Search

Begin New Search Content Type Policy Brief Publishing Institution Center for Strategic and International Studies

21. Opportunities for Increased Multilateral Engagement with B3W

Author:
Conor M. Savoy and Shannon McKeown
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
As the world continues to rapidly digitize and grapples with the short- and long-term impacts of climate change, new forms of innovative and resilient infrastructure are increasingly necessary. The estimated $3.3 trillion annual gap in infrastructure investment cannot be paid for with official development assistance (ODA) alone but will require significant private sector financing and local government resources. A coordinated, multi-stakeholder effort that includes governments, the private sector, and civil society is needed to leverage all available resources and funding to address these challenges as well as implement the UN quality infrastructure agenda.2 G7 countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States—have recognized the need for a global infrastructure plan that responds to the problems of today and proactively plans for the issues of tomorrow. In June 2021, the G7 unveiled the Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative, which seeks to leverage the private sector for $40 trillion in infrastructure investment by 2035 under the initiative’s four pillars: (1) healthcare, (2) gender equality and equity, (3) climate and environment, and (4) digital technology. The initiative also includes several economic and trade provisions to promote greater connectivity and allow countries to benefit from this investment. The B3W strategy is designed to be inclusive and rely upon input from a whole spectrum of local organizations, donors, and recipient countries to define an infrastructure strategy, projects, and implementation priorities. The guiding principles of B3W include value-driven high standards, transparency, climate-compatible projects, private sector investment, and a commitment to multilateralism. B3W shares standards with and builds upon two previous initiatives: the Blue Dot Network (BDN) and the Better Utilization of Investment Leading to Development (BUILD) Act. BDN is a U.S.-led effort that certifies infrastructure projects against robust criteria and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards. The BUILD Act is a bipartisan bill that created the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (USDFC) to introduce private sector investment in low- and lower-middle-income countries. These two initiatives have thankfully laid the groundwork for B3W’s objectives and principles. Given the initiative’s infrastructure focus, B3W is being positioned as an affirmative alternative to other state-directed infrastructure financing models, such as China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Its emphasis on good governance, consideration of environmental and social impacts, and adherence to transparency is meant to draw a stark contrast with other models that involve more questionable labor and environmental standards, alleged corruption, and murky debt financing. B3W has an opportunity to distinguish itself as an important alternative through high standards and the buy-in of multilateral partners and stakeholders. The United States can be the driving force of this engagement through its unique ties to the UN system, including being the largest member country donor. Partnering with specialized UN agencies, committees, and related entities that work in the various B3W pillars will (1) make B3W more of a legitimate initiative with a greater global collaboration; (2) better position B3W projects to succeed with the right resources, networks, and capital; and (3) fill the knowledge and resource gap from the private sector.
Topic:
Infrastructure, Governance, Multilateralism, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Global Focus

22. Regional Perspectives on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework

Author:
Matthew Goodman and Aidan Arasasingham
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
The proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) is the Biden administration’s answer to questions about the United States’ economic commitment to the vital Indo-Pacific region. For this initiative to succeed, it must address concerns among regional partners about the framework’s form, function, benefits, inclusivity, and durability. Based on conversations with representatives from over a dozen regional governments, this brief summarizes Indo-Pacific perspectives on the IPEF.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, Regional Cooperation, and Regionalism
Political Geography:
North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

23. Securing Asia’s Subsea Network U.S. Interests and Strategic Options

Author:
Matthew Goodman and Matthew Wayland
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
More than 1 million kilometers of submarine cables traversing the ocean floor, each about as wide as a garden hose, transmit up to 99 percent of international data, underpinning global trade and communication. This vital digital infrastructure faces myriad threats, from earthquakes and typhoons to fishing nets and saboteurs. The United States derives significant advantages from its centrality in Asia’s subsea cables, which contribute up to $169 billion to the U.S. economy annually and could benefit more U.S. workers and businesses as demand for digital products and services grows globally. But realizing those benefits will require the United States to step up its policy engagement on Asia’s cable networks, which are changing with China’s rise, the emergence of new regional hubs, and new transpacific routes designed to reduce risks and increase network resiliency.
Topic:
Security, International Trade and Finance, Communications, Maritime, and Commerce
Political Geography:
China and Asia

