The United States – Europe: The Chinese Variable and Limits of Transatlantic Solidarity
Table of contents
Share
QR
Metrics
The United States – Europe: The Chinese Variable and Limits of Transatlantic Solidarity
Annotation
PII
S032120680004355-4-
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Oleg Prikhodko 
Occupation: Leading Researcher
Affiliation: Institute for the U.S. and Canadian Studies, RAS
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Edition
Pages
5-30
Abstract

Strained relationship between the United States and China attracts close attention due to enormous impact it has on security, political and economic affairs worldwide. Numerous volumes of academic literature consider the issue from various angles. However, analysis of the Chinese variable in the framework of transatlantic relationship, especially within NATO, has turned out on the sidelines of research work. The Trump Administration policy towards China has lately revealed a number of new elements and nuances, which testified an intensifying competition between the U.S. and China. Although key security priorities of the transatlantic alliance embrace Europe, increasing China’s role in regional and global issues will inevitably invade the agenda of the relationship between the U.S. and European allies, shaping their deliberations. Given Beijing’s unfolding activities in international security domain, NATO is likely to pay more attention to China’s military policy, closely monitoring SinoRussian strengthening defense cooperation. As some prominent foreign analysts believe, coordination of the U.S. and European strategies towards China is a potent tool that the West could use to steer the world order transformation in a desirable way. However, prerequisites for such coordination decreased because of a grave discord between Washington and European partners provoked by the shifts in the U.S. policies that President Donald Trump has brought about.

Keywords
the United States, the Trump Administration, China, NATO, the EU, the Asia-Pacific region, European allies, transatlantic relationship
Received
24.01.2019
Date of publication
01.04.2019
Number of purchasers
89
Views
1696
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Previous versions
S032120680004355-4-1 Дата внесения правок в статью - 19.03.2019
Cite   Download pdf Download JATS

References

1. Prikhod'ko O.V. SShA i politika partnyorstva NATO. SShA i Kanada: ehkonomika, politika, kul'tura. 2013. № 3. S. 37–52.

2. Bechná Z., Thayer B. NATO's New Role. Naval War College Review. Summer 2016. Vol. 69, No. 3. P. 65-81.

3. Brands H., Feaver Peter D. 2017. What Are America's Alliances Good For? Parameters. Vol. 47. No. 2. P. 15-30.

4. Friedberg Aaron L. 2018. Competing with China. Survival. Vol. 60. No. 3. P. 7-64.

5. Huxley T., Schreer B. 2017. Trump’s Missing Asia Strategy Survival. Vol. 59. No. 3. P. 81-89.

6. Prikhodko O.V. 2013. USA and NATO’s Partnership Policy. USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture. No. 3. P. 37–52.

7. Simón Luis. 2015. Europe, the rise of Asia and the future of the transatlantic relationship. International Affairs. Vol. 91. No. 5. P. 969-989.

8. Terada Takashi. 2018. The Competing U.S. and Chinese Models for an East Asian Economic Order. Asia Policy. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 19-25.

9. Zuo Yana. 2018. The U.S. Global Strategy and Its Taiwan Policy. China Review. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 149-176.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate