts to Mexican nationals whose family members are killed at the border by U.S. authorities. The sobering case of Sergio Hernandez ― a 15-year-old standing on Mexican soil when he was shot in the head by a U.S. Border Patrol agent from the American side ― found the justices wrestling with whether a non-citizen has any constitutional rights at the border. The answer will determine whether a federal law enforcement officer who violates a person’s fundamental right to not be killed can be sued. “You have a very sympathetic case,” Justice Stephen Breyer told Bob Hilliard, the lawyer representing Hernandez’s parents, who didn’t attend the hearing. The family hopes the American justice system can help them press their civil rights claims against U.S. Border Patrol Agent Jesús Mesa, who killed their son in 2010. According to the parents’ lawsuit, Hernández and other boys were playing in the cement river bank of the Rio Grande, which separates the neighboring cities of El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. Suspecting they were smugglers, Mesa approached the teens and moved to apprehend one. Some began to throw rocks, and Mesa opened fire in self-defense, according to a Department of Justice investigation. Hernández, shot from the opposite side of the river, was killed.  At the center of the justices’ concern during oral arguments in Hernandez v. Mesa was whether the court has the capacity to fashion a narrow rule that may provide relief to victims like the parents of Hernández ― without exposing the federal government to civil liability for other kinds of violence abroad. “How do you analyze the case of a drone strike in Iraq, where the plane is piloted from Nevada?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked Hilliard. “Why wouldn’t the same analysis apply in that case?” Hilliard, a longtime trial lawyer who has represented the Hernandez family throughout the case, struggled to give a straight answer on the proper standard courts should apply to cross-border shootings. In 2015, an appeals court ruled that the Constitution doesn’t apply to these kinds of incidents, essentially insulating Mesa and others like him from cross-border liability. “We need to have a rule ... that can be applied in other cases,” said Justice Samuel Alito. “But you need to give us a principle that’s workable.” Time and again, the justices and the lawyers referred back to Boumediene v. Bush, a landmark, post-9/11 precedent that established that foreign-born detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba had a due-process right to challenge their detention. Justice Anthony Kennedy was pivotal in that decision, which granted constitutional protections to the detainees. But on Tuesday, Kennedy didn’t seem so sure that civil liability should extend to federal law enforcement officers who fire across the border ― and suggested that the solution instead rests with Congress and the executive branch. “You’ve indicated that there’s a problem all along the border,” Kennedy said. “Why doesn’t that counsel us that this is one of the most sensitive areas of foreign affairs, where the political branches should discuss with Mexico what the solution ought to be?” There is no law on the books that allows litigants to sue federal officials for constitutional violations. But the Supreme Court in 1972 ruled that courts can hear these kinds of cases under specific circumstances. Kennedy cautioned that the court hasn’t extended this doctrine since 1988, and indicated that this may not be the right case to do it. As legal twists would have it, Tuesday’s hearing was the first time the Trump administration presented an oral argument before the justices. The case began under the Obama administration, and Edwin Kneedler, the experienced lawyer who argued for the government, took a strong position against the Mexican teen’s family. This case “gives rise to foreign relations problems, which are committed to the political branches,” Kneedler said. At one point, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Kneedler if he had seen video of Sergio’s death on YouTube, which appears to contradict the Justice Department account that Mesa acted in self-defense. “Border policemen are shooting indiscriminately from within the United States across the border,” Sotomayor said. If the Supreme Court rules that the Hernandez family can get no relief in federal court for Sergio’s death, they’d have nowhere else to turn. The Justice Department declined to prosecute Mesa in 2012, and the federal government rejected a separate request from Mexico to extradite the officer there for prosecution. Civil liability is the only avenue left. Justice Elena Kagan suggested that because Hernandez v. Mesa is a “sui generis” case ― limited to an area where there’s no clear line of demarcation between Mexico and the U.S. ― that maybe the Supreme Court should try something more nuanced than an all-or-nothing approach. “The dividing line isn’t even marked on the ground. Isn’t that right? You can’t tell on the ground where Mexico ends and the United States begins,” Kagan said. “I don’t know whether to call it a no-man’s land, but it’s this liminal area, which is kind of neither one thing nor another thing.” Given the complexities of the case, it is possible the court may split 4-4, which would set no legal precedent. To avoid that result, the justices may choose to wait until Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s nominee to the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is confirmed. By then, the court may also choose to hold a new oral argument. A decision is expected by the end of June. Trump’s Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday declared open season on undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., saying it will hire thousands of agents to deport “removable aliens” who have been charged or convicted of even minor crimes. Inside the courtroom, Roberts did something else to welcome the Trump era: He acknowledged the 84th attorney general of the United States, Jeff Sessions, who was in attendance. This recognition will be a part of the Supreme Court’s public record.   -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

22 февраля, 00:29

Is the Southern Border a Constitution-Free Zone?

The Supreme Court considers a case involving a youth on the Mexican side of the border killed by an American border patrol agent on the U.S. side.

21 февраля, 19:01

UN diplomats mourn Russia’s Churkin

Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations who died suddenly after falling ill at his office at Russia’s UN mission is being remembered by his diplomatic colleagues as a powerful and passionate voice for