24. Space Threat Assessment 2022

Author:
Todd Harrison, Kaitlyn Johnson, Makena Young, Nicholas Wood, and Alyssa Goessler
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
Welcome to the fifth edition of Space Threat Assessment by the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Over the past five years, this assessment has used open-source information to track the developments of counterspace weapons that threaten U.S. national security interests in space. The United States has relied heavily on its space infrastructure since the first satellites were launched to track and monitor nuclear missile launches during the Cold War. Over the past six decades, the United States has grown more reliant on the information, situational awareness, and connectivity provided by military, civil, and commercial space systems. It should be no surprise that these assets are a target for adversaries attempting to gain asymmetric military advantage. The Space Threat Assessment is critical to understanding the changing nature of the space domain and monitoring trends in space and counterspace weapons.
Topic:
Security, Military Strategy, Governance, and Space
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

25. The Case for Cooperation: The Future of the U.S.-UK Intelligence Alliance

Author:
Jake Harrington and Riley McCabe
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
Over the past 75 years, the United States and the United Kingdom have built the deepest intelligence alliance in the world. Despite decades of cooperation, however, there exists today a significant misalignment between the strategic prioritization of this “special relationship” and the regulations, policies, organizational cultures, and technologies that facilitate its day-to-day activities. This report’s recommendations are designed to encourage the adoption of policies, procedures, and tools that will enable the United States and the United Kingdom to achieve the deep level of collaboration they have repeatedly committed to in bilateral agreements, national security strategies, and intelligence guidance. If allies and partners are an indispensable pillar of both nations’ strategies to challenge rising and revanchist authoritarianism and other threats, then the U.S. and UK intelligence communities should jointly pursue robust interoperability that appropriately balances risk with opportunity.
Topic:
Intelligence, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Alliance
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, North America, and United States of America

26. North Korea’s Covid-19 Lockdown: Current Status and Road Ahead

Author:
Victor D. Cha, Katrin Fraser Katz, and J. Stephen Morrison
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
CSIS hosted a panel of experts for a discussion of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on North Korea. The group discussed what is known about the current situation, the primary and secondary effects of the border lockdown, and the broader impact on North Korean society and markets. The group also examined North Korea’s path going forward, the possibility of an easing of restrictions, and the feasibility of humanitarian aid policies to North Korea. The meeting took place under Chatham House Rule on a not-for- attribution basis.
Topic:
Public Health, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Quarantine
Political Geography:
Asia and North Korea

27. Battle Networks and the Future Force

Author:
Todd Harrison and Christopher Reid
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
This CSIS brief is the third in a series on the future of battle networks and Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2). The first brief in the series examined the importance of battle networks to modern military operations and presented a framework of five functional elements that make up a battle network. The second brief used lessons learned from previous attempts to improve battle network integration to explore how the Department of Defense (DoD) can properly scope the problem it is trying to solve and organize itself to effectively and efficiently acquire the systems needed to realize its vision for JADC2. This brief focuses on the importance of integrating allies and partners into future battle networks, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. It explores existing agreements, opportunities for new agreements, and the technical and policy challenges for battle network integration across allied and partner nations. It concludes with an assessment of how combined battle networks with allies and partners can serve as the key enabling technology toward a new offset strategy.
Topic:
Defense Policy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Indo-Pacific

28. Beyond 2025: The Future of the African Growth and Opportunity Act

Author:
Daniel F. Runde and Sundar R. Ramanujam
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
Over the past two decades, the United States has provided assistance and support for sub-Saharan Africa’s efforts to transform its economic and trade relationships, centered around the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). First enacted into law on May 18, 2000, AGOA was designed to significantly enhance designated sub-Saharan African countries’ market access to the United States by providing duty-free treatment for specific import categories. The legislation’s primary goal was to promote economic growth through good governance and free markets. To qualify and remain eligible for AGOA, countries were expected to demonstrate progress toward market liberalization and to improve the rule of law, human rights protections, and core labor standards. More than 20 years later, AGOA continues to provide preferential treatment to 44 countries in the region, spanning over 6,500 tariff lines. Since May 2000, AGOA has been amended four times, mostly to clarify preferential treatment terms, technical standards, and sunset deadlines. The act was initially designed to be valid for eight years, expiring at the end of September 2007. In July 2004, however, President George W. Bush signed the AGOA Acceleration Act, extending it to 2015. Toward the end of his second term, in June 2015 President Barack Obama extended its validity by signing the Trade Preferences Extension Act, under which AGOA is set to expire in 2025. The global political and economic landscape has changed profoundly since AGOA was enacted in 2000, even before the Covid-19 pandemic created new disruptions and accelerated several ongoing changes. The mobile telephony revolution has created new opportunities for millions to participate in the digital sphere, use mobile banking and payments systems, and receive commercial, educational, and medical services via the internet. Even as the sub-Saharan African region’s middle class continues to grow, it is also set to experience a youth population boom in the next three decades—which, under the right conditions, could pay a demographic dividend and avert a social crisis. Meanwhile, the United States has also entered an era of great-power competition with China. With China’s influence in sub-Saharan Africa rising significantly, this competition is also playing out through the region’s political and economic institutions. Considering these opportunities and challenges, leaders in Washington (and their constituents across the United States) ought to look at Africa as a prospect for deepening commercial partnerships, not as a continent that needs to be “saved” through foreign assistance. Accordingly, the United States can consider one of the three following scenarios in response to AGOA’s current expiration timeline
Topic:
Development, Economics, International Cooperation, and International Trade and Finance
Political Geography:
Africa

