Suchergebnisse

This article explores the concepts of "soft power" and "cultural diplomacy" from both a theoretical perspective as well as thinking about how they manifest in practice. Britain is used as a case study to demonstrate how these terms have shifted in line with the advancement of neoliberal politics. Any belief in intercultural cooperation has been usurped by the notion of global competition, wholeheartedly embraced by market-oriented Western nations. As soft power relies on the resources of the State, its corporations, industries and institutions, wealthy nations will always have the monopoly. This article argues that at a time when power is shifting to the East and the Global South, culture remains one of the last enduring weapons through which traditionally powerful states attempt to resist or slow down the changing world order. Soft power becomes a means by which the existing hegemony is reimagined, repackaged, and reaffirmed.

Western nations are willing participants in the eastward shift of international power. Businesses and consumers benefit from the investment opportunities and low-labour costs. But industralising countries need to be aware of western sensitivities to the power shift, respecting international norms during their ascent. Adapted from the source document.

We join the debate on trade interdependence and conflict with a reexamination of Barbieri's (1996) intriguing empirical results showing that under certain circumstances, trade interdependence causes conflict. We argue that these findings resulted from a specification that was missing a variable. We return to Barbieri's models and introduce two independent power measures for countries within each dyad. When a correctly specified trade-conflict regression model incorporating the new power variables is performed, the constraining effect of interdependence becomes evident, and the results obtained are the reverse of Barbieri's. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2007.]

Rosja zawsze była państwem, które dążyło, aby być mocarstwem. Nawet jeżeli straciło tematyce bezpieczeństwa międzynarodowego. W odniesieniu do roku 2016 autor dokonał (siłą rzeczy) subiektywnego wyboru tekstów, które znalazły się na łamach czterech publikacji- ,,Bellony", ,,Rocznika Bezpieczeństwa Międzynarodowego", ,,Rocznika Strategicznego" oraz ,,Stosunków Międzynarodowych". W naturalny sposób tematyka podejmowana przez autorów rzeczonych publikacji stanowi odzwierciedlenie obecnego stanu międzynarodowego środowiska bezpieczeństwa oraz prognoz co do kierunków jego dalszej ewolucji. ; Russia has always been a country seeking the Great Power status. Even though it lost its importance after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the desire to return to the role of the creator of international order force it to introduce new strategy that will implement soft power resources. This represents a certain obstacle for Russia, which traditionally is accustomed to hard power resources like economic pressure or the use of armed forces. Culture is Russia's soft power resource that is significant. Values can be more problematic for Russia, because in Moscow's intentions they should be different from the Western values. Russia is trying to create an alternative soft power project, competitive to that of the West. Russia is trying to make good use of its diplomacy, including digital diplomacy, in order to show the use of its hard power to be seen as soft.

Explores the reasons behind parents' food purchases for their children, relating this to the part that advertising is alleged to play in the purchase of unhealthy food, and in particular the issue of "pester power" or the nag factor. Reports a study of 1530 families in the UK sponsored by the Food Advertising Unit, which explored the questions of whether parents know enough about healthy diets, how they react to pestering, what they think about advertising to children, and the relation of income level to attitudes. Finds that parents do have reservations about advertising to children, with most of them feeling that advertisers manipulate children; but at the same time parents accept this as a fact of life in a consumer society and still feel that they have more influence on their children than do the advertisers.