21 февраля, 16:10

Today in Trumpworld -- Feb. 21


21 февраля, 12:03

No truth to rumors about a Russia-Taliban friendship - expert

The Russian authorities do not have a plan to make friends with the Taliban. The Afghan group was blacklisted as a terrorist organization by the Russian Supreme Court on Feb. 14, 2003. Any cooperation between Russia and the Taliban would constitute a criminal offense. 7 things you probably didn't know about the Soviet war in Afghanistan If the movement stops terrorist activities, the Russian Supreme Court would be able to remove it from the blacklist. But the Taliban continues its attacks on civilian and military objects in Afghanistan. Foreigners, including Russians, are usual targets for these attacks. Almost every year the Russian special services arrest suspects in Russia for alleged links with the Taliban. This is proof that it is too early to discuss the removal of the Taliban from the Russian blacklist. Communication channel with the Taliban The clearest articulation of the Russian position about the Taliban was made on Sept. 30, 2016, by General Oleg Syromolotov, Deputy Foreign Minister in charge of counter-terrorism: “This is a terrorist group that is on the UN sanctions list. Therefore, we do not have any contacts with the Taliban. We only have a communication channel on humanitarian issues related to human rights and hostages. No more than that.” The 2014 release of Russian pilot Pavel Petrenko from Taliban captivity proved the effectiveness of this communication channel between Moscow and the group. 5 Soviet infrastructure projects that survived the Afghan wars “My freedom became possible, because Russia has gotten new capabilities in Afghanistan,” Petrenko told to the Afghanistan.ru website after his release. “These capabilities allow Moscow to have influence on the process inside Afghanistan without third countries.” On Aug. 16, 2016, joint efforts of Russia, Afghanistan and Pakistan facilitated the release of another pilot, Sergey Sevastyanov, just nine days after he was captured by the Taliban. ‘Friendship’ with the Taliban Diverse views on the Taliban emerge from a number of politicians, experts, and journalists, who follow the developments in Afghanistan. By reading recent headlines about Russia and the Taliban, it is easy to believe that big changes have taken place in the Russian position towards the movement: “Moscow's New Ally in Afghanistan”, “Russia’s New Favorite Jihadist”, “Russia’s New Friends in the Afghan Taliban.” How a Russian spy outfoxed the British in 19th century Afghanistan Some people believe that Russia has started supplying the Taliban with weapons and equipment, and repairing the group’s weapons, including tanks and vehicles. According to Russian officials these reports are false. On Feb. 10, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs dismissed allegations by General John Nicholson, Commander of the U.S. and NATO Forces in Afghanistan, of Russian supplies of weapons to Taliban.  On Jan. 2, the spokesman for Tajikistan’s border guard agency Muhammadjon Ulughkhojaev said, that the allegations were “baseless.” Russia’s Taliban policy The Russian policy towards Afghanistan generally, and the Taliban in particular becomes more visible due to more attention to this country from the Russian side recently, and less attention to Afghanistan from the side of its usual partners. At the start of the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan, Moscow decided to limit its involvement by playing a supporting role. But after the U.S. decided to limit its military footprint in Afghanistan, the Russian leadership realized that neither Kabul nor Washington and it allies had enough capabilities to end terrorism and drug trafficking from Afghan soil. That is why Russia ceased to play a supportive role for the U.S./NATO mission and started its own policy toward Afghanistan. Moscow and Kabul agree on maintenance of Russian helicopters in Afghanistan There is no doubt, that Russia needs a communication channel with the Taliban and other armed groups inside Afghanistan. The release of its pilots from the Taliban’s captivity explains that the main role for this channel is to help Russian citizens. As for the Russian common interests and dialogue with Taliban, these possibilities will remain cloudy due to the Taliban inability to stop both terrorist activities inside Afghanistan and neighboring countries and involvement in drug production and trafficking. If the relations between Russia and the United Sates improve, Moscow will most likely keep the communication channel with the Taliban open, but it will not raise questions about common interests with the movement. If the U.S.-Russian relations go bad, Moscow will probably try to challenge every part of U.S. policy towards Afghanistan, and Russian statements about the Taliban will be used for this purpose. Petr Topychkanov is an associate in the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Nonproliferation Program, and a senior researcher at the Center for International Security of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This is an abridged version of an article, first published by the Russia&India Report. Views expressed in the column are personal. ​

21 февраля, 01:06

UK Government Defends Trump's State Visit Amid Protests

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); LONDON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - The British government on Monday defended its decision to offer U.S. President Donald Trump a lavish state visit and an audience with the queen this year, defying protests outside parliament and dissent from lawmakers. Prime Minister Theresa May’s government wants to reaffirm the “special relationship” with the United States and secure a trade deal as Britain prepares to leave the European Union. “In the light of America’s absolutely pivotal role we believe it entirely right that we should use all the tools at our disposal to build common ground with President Trump,” junior foreign minister Alan Duncan told parliament. He described state visits as Britain’s “most important diplomatic tool,” saying Trump’s trip would go ahead as planned. The visit has spurred 1.8 million people in Britain to sign a petition saying he should not be given a state visit because it could embarrass Queen Elizabeth. As parliament debated that petition on Monday - a symbolic discussion which has no power to force the government to withdraw its invitation - around 7,000 protesters gathered outside with placards bearing slogans such as “Dump Trump, Fight Bigotry.” “It’s about the rise of hate and extremism, which is personified by Trump. It’s not just about him, but he represents what’s happening in the world at the moment,” protester Alison Dale, 61, told Reuters. “The invitation was kneejerk, and made us look desperate. Now we’re leaving the European Union, it’s clear we’re just desperate for trade deals, and we look weak.” Since taking office in January, Trump has sparked global protests over plans to ban migrants from seven Muslim-majority countries, and from women activists who call him misogynistic. Trump says his immigration orders are aimed at protecting the United States and that his opponents have misrepresented his intentions. Prime Minister May has said she will not consider canceling the visit. Managing the backlash adds to her diplomatic “to-do” list as she sets about reuniting a country divided over Brexit and negotiating a divorce with European trading partners.   RALLYING POINT The debate, hosted in a packed side room of parliament rather than the main debating chamber, gave lawmakers a platform to air a wide range of views on Trump. “It’s difficult to know whether to be appalled at the morality of this invitation, or just astonished at the stupidity of the invitation,” said Scottish National Party lawmaker Alex Salmond. Previously Trump has clashed with Salmond over his investments in Scotland. Critics focused on accusations of sexism and referred to his immigration policies, while other lawmakers argued Trump should come to Britain, but should not be given the high honor of a state visit, which would involve lavish displays of royal pageantry and a banquet hosted by the queen. Crispin Blunt, head of parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, said a head-of-government visit by Trump would be appropriate this year but a full state visit should wait until 2020, the 400th anniversary of the Pilgrim Fathers’ settlement in New England. “If we don’t take the hype out of this debate, with all the people who signed this petition, there is every possibility that of course this visit is then going to become a rallying point for everybody who is unhappy both with the direction of American policy, or British policy or anything else,” he said. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

20 февраля, 21:04

Russian ambassador to U.N. dies in New York City

Vitaly Churkin, the Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, died in New York City on Monday at 64, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced in a statement Monday."A prominent Russian diplomat has passed away while at work. We'd like to express our sincere condolences to Vitaly Churkin's family," the ministry said in the statement. They provided no further details of the circumstances surrounding his death. The Russia embassy in the United States called his passing a "[t]remendous loss for Russian diplomacy" in a tweet Monday. Vitaly was born in Moscow in 1952 and has served as Russia's representative to the U.N. since 2006. Vitaly previously served as an ambassador to Belgium and Canada, as well as a liaison to NATO.

