Search

Begin New Search Content Type Special Report

1901. A New Erdogan-Putin Deal in Idlib May Help—For Now

Author:
Soner Cagaptay
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Turkey, Russia, and Washington have compelling reasons to welcome a new ceasefire agreement, however imperfect, but they still need to address the longer-term dangers posed by the Assad regime’s murderously maximalist strategy. Recent fighting between Turkish and Syrian regime forces in Idlib province has seemingly wiped away the last vestiges of the September 2018 Sochi agreement, brokered by Russian president Vladimir Putin as a way of pausing hostilities and dividing control over the country’s last rebel-held province. Beginning last December, renewed Russian and Syrian attacks against civilians sent a million residents fleeing toward the Turkish border, creating another humanitarian disaster. Then, on February 27, thirty-three Turkish soldiers were killed when their unit was attacked in Idlib—Ankara’s largest single-day loss in Syria thus far. Turkey initially blamed Bashar al-Assad for the deaths, but eyes soon turned to his Russian patron as the more likely culprit, elevating tensions between Ankara and Moscow to a level not seen since Turkish forces shot down a Russian plane in November 2015. Meanwhile, the Turkish military and its local partner forces launched a string of attacks against the Syrian regime and its Iranian-backed militia allies. On March 5, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet with Putin in Moscow to discuss these rising tensions. If the two leaders reach another ceasefire deal, will it last any longer than the short-lived Sochi agreement? More important, what effect might it have on the latest refugee crisis threatening to wash over Turkey and Europe?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Syrian War, and Negotiation
Political Geography:
Russia, Turkey, Middle East, Syria, United States of America, and Idlib

1902. The Berlin Pulse 2020 Special Edition: German Foreign Policy in Times of COVID-19

Author:
Pascal Lamy, Feng Zhongping, and Karen Donfried
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Körber-Stiftung
Abstract:
“Uncertainty is the only certainty” – these words are credited to the Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder, who died in the wake of an eruption of Mount Vesuvius in the year AD 79 which buried the city of Pompeii under volcanic ash. Whether or not the corona pandemic will be remembered 2,000 years from now, the virus reminds us of Pliny’s words: We may not yet know how SARS-CoV-2 will affect our societies, but affect them it will. Given this momentous event, like other organizations, we at Körber-Stiftung have had to respond with flexibility and a willingness to do things a little differently – one of the results is this special issue, juxtaposing German public opinion with international perspectives on the policy choices facing Berlin. This pandemic is occurring at a time of profound political change. Experts and policy-makers have pointed out for the better part of two decades now that whatever happens in China is likely to affect us. The absence of US leadership, a divided Europe, the increasing prevalence of international mistrust – like a focal lens, the coronavirus has shown us in all too much detail how these dynamics might play out over the next few decades. Germany has long struggled to adapt to these new realities. Germans have been told that their country will need to take on “more responsibility”, and that we will need to “take our fate into our own hands”. One example of how Berlin has tried to do so is through a renewed emphasis on multilateralism as a pillar of its foreign policy, not least by crafting the Alliance for Multilateralism. But how do these dynamics, and the spotlight they have cast on Berlin’s role in international affairs, square with public opinion? To answer this question remains the mission and idea of The Berlin Pulse.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Public Opinion, Multilateralism, Crisis Management, Transparency, COVID-19, Disinformation, and Health Crisis
Political Geography:
Africa, China, Europe, and Germany

