United States of America (USA)

The Futenma issue is therefore unlikely to be allowed to derail the decades-old alliance relationship, irrespective of the fact that there is now a government in Japan headed by the DPJ, which was in the opposition since World War II.

America’s new strategy in Afghanistan needs to be based on the concept of `connect–hold–build’, where the ground troops surely and silently `connect’ with the local population.

Stability in Afghanistan is vital and the stakes for India are high, but the time is over for sitting on the fence. India requires a larger strategic vision, not a blueprint for town and country planning.

The ramifications of an end to dollar-based oil trade would extend far beyond the oil market and would herald the beginning of a new international political order.

“Agent Orange has long been a sensitive issue for both countries and we have differed over the lasting impact of the defoliant on Vietnam. I am pleased to say that… Continue reading Agent Orange: Resonance on Vietnam-US Relations

Pakistan faces a new challenge with the United States advocating privatization of security to deal with the country’s internal security challenges, a move that would also increase the level of American monitoring and supervisory capabilities.

Obama is the first American president to actively pursue the goal of nuclear disarmament. But roadblocks on the road to disarmament nirvana, as envisaged by Obama, remain.

While Pakistan could still try and develop a taste for grass by rejecting US assistance, there is no way it can economically sustain the fight against the Islamist insurgency without external assistance.

After eight years of governance by a Republican Administration, the United States elected a Democrat as its president. The Democrat President, Barack Hussein Obama, assumed presidency and appointed several key officials to implement his agenda. Though some believe that democracy forces political parties to evolve a common agenda and towards consensus on several key issues, there are others who see differences between the Republican agenda and those of Democrats.

This article employs game theory to explain the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, seeking in particular to improve the understanding of why the Iraqi dictator chose a path of action that ultimately led to his downfall. The main argument is that Saddam Hussein lacked information about his opponent's payoffs and was lured by the possibility of becoming the undisputed leading figure of the Arabic world. The analysis shows that even if the threat of an allied attack in the end proved credible, Iraq could - quite rationally - have chosen to stand firm.