19 февраля, 00:56

Trump To Interview Four Candidates For National Security Job Sunday

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); President Donald Trump will interview four candidates for the position of U.S. national security adviser on Sunday and expects to make a decision in the coming days, he told reporters on Saturday. Trump will interview acting adviser Keith Kellogg, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster and Lieutenant General Robert Caslen, White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. “I’ll make a decision over the next couple of days,” Trump told reporters later on Air Force One. He said he was leaning toward one of the candidates he was interviewing on Sunday. Trump, who has been searching for a new national security adviser after firing his first one, Michael Flynn, could add a couple more candidates to the list, Spicer said. Retired general and former CIA chief David Petraeus is no longer a candidate. The retired four-star general, who resigned as head of the CIA in 2012 after it was revealed he was having an affair with his biographer, had been on a short list for the job after Flynn was let go. Spicer said Trump’s finalists include Kellogg, Bolton, Caslen, who is the superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and McMaster, who holds a senior post with the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. Former U.S. National Security Agency head Keith Alexander, and former Army chief of staff Ray Odierno were also thought to be in contention for the job. Flynn stepped down early this week after revelations that he had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with the Russian ambassador to the United States before Trump took office and misled Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations. Finding a replacement has been a challenge for Trump. Retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward, the president’s first choice to take over for Flynn, turned down the offer, citing family and financial reasons. A source familiar with the matter said Petraeus, like Harward, wanted control over staffing decisions within the NSC, and Trump was reluctant to grant that authority. Trump is spending the weekend at his properties in Florida. “Will be having many meetings this weekend at The Southern White House,” he wrote in a tweet on Saturday morning. The president spent the morning at the Trump International Golf Club before returning to his Mar-a-Lago resort. He later held a political rally in Melbourne, Florida. The tumult in Trump’s security team stretched into other areas of the National Security Council, the president’s main forum for decision-making on security and foreign affairs. The White House dismissed Craig Deare, the NSC’s senior director for Western Hemisphere Affairs, after receiving reports that he had criticized the president and top aides, Politico reported. An NSC spokesman declined to comment. McMaster is a highly regarded tactician and strategic thinker with a PhD, who as a captain in 1991 commanded a small troop of the U.S. 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment that destroyed a much larger Iraqi Republican Guard force at a place called 73 Easting, for its map coordinates, in what many consider the biggest tank battle since World War II. Caslen, a West Point graduate, was serving in the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and joined others after the attack in rushing into the damaged part of the building to search for survivors. He served in the Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The Pentagon Inspector General found that he and other generals violated Defense Department ethical guidelines by appearing in a video promoting Christian Embassy, a non-profit evangelical group previously known as the Campus Crusade for Christ. (Additional reporting by Steve Holland and John Walcott in Washington; Editing by Paul Simao and Mary Milliken) -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

18 февраля, 21:53

'Before, Putin Was Unpredictable; Now It's Trump'

Moscow grapples with a strange week in Washington.

18 февраля, 21:53

'Before, Putin Was Unpredictable; Now It's Trump'

Moscow grapples with a strange week in Washington.

18 февраля, 00:23

Russian and Syrian MPs discuss latest Astana peace talks

The second round of peace talks between the Syrian government and the armed opposition took place in the Kazakh capital of Astana on Feb. 15-16, and resulted in the creation of a joint group. Russia, Turkey and Iran, who are mediating the peace talks, will monitor the ceasefire that came into effect on Dec. 30. At the end of the talks on Feb. 16, Russia's Federation Council, (the country's upper chamber of parliament), held its first Moscow-Damascus telebridge to give Federation Council senators the chance to discuss the peace talks with Syrian MPs. Members of the Russian and Syrian delegations in Astana also joined the dialogue. Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Federation Council's Foreign Affairs Committee, said the dialogue with Syrian MPs helped them understand Damascus'  viewpoint. In addition, Kosachev proposed that his colleagues in Damascus make a joint statement on Syria at the 137th session of the Assembly of the Inter-parliamentary Union, which will take place in St. Petersburg in October. Humanitarian aid as political tool During the telebridge Stanislav Gadjimagomedov, deputy director of the Main Operations Directorate of the Russian General Staff, said the ceasefire in Syria has been respected so far, and that 64 armed opposition groups and 1,249 towns and cities are adhering to the ceasefire agreement as of Feb. 15. Russia takes center stage as arbiter of peace in Syria There are still tensions in the districts of East Ghouta (a suburb of Damascus) and in the cities of Daraa and Homs. Clashes involving heavy weapons continue to take place in all these areas. Gadjimagomedov blamed Al-Nusra Front terrorists, who continue to infiltrate the ranks of the opposition and try to sabotage peace efforts by provoking armed confrontations. As far as the humanitarian situation, it's still catastrophic, said Ashbak Abbas, an independent deputy of the Syrian National Council. "Humanitarian aid is politicized," she remarked, adding that some countries refuse to help regions under government control, although the situation there is no less deplorable than in the territories under the opposition's control. Damascus expressed gratitude to Russia, which has been providing humanitarian aid to Syria on a regular basis. Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council's Foreign Affairs Committee, Ziyad Sabsabi, said that on Feb. 15 alone more than six tons of humanitarian aid were delivered to Syria. "Russian army officers have practically become employees of humanitarian aid organizations," he noted. At the end of the talks on Feb. 16, Russia's Federation Council held its first Moscow-Damascus telebridge to give Federation Council senators the chance to discuss the peace talks with Syrian MPs. Members of the Russian and Syrian delegations in Astana also joined the dialogue. Source: Vladimir Trefilov/RIA Novosti Who are the terrorists? Moscow and Damascus see eye to eye on most issues, remarked MPs from both countries. "Russia came to Syria to protect our statehood," said the chairman of the Arab Socialist Union Party, Khaled Abbud. But the telebridge also showed that on certain issues Syria is more intransigent than Russia. Syrian MPs, for example, did not mention the "opposition," but instead only spoke of the "fight against terrorism". Akhmed Kuzbari, a member of the Syrian National Council Foreign Affairs Committee, said that, "Anyone who takes up arms against a legal government is a terrorist." Kuzbari accused the Persian Gulf countries, the U.S. and Turkey, who is one of the mediators in Astana, of supporting terrorists. Russian MPs agreed that the fight against terrorism is important but refrained from accusing various countries, emphasizing that the Syrian crisis cannot be solved militarily and that a political solution is needed. Read more: Will 'friendly' fire deaths in Syria dampen Russian-Turkish relations?>>>

17 февраля, 06:08

The 2 Percent NATO Benchmark Is a Red Herring

Peter Layton Security, Europe There’s more to NATO than budgeting. The usefulness of America’s allies was severely questioned during Donald Trump’s election campaign. Allies were presented as costing America a considerable amount and giving little in return. The title of an article in Foreign Affairs summed up this perception: “Ripped Off: What Donald Trump gets Right about U.S. Alliances.” This election platform is now being translated into action. Secretary of Defense James Mattis declared that “the political reality in the United States . . . the fair demand from my country's people in concrete terms” is that American allies must increase defense spending by year’s end towards a 2 percent GDP target. If they don’t, the United States will “moderate its commitment” to them. Mattis elaborated, “No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of western values. Americans cannot care more for your children’s security than you do.” Read full article

16 февраля, 14:53

Will Belarus leave Russia to join Europe?