Rick Tallman, Richard Luarkie and Morgan D. BazilianThe world departed Dubai and the annual UN Climate Talks with a bold, new set of commitments to nuclear power. At the same time, geopolitical tensions are adding new restrictions to an already limited global Uranium supply chain. As a result, the spot price of Uranium is now over $100 per pound – the highest prices ever seen, outside the uranium bubble of 2007. With such economics, and a newly found bipartisan political will for American nuclear power, the U.S. is poised for a uranium mining boom once again. As the inevitable debate ensues, what is often not appreciated is the essential need to gain support from our Native American communities from the very start and through the developments. A report by the NRGI calculated that: "American Indian lands are estimated to include as much as 50 percent of US potential uranium reserves". That amount could meet most (or all) of the future medium-term domestic demand growth. Thus, any attempt to reboot American uranium production that is not cast in full and willing partnership with sovereign tribal governments and their local communities will likely fail. Neither technology nor regulatory reform can overcome the sins of the past, which must be set straight before the industry can move forward.It is hard to overstate the negative impact of uranium on the Native American community. In 1951, the first nuclear weapons field test took place on Shoshone land in Nevada. Over the next 40 years, almost a thousand more nuclear tests took place on Shoshone territory. Between 1951 and 1992 nuclear tests conducted on Shoshone land caused 620 kt of nuclear fallout, more than 40 Hiroshima bombs. The resulting health impacts on tribal populations are widespread and well documented, including the doubling of cancer rates within the Navajo Nation from the 1970s to the 1990s.From 1950 to 1980, 96% of all U.S. defense-related uranium mines were located in the Navajo Nation. The remainder of U.S. defense-related uranium mines were located on lands of the Pueblo of Laguna, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Hualapai Tribe, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Spokane Tribe of Indians, and the Ute Indian Tribe. These affected lands are located across what are now the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Almost all this uranium was purchased by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and incorporated into the vast American nuclear weapons inventory of the cold war. In response, the Radiation Exposure and Compensation Act (RECA) was established in 1990 to provide payment and apology for the decades of exposing workers and the public to harm from uranium extraction and above ground nuclear tests in the American West and Pacific Islands. One of the shortfalls of RECA is that it only compensated individuals and communities that participated in this industry between 1942 and 1971 in support of the nuclear weapons program. However, we know that there were several locations like the Pueblo of Laguna and Navajo Nation that had uranium mines still operating well after 1971. Unfortunately, post-1971 miners were statutorily ineligible for the benefits of RECA yet experienced many of the same complex health complications that their pre-1971 colleagues experienced. In fact, the biggest single radioactive release in American history occurred on Navajo land in 1979 with the collapse of a containment dam at UNC's Church Rock uranium mill in New Mexico – a mill that fed civilian power reactors, not the nuclear arsenal.The bottom line is that today there are still over 4,000 formerly producing and now Abandoned Uranium Mines (AUMs) that are still impacting tribal communities. Over 500 AUMs and four abandoned uranium mills still affect the Navajo Nation. Historical Lakota tribal territory hosts thousands of AUMs still awaiting cleanup. The continuing generational health impacts on tribal populations is widespread and well documented, while funding has fallen through the cracks. The federal cleanup effort is clearly wanting.One example of the complex issues at hand is the proposed drilling outside of Bears Ears National Monument. The Monument was restored to its original size by President Biden after it was shrunk considerably in the Trump era, and a large-scale cleanup has been underway for years. New mining on the outskirts of Bears Ears has been proposed—and the resource appears significant. The area is sacred to several Tribes including the Navajo, Zuni, Hopi and Ute Mountain Ute. A new paradigm of engagement and revenue sharing is needed. Clearly, a new approach to Uranium mining and processing in the U.S. is essential and should include five key tenants:First, fully fund Cold War cleanup efforts. The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management was established to "address the nation's Cold War environmental legacy resulting from decades of nuclear weapons production and government-sponsored nuclear energy research". Although progress continues in the reclamation of over 100 nuclear sites across the country, the most difficult sites continue to be hampered by a lack of resources. Funding must address the gap created by the termination of RECA and should be focused on Tribal nation building for a clean-energy future, not just Tribal nation repair of Cold War damages. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be a smart choice to manage and contract a comprehensive federal AUM clean-up effort. Second, since the American nuclear power industry was blunted in the 1980s, the country has fundamentally lost its collective expertise on the subject. A significant effort to expand graduate and undergraduate programs in nuclear engineering and associated sciences at American research universities is past due. The priority to receive such an education must be given first to tribal members - currently underrepresented in every related technical discipline. Ideally, the tribal sector from being the researched to being the researcher. Third, much of the opposition to new mining and milling stems from the inevitable physical damage caused by activities like open pit mining, tailings disposal, wastewater treatment, subsidence, and the construction of surface facilities. Many new mining and milling technologies are being developed that could significantly reduce or eliminate much of this surface disruption. Priority funding support for such new technologies should be given, as is already allowed under federal law, to tribally- and native-owned companies and their affiliates. Technology research programs should integrate Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) into development plans to achieve meaningful and actionable results. Fourth, all U.S. nuclear development efforts should seek Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) from affected tribal communities, in a manner similar to the Canadian model. Surely this international standard is warranted for the special case of nuclear development in the western U.S. New effective protocols should be developed jointly between industry and Tribal leaders, and not by federal regulators. Fifth, every uranium mine and mill built in the U.S. should generate direct financial benefit to all affected tribal communities, regardless of current property ownership rights. New and innovative business structures should be explored and developed jointly between industry and affected communities. Maintaining a focus not only on mitigating environmental and public health issues, but on the economic development of the Tribes is key to success. This is an historic opportunity for both atonement and demonstrate value to the Tribes at a time of great national urgency. Success will require focusing on the sovereignty and economic vibrancy of Native American tribes, while also ensuring the country's legal and moral obligation to environment and public health.Rick Tallman is a veteran of the US Army, and a longtime energy investor and developer. Richard Luarkie is the CEO of Blue Stone Strategy Partners and former Governor of the Pueblo of Laguna Tribe in New Mexico. Morgan Bazilian is the director of the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the Colorado School of Mines, and formerly lead energy specialist at the World Bank.

