United States sugar policy : an analysis /

Item 231-B-1

United States export policy toward Iraq prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait : hearing before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Second Congress, second session, on did U.S. exports aid Iraq's military capabilities and did the administration accurately disclose its licensing of dual use exports to Iraq? : October 27, 1992.

Shipping list no.: 93-0202-P.

Essential United States foreign trade routes.

Mode of access: Internet.

Report of the United States Trade Representative's Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee (IGPAC), to the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations : submitted to the Congress, January 14, 1994.

Shipping list no.: 94-0061-P.

Small states and the promotion of their foreign policy agenda in the international scenario: Trinidad and Tobago and the Kyoto Protocol

Este estudio de caso busca identificar los elementos del portafolio de política exterior de Trinidad y Tobago que le permitieron promover exitosamente sus intereses en el Protocolo de Kioto. Al hacer esto, este texto analizará las limitaciones de Trinidad y Tobago en términos de vulnerabilidades de localización, burocracia y recursos. Posteriormente, una revisión del portafolio de política exterior de este Estado ilustrará el uso de estrategias de creación de capacidades y de organización como lo son el contacto con actores institucionales y no gubernamentales, la formación de coaliciones y estrategias argumentativas, entre otras. Finalmente, este artículo concluirá que dichas acciones permitieron la promoción de la agenda de política exterior de Trinidad y Tobago a través de la creación de hojas de ruta y la coordinación de la incertidumbre con el Protocolo de Kioto. Para hacer esto, este trabajo se concentrará en examinar conceptos como vulnerabilidad y priorización, asimismo contrastando diferentes artículos académicos en la materia junto con documentos oficiales de Trinidad y Tobago.

A new world a new American foreign policy: the Carter administration, Nicaragua, and the legacy of the Vietnam War, 1977-1981

The impact of the Vietnam War conditioned the Carter administration’s response to the Nicaraguan revolution in ways that reduced US engagement with both sides of the conflict. It made the countries of Latin America counter the US approach and find their own solution to the crisis, and allowed Cuba to play a greater role in guiding the overthrow of Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle. This thesis re-evaluates Carter’s policy through the legacy of the Vietnam War, because US executive anxieties about military intervention, Congress’s increasing influence, and US public concerns about the nation’s global responsibilities, shaped the Carter approach to Nicaragua. Following a background chapter, the Carter administration’s policy towards Nicaragua is evaluated, before and after the fall of Somoza in July 1979. The extent of the Vietnam influence on US-Nicaraguan relations is developed by researching government documents on the formation of US policy, including material from the Jimmy Carter Library, the Library of Congress, the National Security Archive, the National Archives and Records Administration, and other government and media sources from the United Nations Archives, New York University, the New York Public Library, the Hoover Institution Archives, Tulane University and the Organization of American States. The thesis establishes that the Vietnam legacy played a key role in the Carter administration’s approach to Nicaragua. Before the overthrow of Somoza, the Carter administration limited their influence in Nicaragua because they felt there was no immediate threat from communism. The US feared that an active role in Nicaragua, without an established threat from Cuba or the Soviet Union, could jeopardise congressional support for other foreign policy goals deemed more important. The Carter administration, as a result, pursued a policy of non-intervention towards the Central American country. After the fall of Somoza, and the establishment of a new government with a left wing element represented by the Sandinistas, the Carter administration emphasised non-intervention in a military sense, but actively engaged with the new Nicaraguan leadership to contain the potential communist influence that could spread across Central America in the wake of the Nicaraguan revolution.

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting copies of a letter from the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the Secretary of State, with the answer of the latter

January 6, 1814. Ordered to lie on the table. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At head of title: [22]. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13th Congress, 2nd Session, House. Doc. 22. Printed by Roger C. Weightman

Foreign direct investment in the United States : report of the Secretary of Commerce to the Congress in compliance with the Foreign investment study act of 1974, Public law 93-479.

Vol. 1 includes full text of the Foreign investment study act of 1974.

Foreign agricultural trade of the United States digest.

Mode of access: Internet.

Semiannual report to the Congress - Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States.

Mode of access: Internet.

Mining Law Reform Act of 1991 and the Minerals Policy Review Commission Act of 1991 : hearing before the Subcommittee on Mineral Resources Development and Production of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Second Congress, first session, on S. 433 ... S. 785 ... June 11, 1991.

Item 1040-A, 1040-B (MF).

Armenia's foreign policy, 1991–2004: Between history and geopolitics

This dissertation is the first systematic study of Armenia’s foreign policy during the post-independence period, between 1991 and 2004. It argues that a small state’s foreign policy is best understood when looking at the regional level. Armenia’s geographic proximity to Iran, Russia and Turkey, places it in an area of heightened geopolitical interest by various great powers. This dissertation explores four sets of relationships with Armenia’s major historical ‘partners’: Russia, Iran, Turkey and the West (Europe and the United States). Each relationship reveals a complex reality of a continuous negotiation between ideas of history, collective memory, nationalism and geopolitics. A detailed study of Armenia’s relations with these powers demonstrates how actors’ relations of amity and enmity are formed to constitute a regional security complex. Turkey represents the ultimate “other”, while both Europe and Iran are seen as ideational “others”, whose role in Armenia’s foreign policy, aside from pragmatic policy considerations, reflects a normative quest. Russia and the United States, on the other hand, represent the powerful structural forces that define the regional security complex, in which Armenia operates. This dissertation argues that although Armenia has been severely constrained in certain foreign policy choices, it was adept at carving a space for action that privileged the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh over other geopolitical imperatives.

Armenia's Foreign Policy, 1991-2004: Between History and Geopolitics

This dissertation is the first systematic study of Armenia’s foreign policy during the post-independence period, between 1991 and 2004. It argues that a small state’s foreign policy is best understood when looking at the regional level. Armenia’s geographic proximity to Iran, Russia and Turkey, places it in an area of heightened geopolitical interest by various great powers. This dissertation explores four sets of relationships with Armenia’s major historical ‘partners’: Russia, Iran, Turkey and the West (Europe and the United States). Each relationship reveals a complex reality of a continuous negotiation between ideas of history, collective memory, nationalism and geopolitics. A detailed study of Armenia’s relations with these powers demonstrates how actors’ relations of amity and enmity are formed to constitute a regional security complex. Turkey represents the ultimate “other”, while both Europe and Iran are seen as ideational “others”, whose role in Armenia’s foreign policy, aside from pragmatic policy considerations, reflects a normative quest. Russia and the United States, on the other hand, represent the powerful structural forces that define the regional security complex, in which Armenia operates. This dissertation argues that although Armenia has been severely constrained in certain foreign policy choices, it was adept at carving a space for action that privileged the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh over other geopolitical imperatives.