Russian-Belarusian relations are once again in a state of crisis. This has happened many times before - the two countries regularly go through dairy, sugar, oil and other types of trade wars. Every time, however, they ended well, with an acceptable compromise. It might seem that Minsk and Moscow are once again going through their usual haggling. At stake are Belarus' debt for gas, and Russia's decision to cut supplies of subsidized oil. The battles over oil and gas, however, have unexpectedly led to an excessive list of complaints from Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. Some of these complaints have turned spats completely unfitting for allies, and the rift between Moscow and Minsk is deepening, experts say. Whatever direction relations between the two countries take, there is now a new aspect to contend with - the Kremlin has a much more hostile attitude towards Lukashenko's maneuvering between Russia and the West. Scenario No. 1: They make peace again Despite the current disagreements, the conciliatory scenario still remains most likely. There is a whole set of issues on which Minsk wants to remain a beneficiary and acts according to a format that it has been practicing for over a decade. "Lukashenko sets the bar high, then makes small concessions, and in the end achieves a significant part of what he wanted in the first place," said Yury Korgunyuk, head of the political science department of the INDEM Foundation. There are weighty arguments in favor of this scenario. Take, for example, the Russian oil supplies that have essentially subsidized the Belarusian economy. Belarus has been selling oil products to the West, thus receiving export revenue from cheap Russian oil. On top of that, the Belarusian economy is highly dependent on the Russian market. In 2015, Russia's share of Belarusian trade was 48.3 percent. Lukashenko will most likely try to step back, agreed Vladimir Yevseyev, head of the department of Eurasian Integration and Shanghai Cooperation Organization Development at the CIS Institute. How serious is the row between Russia and Belarus? "Russia has always given way in such disputes and Lukashenko is used to this, but he does not quite realize that the situation has changed; the time of free lunches is over," said Yevseyev, noting that this time Lukashenko has clearly gone too far in his overtures to the West. For example, suddenly, and contrary to bilateral agreements, he refused to allow a Russian air base to be built in Belarus. Moscow doesn't have much room to maneuver either. The "oil in exchange for kisses" model is no longer viable, and gas prices for Belarus are likely to go up. "But the Kremlin realizes that the Lukashenko regime can't function without these subsidies, and he will have to be subsidized to avoid another Ukraine," said Korgunyuk. Scenario No. 2: Belarus chooses the West Lukashenko steers a course towards the West and chooses a policy of open confrontation with Russia. Lately, the West has noticeably softened its position toward Belarus, said Andrei Kortunov, general director of the Russian Foreign Affairs Council. Lukashenko has temporarily stopped being regarded as the "last dictator in Europe," and has attracted the attention of the European establishment in a different capacity - as a peacemaker. First of all, this alternative course is uncomfortable and costly. All Europe can offer Belarus, bearing in mind its limited resources, is political support. "But Belarus does not need this; Belarus needs cheap loans, which it won't get, as well as cheap oil," said Yevseyev. Second, Lukashenko has not quite lost his dictator status. They simply forgot about it temporarily, but they will definitely remember it again. Anyway, Lukashenko remains an autocrat, and Europe doesn’t play according to these rules. The outcome of this scenario would be rather unfortunate for Minsk, experts say. Essentially, it will be Lukashenko's political suicide. European aid will be ephemeral, Belarus will be steamrolled, and there will be no Russian "carrots." Scenario No. 3: Change of power, and new relations with Russia This will be the most shocking outcome, and possible only if Belarus tries to integrate into the EU but doesn't find conditions that will be acceptable. Then, its leadership, finding itself in a difficult situation, will be forced to step down, to be replaced by those who accept Russian terms. As far as the government’s forcible removal, that is highly improbable. "Maidan scenarios do not start on their own, and require outside interference, and if the U.S. intervenes, there will be no rapprochement in Russian-American relations. After Ukraine, the EU won't need this either," said Yevseyev, adding that people in Belarus won't take up arms because they have no weapons. "The forest has been fully cleared from the political point of view, and there is no opposition there," said Kargunyan. "There is no one to replace Lukashenko. So it is either Lukashenko, or no one." Read more: Lukashenko accuses Russia of violating border agreement>>>

15 февраля, 02:00

Trump's Russia Reset Will Survive Flynn's Ouster

But the uncertainty that Trump has brought to the United States is spilling into even the places that he hoped to do business with.