29. Russia’s Losing Hand in Ukraine

Author:
Seth G. Jones, Philip G. Wasieleswki, and Joseph S. Bermudez Jr.
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
The United States and its partners and allies should be prepared to conduct a sustained diplomatic, economic, military, and humanitarian campaign that supports Ukraine and raises the financial and military costs for Moscow of meddling in Ukraine—both now and in the future. Russia has several weaknesses that can be exploited, and Ukrainian nationalism and Western resolve could present formidable, long-term problems for Moscow.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Military Intervention, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

30. Counterterrorism from the Sky? How to Think Over the Horizon about Drones

Author:
Erol Yayboke and Christopher Reid
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
August 31, 2021, marked the end of the United States’ two-decade military presence in Afghanistan. It also marked the end of U.S. military and intelligence eyes and ears on the ground in a place known to be a safe haven for violent extremist groups. In Afghanistan and other areas where the United States lacks a persistent, physical presence, the Biden administration announced a pivot to “over-the-horizon” counterterrorism operations (OTH- CT) that rely heavily on stand-off assets, such as overhead satellite technology and airpower, in the absence of eyes and ears. While the use of drones—or “remotely piloted aircraft” (RPAs)—to target potential terrorist threats seems to be a cost-effective approach from a military perspective, their use has come under increasing pressure from Capitol Hill, human rights and humanitarian organizations, and others for their effects on civilian populations. Military action almost always carries risk of collateral damage, but the disproportionate civilian impact associated with RPAs is not only troubling from rights and humanitarian perspectives, but it also calls into question the strategic, longer-term rationale of using them for counterterrorism purposes in the first place. Congressional leaders sent a letter to the president on January 20, 2022, about the ongoing OTH-CT strategy review. In it, they point out that “while the intent of U.S. counterterrorism policy may be to target terrorism suspects who threaten U.S. national security, in too many instances, U.S. drone strikes have instead led to unintended and deadly consequences—killing civilians and increasing anger towards the United States.” They, therefore, call on the administration to “review and overhaul U.S. counterterrorism policy to center human rights and the protection of civilians, align with U.S. and international law, prioritize non-lethal tools to address conflict and fragility, and only use force when it is lawful and as a last resort.” Reconciling the risks and implications of RPA strikes is necessary for genuinely implementing President Biden’s calls for a “targeted, precise strategy that goes after terror.” In doing so, the administration also needs to address concerns over civilian casualties alongside meaningful and justifiable military utilization of RPAs. Using RPAs against those who pose an imminent threat to the United States or its allies and partners is sometimes necessary and appropriate, especially in scenarios that are high-risk for crewed aircraft or ground forces. So why wouldn’t the United States use RPAs more broadly at low risk to blood and treasure? Why put soldiers in danger when we can extensively monitor threats and eventually address them from a remotely piloted aircraft high above? The answers are at once simple (e.g., impact on civilians) and complicated (e.g., limited military alternatives), exposing a gulf in understanding and approach to RPA utilization between the advocacy community (and some congressional leaders) and military and intelligence planners. This CSIS brief explores the challenge ahead for the Biden administration. It starts with a contextualization of the OTH-CT strategy review, followed by assessments of the short- and longer-term risks associated with RPA utilization and how to think about risk itself. Offering evidence and framing throughout, the brief ends by detailing two sets of recommendations
Topic:
Defense Policy, Terrorism, Military Strategy, Counter-terrorism, and Drones
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America