Rick Tallman, Richard Luarkie and Morgan D. BazilianThe world departed Dubai and the annual UN Climate Talks with a bold, new set of commitments to nuclear power. At the same time, geopolitical tensions are adding new restrictions to an already limited global Uranium supply chain. As a result, the spot price of Uranium is now over $100 per pound – the highest prices ever seen, outside the uranium bubble of 2007. With such economics, and a newly found bipartisan political will for American nuclear power, the U.S. is poised for a uranium mining boom once again. As the inevitable debate ensues, what is often not appreciated is the essential need to gain support from our Native American communities from the very start and through the developments. A report by the NRGI calculated that: "American Indian lands are estimated to include as much as 50 percent of US potential uranium reserves". That amount could meet most (or all) of the future medium-term domestic demand growth. Thus, any attempt to reboot American uranium production that is not cast in full and willing partnership with sovereign tribal governments and their local communities will likely fail. Neither technology nor regulatory reform can overcome the sins of the past, which must be set straight before the industry can move forward.It is hard to overstate the negative impact of uranium on the Native American community. In 1951, the first nuclear weapons field test took place on Shoshone land in Nevada. Over the next 40 years, almost a thousand more nuclear tests took place on Shoshone territory. Between 1951 and 1992 nuclear tests conducted on Shoshone land caused 620 kt of nuclear fallout, more than 40 Hiroshima bombs. The resulting health impacts on tribal populations are widespread and well documented, including the doubling of cancer rates within the Navajo Nation from the 1970s to the 1990s.From 1950 to 1980, 96% of all U.S. defense-related uranium mines were located in the Navajo Nation. The remainder of U.S. defense-related uranium mines were located on lands of the Pueblo of Laguna, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Hualapai Tribe, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Spokane Tribe of Indians, and the Ute Indian Tribe. These affected lands are located across what are now the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Almost all this uranium was purchased by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and incorporated into the vast American nuclear weapons inventory of the cold war. In response, the Radiation Exposure and Compensation Act (RECA) was established in 1990 to provide payment and apology for the decades of exposing workers and the public to harm from uranium extraction and above ground nuclear tests in the American West and Pacific Islands. One of the shortfalls of RECA is that it only compensated individuals and communities that participated in this industry between 1942 and 1971 in support of the nuclear weapons program. However, we know that there were several locations like the Pueblo of Laguna and Navajo Nation that had uranium mines still operating well after 1971. Unfortunately, post-1971 miners were statutorily ineligible for the benefits of RECA yet experienced many of the same complex health complications that their pre-1971 colleagues experienced. In fact, the biggest single radioactive release in American history occurred on Navajo land in 1979 with the collapse of a containment dam at UNC's Church Rock uranium mill in New Mexico – a mill that fed civilian power reactors, not the nuclear arsenal.The bottom line is that today there are still over 4,000 formerly producing and now Abandoned Uranium Mines (AUMs) that are still impacting tribal communities. Over 500 AUMs and four abandoned uranium mills still affect the Navajo Nation. Historical Lakota tribal territory hosts thousands of AUMs still awaiting cleanup. The continuing generational health impacts on tribal populations is widespread and well documented, while funding has fallen through the cracks. The federal cleanup effort is clearly wanting.One example of the complex issues at hand is the proposed drilling outside of Bears Ears National Monument. The Monument was restored to its original size by President Biden after it was shrunk considerably in the Trump era, and a large-scale cleanup has been underway for years. New mining on the outskirts of Bears Ears has been proposed—and the resource appears significant. The area is sacred to several Tribes including the Navajo, Zuni, Hopi and Ute Mountain Ute. A new paradigm of engagement and revenue sharing is needed. Clearly, a new approach to Uranium mining and processing in the U.S. is essential and should include five key tenants:First, fully fund Cold War cleanup efforts. The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management was established to "address the nation's Cold War environmental legacy resulting from decades of nuclear weapons production and government-sponsored nuclear energy research". Although progress continues in the reclamation of over 100 nuclear sites across the country, the most difficult sites continue to be hampered by a lack of resources. Funding must address the gap created by the termination of RECA and should be focused on Tribal nation building for a clean-energy future, not just Tribal nation repair of Cold War damages. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be a smart choice to manage and contract a comprehensive federal AUM clean-up effort. Second, since the American nuclear power industry was blunted in the 1980s, the country has fundamentally lost its collective expertise on the subject. A significant effort to expand graduate and undergraduate programs in nuclear engineering and associated sciences at American research universities is past due. The priority to receive such an education must be given first to tribal members - currently underrepresented in every related technical discipline. Ideally, the tribal sector from being the researched to being the researcher. Third, much of the opposition to new mining and milling stems from the inevitable physical damage caused by activities like open pit mining, tailings disposal, wastewater treatment, subsidence, and the construction of surface facilities. Many new mining and milling technologies are being developed that could significantly reduce or eliminate much of this surface disruption. Priority funding support for such new technologies should be given, as is already allowed under federal law, to tribally- and native-owned companies and their affiliates. Technology research programs should integrate Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) into development plans to achieve meaningful and actionable results. Fourth, all U.S. nuclear development efforts should seek Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) from affected tribal communities, in a manner similar to the Canadian model. Surely this international standard is warranted for the special case of nuclear development in the western U.S. New effective protocols should be developed jointly between industry and Tribal leaders, and not by federal regulators. Fifth, every uranium mine and mill built in the U.S. should generate direct financial benefit to all affected tribal communities, regardless of current property ownership rights. New and innovative business structures should be explored and developed jointly between industry and affected communities. Maintaining a focus not only on mitigating environmental and public health issues, but on the economic development of the Tribes is key to success. This is an historic opportunity for both atonement and demonstrate value to the Tribes at a time of great national urgency. Success will require focusing on the sovereignty and economic vibrancy of Native American tribes, while also ensuring the country's legal and moral obligation to environment and public health.Rick Tallman is a veteran of the US Army, and a longtime energy investor and developer. Richard Luarkie is the CEO of Blue Stone Strategy Partners and former Governor of the Pueblo of Laguna Tribe in New Mexico. Morgan Bazilian is the director of the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the Colorado School of Mines, and formerly lead energy specialist at the World Bank.