14 февраля, 15:04

Abe’s men: The new diplomats in charge of a peace treaty with Russia

2017 apparently began rather auspiciously for the ongoing Russo-Japanese rapprochement. At the beginning of the year the parties attempted to pick up exactly where they left off after the “hot spring diplomacy” in Nagato, and held the first round of negotiations on possible joint economic activities on the Kuril Islands. The talks were reportedly held in a cordial atmosphere. A new flavor to Northern Territories Day The latest commemoration of the Northern Territories Day in Japan, usually held on Feb. 7, had a new flavor. This year, its traditional elements – a gathering of the former inhabitants of the islands and a concurrent right-wing protest near the Russian Embassy in Tokyo – were accompanied by the inauguration of a special panel established by the Japanese government as a task force in charge of discussing joint economic activities with Russia on the islands. Why doesn’t Russia return the ‘Northern Territories’ to Japan? It is not only the panel’s institutional value but also its high-ranking makeup that are worth noting. Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida chairs the panel to expedite preparations for official talks with Russia planned in Tokyo in March. The acting chair of the panel is expected to be Minister for Economic Cooperation with Russia Hiroshige Seko, with Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Kotaro Nogami as deputy chair. General support to the panel will be reportedly provided by Shotaro Yachi, one of Prime Minister Abe’s key foreign policy advisors and head of the secretariat of the National Security Council; as well as Deputy Foreign Minister Takeo Akiba and Eiichi Hasegawa, special adviser to the prime minister. Japan Russia’s policy managers reshuffle The panel initiative followed the January reshuffle of ‘relationship managers’ on the Japanese side by Prime Minister Abe and the first round of talks between deputy foreign ministers. Akiba replaced Chikahito Harada as “handler” of foreign ministry-level talks. According to unattributed sources of the Russian media, a possible reason for Harada’s removal was the fact that he had a strained relationship with his Russian counterpart Igor Morgulov. Why Putin refused to accept a 'Hachiko' as a gift from Abe In this light, Akiba’s appointment may have also suggested that the Japanese side maintains a strong commitment to resolving the Kuril dispute in the aftermath of the December summit in Nagato. Furthermore, another rotation took place inside the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with Yasushi Masaki’s appointment as the new head of the European Affairs Bureau and Tadaatsu Mori in charge of its Russian Division. Russia-China territorial settlement as an example Masaki’s experience includes work on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and other economic matters, including international treaties, suggesting a solid negotiation experience with China. As for Mori, apart from his diplomatic track record with Russia, the new head of the Russian Division published a research paper back in 2011, reviewing the Russo-Chinese territorial settlement and making a case for an incremental approach in the Russo-Japanese territorial issue. 100 years after the Bolshevik Revolution: How Russians fled to Japan In 2004, Russia and China settled their border dispute with the former handing over Tarabarov Island and half of the Bolshoi Ussuriski Island on the Amur River to the latter.  An incremental approach, according to Mori, requires a sufficient level of mutual trust, while pragmatism is key to avoiding politicization and building confidence. This research finding appears to be in harmony with the current policy of the Japanese government. The rotation inside the Foreign Ministry of Japan may also represent another hint that the Cabinet of Ministers, known as Kantei, wants to consolidate its influence over negotiations with Russia and make sure internal disagreements between politicians and bureaucrats do not get in the way, as they may have under the previous governments. Japan-U.S. stabilization The U.S. part of Japan’s foreign policy equation has also been positive. Although Donald Trump’s backtracking on the Trans-Pacific Partnership dealt a blow to Tokyo’s perseverance to save the international trade deal, Abe’s February visit to the U.S. was rich in hard currency. Firstly, the prime minister secured pledges about the validity of the U.S.-Japan alliance when it comes to Tokyo’s dispute with Beijing over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Secondly, Japan and the U.S. established a regular dialogue between Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso and Vice President Mike Pence. In short, post-election fears in Tokyo that Trump’s unpredictability will entail a need for “damage control” and relationship re-building on the Japanese side have not materialized so far. Nor has anything transpired in regard to Washington’s take on the Southern Kuril dispute.  The desirable outcome for Japan would be to simply handle the normalization of ties with Russia without any pressure similar to what the country experienced during the Obama administration. Obstacles to joint activities on the Kurils While both the international and Japanese political environment seems to be conducive for better ties between Moscow and Tokyo, the idea of joint economic ties on the Southern Kurils raises the most questions. Let’s start with the law governing joint activities on the islands. Despite declarative willingness to work together, the positions of both sides remain polar opposites, as Russia wants the cooperation to work under the Russian law, while Japan does not agree with that. Putin-Abe summit ended in favor of Russia - experts Another uncertainty may lie in the recent developments on the disputed islands per se. On the one hand, the creation of the territories of advanced development regime in the Russian Far East included the Kurils and is expected to make the life of foreign investors easier. On the other hand, the Russian equivalent of the Homestead Act, known as “the Far Eastern Hectare”, is likely to restrict the bargaining space over any possible compromise. The program of free distribution of Far Eastern land to Russian citizens is proving quite popular so far and applications by individuals have already been made on the disputed islands as well.   Any hypothetical territorial handover would therefore risk a possible infringement of private property rights of not only the old settlers but the growing number of new ones as well. A year without a breakthrough This is not to say that a compromise is completely impossible, since Russian property authorities are expected to have overriding powers when it comes to projects considered to be of federal significance. However, as it has been noted on numerous occasions, 2017 is a pre-election year in Russia and, in all likelihood, in Japan as well, and such a sensitive period is hardly encouraging bold compromises on either side. Still, the Japanese leader is set to visit Russia in the first half of 2017 and possibly also during the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) in Vladivostok in September. In light of the above, he is likely to expect some tangible deliverables from those trips. Perhaps, one of those would be the facilitation of air travel to the Kurils for the former Japanese inhabitants of the island. The current visa-free regime is restricted to marine transportation. Despite the roadblocks, Russia and Japan seem to be on the right track to establishing a pragmatic working relationship.

13 февраля, 04:15

Is Foreign Policy Leadership a Fool's Errand?

Ronald R. Krebs Security, Americas The domestic politics of foreign policy have never been so challenging. DONALD TRUMP is so singular a figure in background and temperament, so large a personality, and so seemingly immune to the usual pressures and incentives, that it is tempting to imagine that foreign policy under him will be simply the projection of his will. Think again. Like presidents before him, Trump will learn that going solo is not a recipe for an effective and enduring foreign policy. Always fraught and frustrating, the domestic politics of foreign policy have in recent years become even harder for presidents to manage. Trump will be no exception. Trump the presidential candidate seemed to care little about building a coalition. Deriding the corrupt politics of Washington, he rode a populist wave to the White House. Trump the president needs those very elites whom he had previously spurned. Trump the presidential candidate reveled in the politics of division: American politics had become highly polarized across party lines well before he became a contender for the Oval Office, but Trump carved and mined new seams. Trump the president cannot govern through division alone. Even a president with greater discipline and thicker skin than Donald Trump, however, would find foreign-policy leadership daunting. Two central tasks—setting the agenda, and building and maintaining a supportive coalition—have become much more difficult as audiences have become increasingly fragmented and diverse and as politicians have refrained from horse trading for fear of WikiLeaks-style exposure. Even if Trump were suddenly to embrace the politics of unity, he would discover that a durable coalition is an unattainable dream. Presidents have every incentive today to retreat from sweeping narratives, provide very targeted “side payments,” and craft narrow coalitions to support their policy initiatives. Barack Obama’s modest ambitions in foreign affairs, his instrumental rhetoric and his pragmatic inclinations reflected his domestic circumstances as much as they did either the world or his personality. And these same circumstances will confront President Trump.   Read full article

