1
سیاسی و روابط بین الملل::
استراتژی امنیت ملی، استراتژی امنیت ملی
There is a remarkable consistency throughout all of the president's speeches, formal documents, such as the 2017 National Security Strategy, and the actions of his administration.
As the 2017 National Security Strategy declares, the United States is entering a period of increased geopolitical - and in the case of China, also geo-economic - competition with revisionist nation-states, specifically China, Russia, and Iran.65 There is widespread agreement among conservative elites (with many liberals concurring) that China is the most serious revisionist competitor, politically and economically, to American national interests and will remain so far into the future.66
One response, that of the drafters of the 2017 National Security Strategy, is to translate Trump's core premises into the language of foreign policy and strategy.
In crafting its National Security Strategy,110 the administration sought to respond to key shifts in the geopolitical order, including the resurgence of great power competition, to acknowledge limitations in American power and agency and to modernize U.S. engagement with other countries and institutions.
The National Security Strategy of the Trump administration advocated for a strategy of "principled realism" - it is realistic because it acknowledges the central role of power in international politics and that "the American way of life cannot be imposed upon others, nor is it the inevitable culmination of progress."111 It is principled because "it is grounded in the knowledge that advancing American principles spreads peace and prosperity."،The Europeans had demonstrated cohesion in their solidarity to the US after 11 September, and offered to use NATO following the activation of article V; but President Bush decided to rely on a coalition of the willing for Afghanistan (US-led), then proclaimed the existence of an 'Axis of Evil' in his 2002 State of the Union address (Bush 2002) and declared a right to pre-emptive war in the United States' 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS).
At a first glance, the document does not seem to differ dramatically from the US 2002 NSS, on the contrary a closer look reveals two quite different security concepts.
In the first place, the world depicted in the ESS, despite being recognised as being complex and replete with security challenges, is not depicted as one of a 'new kind of war' as in the NSS.
In the second place, although both documents refer to universal values and principles such as liberty and jus- tice, the crusader's tones and universalistic attitude that we find in the NSS are absent in the ESS.
In terms of geographical scope, contrary to the global reach of the NSS, the ESS defines a precise EU responsibility only as far as Europe (and the Middle East) is concerned: here the Union has a duty to promote liberal values and well-governed societies (beyond it there is a generic call for global responsibilities).
واژگان شبکه مترجمین ایران