Intro -- Title Page -- Dedication -- Epigraph -- Introduction -- Part One: Know Yourself -- Truth 1: First, Do No Self-Harm -- Truth 2: Your Weaknesses Are Your Strengths… -- Truth 3: … and Your Strengths Are Your Weaknesses -- Truth 4: You Are Not Entitled -- Truth 5: Follow Your Muse -- Truth 6: Pursue a Purpose Greater than Yourself -- Truth 7: Use Your Anger -- Truth 8: Define Yourself, Yourself -- Truth 9: Be Happy, Be Popular -- Part Two: Evaluate Your Circumstances -- Truth 10: Suck it Up -- Truth 11: The World Is Everything That Is Said and Done… -- Truth 12: … and the World Is Everything That Is Not Said and Not Done -- Truth 13: People Are Not Normal -- Truth 14: Think Without Hope -- Truth 15: Piggyback the Story -- Truth 16: Distract and Mislead -- Truth 17: Approach the Throne -- Truth 18: Prepare for Luck -- Part Three: Judge Your Timing -- Truth 19: Time Is the Only Thing in Limited Supply -- Truth 20: Inertia Rules -- Truth 21: The World Changes Quickly -- Truth 22: When Available, Take Certainty… -- Truth 23: … Or Strategically Delay -- Truth 24: Outwork -- Truth 25: Take the Risk -- Part Four: Reward Your Friends -- Truth 26: You Are Your Friends -- Truth 27: You Can Earn Yourself a Lot of Goodwill Very Cheaply… -- Truth 28: … and You Can Earn Yourself a Lot of Bad Will Even Cheaper -- Truth 29: Everyone Can Help You and Everyone Can Hurt You -- Truth 30: You Have to Give to Get -- Truth 31: Find Your Followers -- Truth 32: Build Your Base -- Truth 33: Tell Them What They Want to Hear -- Truth 34: Refuse an Offer You Can't Refuse -- Truth 35: There Is No Substitute for Boots on the Ground -- Part Five: Control Your Enemies -- Truth 36: Pick Your Enemies Before They Pick You -- Truth 37: Manage the Competition -- Truth 38: Play Offense -- Truth 39: Communicate to Dominate -- Truth 40: Let No Attack Go Unanswered.

"In 2018, the People's Republic of China (PRC) was, by most measures, more powerful than at any other time in its history and had become one of the most powerful countries in the world. Its economy faced serious challenges, including from the ongoing 'trade war' with the US, but still ranked as the world's second largest. Its Belt and Road Initiative, meanwhile, continued to carve paths of influence and economic integration across several continents. A deft combination of policy, investment, and entrepreneurship has also turned the PRC into a global 'techno-power'. It aims, with a good chance of success, at becoming a global science and technology leader by 2049 – one hundred years from the founding of the PRC. In surveying the various ways in which the Party-state wields its hard, soft, and sharp power, the China Story Yearbook: Power offers readers a sense of the diversity of power at work both in China and abroad. Citizens of the PRC have long negotiated the state's influence; increasingly, diaspora communities and other actors are now being subject to its might. As with previous editions in the series, we place important developments in historical context, and adopt a cross-disciplinary approach: it is our view that economy and politics cannot be divorced from culture, history, and society. The Yearbook provides accessible analysis of the main events and trends of the year and is an essential tool for understanding China's growing power and influence around the world. "