13 февраля, 02:43

Thousands Protest Donald Trump Across Mexico

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Thousands of protestors stormed streets across Mexico on Sunday to denounce U.S. President Donald Trump, just days after his administration began ramping up deportation efforts.  Protestors assembled in more than a dozen Mexican cities in what may the be country’s largest anti-Trump march yet, Reuters and AFP reported. Armed with sombrero-clad Trump figures and signs in both English and Spanish, they clapped back at Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric and the “big, beautiful” border wall he has vowed to build at Mexico’s expense.  The protests come days after reports that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement carried out raids in at least six U.S. states, resulting in the arrests of hundreds of undocumented immigrants ― many of whom had previously been considered low-priority for removal. The raids prompted the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs to issue a grim message to its citizens, warning them of a “new reality” in the U.S. “[T]he entire Mexican community should take precautions and keep in touch with the nearest consulate, to obtain the necessary help to face this kind of situation,” the ministry urged in its statement.   See photos below showing how protestors responded in Mexico City: -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

12 февраля, 22:24

Top Highlights From Sunday’s Shows

Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller on NBC’s Meet The Press: “We are pursuing every single possible action to keep our country safe from terrorism.” MILLER: “We’re considering all of our options right now, Chuck. That includes, you can continue the appeal [in] the Ninth [Circuit], you can seek an emergency stay at the Supreme Court, you can have a trial hearing on the merits at the district level, or you can take it en banc for the emergency hearing also at the Ninth Circuit, and yes, you can pursue additional executive actions. The bottom line is that we are pursuing every single possible action to keep our country safe from terrorism. And I also want to be clear, we’ve heard a lot of talk about how all of the branches of government are equal. That’s the point. They are equal. There’s no such thing as judicial supremacy. What the judges did both at the Ninth [Circuit] and at the district level was to take power for themselves that belongs squarely in the hands of the President of the United States.” Miller on Fox’s Fox News Sunday on the President’s authority to conduct immigration and national security policy: “The President’s powers here are beyond question. . . .They represent the very apex of Presidential authority.” MILLER: “But I want to say something very clearly, and this is going to be very disappointing to the people protesting the President and the people in Congress like Senator Schumer who have attacked the President for his lawful and necessary action. The President’s powers here are beyond question. The President has the authority under the INA, section 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), to suspend the entry of aliens into this country and he has Article II foreign [affairs] powers to also engage in conducting border control and immigration control [for] this country. Those powers are substantial. They represent the very apex of Presidential authority. And so we are contemplating new and additional actions to ensure that our immigration system does not become a vehicle for admitting people into our country who are hostile to this Nation and its values.” Miller on ABC’s This Week on North Korea’s Missile Test: “The message we’re sending to the world right now is a message of strength and solidarity.” MILLER: “The message we’re sending to the world right now is a message of strength and solidarity. We stand with Japan and we stand with our allies in the region to address the North Korean menace. And the important point is that we’re inheriting a situation around the world that is as challenging as any we’ve ever seen in our lives. The situation in North Korea, the situation in Syria, the situation in Yemen. These are complex and difficult challenges, and that’s why President Trump is displaying the strength of America to the whole world. And it’s why we’re going to begin a process of rebuilding our depleted defense capabilities on a scale we have not seen in generations.” Miller on NBC’s Meet The Press: “We should have a program in which American workers are given jobs first.” MILLER: “I believe that we should have a program in which American workers are given jobs first. The President campaigned on this, it’s an issue where the labor unions agree with us, it’s an issue where many Democrat members of Congress agree with us. If you have an open job in this country, a U.S. citizen or existing legal permanent resident ought to have the ability to make the first application for that job. The problem is in the way the media covers this issue, present company excluded, is [that] they don’t spend enough time talking about the well-being of the 300 million people here today, U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, many of whom are living in poverty, many of whom who haven’t seen wage growth in 20 [or] 30 years, and its time we talked about them—their needs, their families, and their concerns—and yes we’ll have a lawful immigration system. It will enrich and benefit our country. But the President has made clear that he believes [it] should be a merit-based system, where individuals coming to the country bring the kinds of benefits economically that will grow our economy and help lift up wages for everybody.” Miller on CBS’s Face The Nation on the Trump Administration’s opening weeks: “On issue after issue, we’re taking forceful action to deliver on the President’s campaign promises on a breathtaking scale.” MILLER: “The President of the United States has accomplished more in just a few weeks than many presidents accomplish in an entire administration. You’ve seen, for instance, profound regulatory reform: for every one new regulation, two must go. You’ve seen ethics reforms to drain the swamp. You’ve seen efforts to bring back jobs with Intel and Ford and General Motors. You’ve seen action taken with an executive order to go after criminal cartels that have plagued our cities for years with no effective response. On issue after issue, we’re taking forceful action to deliver on the President’s campaign promises on a breathtaking scale.”

12 февраля, 15:39

Ближневосточные «ловушки» для Трампа

Альянс Россия — Турция — Иран проходит испытание на прочность.  На днях известный американский журнал Foreign Affairs, специализирующийся по тематике международных отношений и внешней политики, попытался определить платформы, с которыми могут выступить по проблемам Ближнего Востока...

11 февраля, 21:40

Mexico Warns Its People About 'New Reality' In The United States

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); The Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an eerie statement on Thursday, warning its citizens of the “new reality” they face in the United States. The statement was sparked by the deportation of Arizona woman Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos, a working mother of two children who are U.S. citizens. Rayos came to the U.S. from Mexico at age 14 and had been in the country for more than 20 years. She was swept up in a 2009 workplace raid and convicted of a felony charge of using a false Social Security number, but was able to continue living in the U.S. for years, periodically checking in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. That changed Wednesday, when ICE agents detained and subsequently deported her, sparking protests in her community. “The case of Mrs. Garcia de Rayos illustrates the new reality that the Mexican community faces in the United States due to the more severe application of immigration control measures,” the ministry’s statement reads, as translated by NPR. “For this reason, the entire Mexican community should take precautions and keep in touch with the nearest consulate, to obtain the necessary help to face this kind of situation.” The government’s statement preceded reports of ICE raids in at least six states, resulting in the arrests of hundreds of undocumented immigrants this week. The ministry also instructed Mexicans to “familiarize” themselves with situations they may face in the U.S., and advised that Mexican consulates are available to provide assistance. Some immigrant advocates and legal experts believe that the deportation of Rayos and others indicates that ICE is already changing its deportation policies under President Donald Trump. In January, Trump issued an executive order that, among other things, laid out broad and sometimes contradictory guidelines for which immigrants should be considered priorities for deportation. While the White House has said immigration efforts will focus on criminal offenders, his executive order as written could be interpreted to include nearly all undocumented immigrants as deportation priorities. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

06 февраля 2016, 11:56

ФРС на Украине: идеальное порабощение

Глава Федрезерва Бен Бернанке сделал все, чтобы вызвать в "незалежной" хаос

03 декабря 2015, 06:06

Ливия. Приглашение в бездну

Из огня да в полымя. Так кратко можно описать последние события в Ливии. Запад взялся за примирение двух правительств, существующих в стране, но последствия этой инициативы могут ввергнуть Ливию в ещё больший хаос и окончательно уничтожить когда-то процветавшее государство.

26 октября 2015, 15:30

Как работать с Россией в Сирии ("Foreign Affairs", США)

Трудно вести войну, когда твои союзники не могут договориться, кто враг. Именно с такой ситуацией Соединенные Штаты столкнулись в Сирии. Вашингтон в попытках создать коалицию для борьбы вынужден уговаривать союзников из Персидского залива, которые хотят воевать с сирийским лидером Башаром аль-Асадом, но не с радикальными исламистами. Ему приходится иметь дело с Турцией, которая выступает против Асада и радикальных исламистов, но воевать хочет преимущественно с курдами. Еще один союзник США Израиль нерешительно смотрит на бурлящий водоворот своих врагов и, как кажется, готов вмешаться лишь в том случае, если появятся серьезные угрозы. И наконец, Германия желает вооружать курдов, а американский спецназ уже взаимодействует с ними. Во всей этой путанице неудивительно, что результаты борьбы с самопровозглашенным «Исламским государством» (ИГИЛ) у коалиции сегодня - весьма неутешительные.

22 апреля 2015, 14:22

Китай: правила дорожного движения для Шелкового пути ("Foreign Affairs", США)

Пекин задумался о евразийской интеграции Пока мир внимательно следит за агрессивным поведением Китая в восточных морях, китайские лидеры глядят на запад. В конце марта китайская Комиссия по национальному развитию и реформам совместно с министерством иностранных дел и министерством торговли подготовила подробный проект «Экономического пояса Шелкового пути» и «Морского Шелкового пути 21 века». Этот проект зачастую сокращенно называют «Один пояс, один путь». В случае успеха амбициозных планов Пекина, Китай станет ключевой движущей силой экономической и дипломатической евразийской интеграции. «Один пояс, один путь» призывает страны Азии, Европы, Ближнего Востока и Африки координировать дипломатические усилия, стандартизировать и объединять торговые площадки, зоны свободной торговли и торговые процедуры, интегрировать финансовую сферу с опорой на юань и развивать международные культурные и образовательные программы. Иногда его называют «китайским планом Маршалла», но китайские власти не согласны с такими сравнениями. С их точки зрения, они объединяют Евразию, а не проводят в ней новые границы и стремятся к экономическому росту, а не к политическому влиянию. Однако это не отменяет опасности, связанной с усилиями Китая: если Пекин не сможет найти баланс между инвестициями и дипломатией, с одной стороны, и поиском политического влияния, с другой, он может оказаться втянутым в конфликты, к которым он не готов. В дальний путь Хотя точная конфигурация «Одного пояса, одного пути» в разных вариантах выглядит по-разному, в целом проект предусматривает, что сухопутный «пояс» из автомобильных и железных дорог, трубопроводов и телекоммуникационных сетей должен будет связать Китай, Центральную Азию, Ближний Восток, Европу и Россию. Морской «путь», в свою очередь, пройдет от берегов Китая по Южно-Китайскому морю, Индийскому океану, Красному морю и Средиземному морю (через Суэцкий канал) с остановками в Африке. В основе «Одного пояса, одного пути» лежит давняя идея китайских ученых о продвижении на Запад в ответ на американский «стратегический поворот к Азии». Название двойного проекта Пекина отсылает к еще боле давнему прошлому — к временам Шелкового пути — и к исторической роли Китая в торговле между Европой и Азией. Китайский президент Си Цзиньпин впервые официально заявил о проекте «пояса» в сентябре 2013 года в Казахстане, а о проекте «пути» — в октябре того же года в Индонезии. Деньги на проекты пойдут из пресловутого Азиатского банка инфраструктурных инвестиций (АБИИ), капитал которого составляет 50 миллиардов долларов, Фонда нового Шелкового пути с капиталом в 40 миллиардов долларов и Нового банка развития, созданного странами БРИКС. По расчетам китайских властей, их программы затронут 4,4 миллиарда человек в 65 странах, а объем торговли Китая со странами-участниками может за десятилетие дойти до 2,5 триллиона долларов в год. South China Morning Post назвала этот проект в своей редакционной статье «самым крупным и масштабным в истории страны». Стратегия «Один пояс, один путь» должна помочь Китаю достичь ряда внутриполитических целей, соответствующих «китайской мечте» Си о национальном обновлении. Главная из этих целей — укрепить китайскую экономику, дав выход излишкам промышленного производства. Сейчас, когда Пекин старается охладить перегретый инфраструктурный сектор, не создавая при этом массовой безработицы, планы, которые позволяют перенаправить вызываемый притоком инвестиций рост за пределы Китая, особенно актуальны. Внутри китайских границ проект фокусируется на сравнительно слаборазвитых западных и южных регионах. Власти надеются, что экономический рост и рост занятости в них помогут снизить межэтническую напряженность — а также улучшат ситуацию с занятостью в других регионах. Во внешней торговле Китай также рассчитывает получить выгоду от валютных операций, подкрепляющих статус юаня как глобальной валюты. Помимо этого, энергетические сделки должны будут гарантировать Китаю бесперебойные поставки энергоносителей на фоне растущего спроса. Вдобавок сухопутная энергетическая инфраструктура сможет ослабить опасную зависимость от морских поставок. К тому же развитые экономики по-прежнему растут медленно, и Китай рассматривает азиатские развивающиеся страны как удобные — и географически близкие — источники роста. «Один пояс, один путь» также служит внешнеполитическим целям, укрепляя отношения Китая с соседями. Двойной проект расширит связи Пекина с ведущими развивающимися странами и сможет послужить основой для новой международной системы, в центре которой будет находиться Китай. Рост значения Китая заставил Пекин смириться — пусть и неохотно — с международными обязательствами, а теперь торговый проект позволит Си начать воплощать в жизнь идею «сообщества общей судьбы», подразумевающую совместный рост азиатских экономик в ближайшие десятилетия. Укрепление двусторонних связей со странами, лежащими вдоль «пути» и «пояса», может помочь Китаю создать сеть незападных международных организаций, в которых он сможет играть основную — если не преобладающую — роль. Такие структуры, как Шанхайская организация сотрудничества и Совещание по взаимодействию и мерам доверия в Азии дадут Пекину возможность обрести дипломатический вес за пределами отношений с Вашингтоном. Препятствия на пути Сейчас «Один пояс, один путь», по-видимому, постепенно набирает обороты. У проекта есть серьезная финансовая база, которую ему обеспечивают, в первую очередь, хваленый китайский АБИИ и поддержка китайских политических и экономических элит. Тем не менее, на пути китайских амбиций по-прежнему лежат определенные препятствия. Хотя попытки заполнить инфраструктурный вакуум Азии (в инфраструктуру в этом регионе необходимо вложить до 2020 года восемь триллионов долларов) можно только приветствовать, прогрессу могут помешать недостаточно жесткие правила кредитования. Если страны-участники потратят связанное с «Одним поясом, одним путем» финансирование на бессмысленные или нерациональные проекты и не смогут расплатиться с долгами, пострадают китайские капиталовложения. Вдобавок, если с этими проектами будут связаны скандалы в областях экологии или прав человека, может пострадать имидж Китая на международной арене. В морской сфере усилия Китая по модернизации портовой инфраструктуры вдоль пути и созданию зон свободной торговли должны увеличить торговый потенциал стран-участников, однако пока не ясно, как «морской Шелковый путь» повлияет на существующие судоходные линии. Более того, хотя китайский министр иностранных дел Ван И (Wang Yi) подчеркивал, что «Один пояс, один путь» не следует считать «геополитическим инструментом», Китай, скорее всего, попробует превратить экономическое сотрудничество в источник политического влияния. Для этого Пекину потребуется преодолеть ряд серьезных преград — таких, как конкуренция в Центральной Азии, Южной Азии и на Ближнем Востоке со стороны Индии, России и Соединенных Штатов. Российский проект Евразийского союза, экономически объединяющего бывшие советские республики, напрямую конкурирует с интеграционной стратегией Китая — несмотря на улучшающиеся китайско-российские отношения. У Индии китайские планы также вызывают опасения, так как проекты Пекина могут подорвать ее программы «Действия на Востоке» и «Связь с Центральной Азией». Кроме того Индию тревожит расширяющаяся деятельность Китая в Индийском океане — особенно в портах, которые могут послужить опорными точками для операций китайского военного флота. Хотя Соединенные Штаты сейчас уменьшают свою роль в Центральной Азии по мере ухода из Афганистана, китайское присутствие в Евразии, на Индийском океане и на Ближнем Востоке все равно будет требовать от Пекина постоянных поисков баланса между конкуренцией и сотрудничеством. Китайцам придется работать совместно с соседями и мировыми державами — вместо того, чтобы бороться с ними. Успех «Одного пояса, одного пути» во многом будет зависеть от готовности капризных региональных и местных лидеров сотрудничать. Многие лидеры, особенно в Центральной Азии и на Ближнем Востоке, опираются на многовековой опыт стравливания иностранных держав друг с другом ради личных политических и финансовых выгод. Скажем, на фоне нарастающего межконфессионального конфликта на Ближнем Востоке китайским лидерам будет трудно совместить давние связи между Китаем и Ираном и новые отношения с суннитскими государствами во главе с Саудовской Аравией. Еще один характерный пример — недавнее решение Шри-Ланки пересмотреть более двух десятков проектов, поддерживаемых Китаем. Вдобавок существуют негосударственные субъекты, порождающие дополнительные политические риски, к которыми Китай не привык. Талибы в Афганистане, «Исламское государство» (ИГИЛ) в Ираке и в Сирии и хуситы в Йемене угрожают китайским капиталовложениям и ключевым перевалочным пунктам на будущих торговых маршрутах. «Один пояс, один путь» станет серьезной проверкой на прочность для внешнеполитической доктрины и внешнеполитического потенциала Пекина. Риторика Китая с ее «взаимовыгодными решениями», «консенсусами» и «невмешательством» может не выдержать столкновения с суровой реальностью, требующей защищать китайских граждан и китайские инвестиции. Опыт китайской миротворческой деятельности в Судане наглядно демонстрирует, что Китай готов идти на военные операции, когда речь идет о защите его финансовых интересов. Китайское стремление не вмешиваться исчезло, когда Судан начал распадаться и под угрозой оказались нефтяные инвестиции Китая. В итоге Пекин был вынужден выступить дипломатическим посредником и разместить в стране свой миротворческий контингент. Если Китай перейдет от простой защиты своих вложений к более широкой геополитической деятельности и начнет активнее вмешиваться в происходящее в других странах, это может окончательно убедить соседей в наличии у него империалистических амбиций. Именно так в последние годы развивались отношения Пекина с соседями по Восточно-Китайскому и Южно-Китайскому морям. Не трудно представить себе нечто подобное и на западном направлении. На оперативном уровне обширные глобальные интересы Китая могут поставить новые задачи перед его растущими, но неопытными вооруженными силами. Недавняя эвакуация китайских граждан из Йемена стала важной вехой: это была первая успешная военная операция по вывозу китайцев и граждан других стран из зоны кризиса. Еще в 2011 году Народно-освободительная армия не смогла осуществить аналогичную операцию в Ливии. В дипломатической сфере Китай явно претендует на глобальную роль. Он пытается стать посредником в афганском урегулировании, организовывая переговоры с талибами, и помочь израильско-палестинскому диалогу, предлагая мирный план из пяти пунктов. Впрочем, пока все эти усилия остаются символическими — у страны до сих пор не получилось добиться подлинных дипломатических побед ни по одному из вопросов, которыми она занималась. В целом во внешней политике Китай может оказаться в парадоксальном положении: пытаясь обеспечить себе стратегическую глубину на западном направлении, он может чрезмерно — и преждевременно — растянуть свои силы, оказаться втянутым во множество конфликтов и столкнуться с проблемами, с которыми он пока не готов справляться. Необходимость превратить «Один пояс, один путь» из амбициозных историко-картографических построений в рабочую экономическую и дипломатическую стратегию и — возможно — в инструмент геополитического влияния, станет испытанием для внешнеполитических возможностей Китая во всех возможных аспектах. Путь на запад может оказаться долгим. Автор: Джейкоб Стоукс (Jacob Stokes),  Источинк: ИноСМИ 22.04.2015 VK.init({apiId: 4591053, onlyWidgets: true}); VK.Widgets.Like("vk_like", {type: "mini", height: 20 }); Tweet апрель 2015