1903. The Berlin Pulse 2020/21 (full issue)

Author:
Gro Harlem Brundtland, Paolo Gentiloni, Peter Altmaier, and H.R. McMaster
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Körber-Stiftung
Abstract:
In last year’s edition, we called 2020 an ‘eventful year’ with Germany’s presidency of the European Council and the US presidential election. But no one would have thought that a pandemic might be added to the list of major events affecting German foreign policy and political priorities around the globe. One year – and a COVID-19 special edition of The Berlin Pulse in between – later, international policy-making is slowly adjusting to the new level of uncertainty the pandemic brought into our lives. Despite these uncertain times, German public opinion on involvement or restraint in international crises remains solid as a rock: 44 percent of respondents say that Germany should get more strongly involved while 49 percent still prefer restraint. Since Körber-Stiftung posed this question for the first time in 2014, the public’s perspective has barely changed. In spite of this continuity, the present issue is also full of surprises and novelties. The idea of The Berlin Pulse is to identify potential gaps between German public opinion and expectations of international policy-makers. In 2020, another gap becomes an eye-catcher – the one between German and US public perceptions of the transatlantic partnership. A wide majority of US respondents considers Germany as a partner when tackling issues, such as protecting human rights and democracy (75 percent) or the environment (76 percent). By contrast, German respondents hardly reciprocate this feeling. With the US presidential election just behind us, an increasing US-Chinese rivalry in which Europe risks becoming – as Pauline Neville-Jones puts it – ‘the pig in the middle’ and crises beyond COVID-19 on the horizon, the present issue dedicates one chapter to each of these three developments to which German foreign policy needs to respond.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, Public Opinion, European Union, Multilateralism, Trade, Transatlantic Relations, and WTO
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, India, Germany, Syria, and United States of America

1904. The Belt and Road Initiative: The Sources of China’s Conduct, and India and Japan’s Responses

Author:
Hao Nan
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is now more than seven years old, projecting ever-increasing influence throughout the world while stimulating growing concerns about China’s motives and behavior. This large-scale and multifaceted program benefits China, and not only economically, but in the politico-security sense. In response, India has stuck to its stance of distancing itself from the BRI while Japan has evolved past its initial rejection to selectively engage with the initiative. Tracing Chinese motives and conduct, along with the Indian and Japanese responses, back to the respective countries’ long-existing schools of strategic thought enables us to better decode current affairs and predict future dynamics.
Topic:
Security, Politics, Natural Resources, Infrastructure, Economy, and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
Political Geography:
Japan, China, South Asia, India, and Asia

1905. On the Value of Nuclear Dialogue with China

Author:
David Santoro and Robert Gromoll
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
This paper was written by Dr. David Santoro, Vice President and Director for Nuclear Policy at the Pacific Forum, and Dr. Robert Gromoll, former Director of the Office of Regional Affairs at the US Department of State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; Dr. Gromoll is now retired. Both Drs. Santoro and Gromoll participated in numerous dialogue rounds, and Dr. Santoro was a co-organizer. The paper is based primarily on the contents of the dialogue’s written reports, several of which were authored or co-authored by Dr. Santoro. By and large, the paper draws directly from these reports and reviews how the topics addressed in the dialogue were approached and discussed by the US and Chinese sides over time. (A list of these reports is included at the end of the paper; some have been published, others have not.) The paper is also based on the authors’ broader experience in participating in the Track-1.5 dialogue; the conversations they have had with US and Chinese participants on these issues over the years, both during the dialogue and on the margins; and their own personal research. This paper represents the views of the authors and not those of Pacific Forum or the US State Department.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
China and Asia

1906. Securing the Sonobuoy Supply Chain: How Australia Can Help Underwrite Anti-Submarine Warfare Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific

Author:
Tom Corben
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
This paper highlights the challenges afflicting the sonobuoy supply chain, a key item in the prosecution of anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations by the United States and many of its key allies. It argues that Australia is well-placed to address these issues, and that doing so would better underwrite collective ASW operations in the Indo-Pacific. After a brief post-Cold War hiatus, significant improvements in the submarine fleets of China and Russia have seen ASW revived as a core mission for the United States Navy. However, growing demand for ASW operations has exposed shortcomings in the maintenance, procurement and readiness of US maritime aircraft fleets essential to prosecuting those missions. This paper argues that, as a result, US allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific—many operating US-made maritime aircraft—will likely be required to step-up their own contributions to regional ASW operations. However, serious vulnerabilities in the sonobuoy supply chain accessed by all of these states threatened to undermine collective efforts, challenges which predate the global COVID-19 pandemic. A single US-based supplier presently provides sonobuoys to the US and many of its key partners, but its long-term capacity to meet soaring demands is in question. In its current form, any disruption to the sonobuoy supply chain would disproportionately impact allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific at the same time they are being asked to step-up their contributions to collective ASW. Securing the long-term future of the sonobuoy supply chain should therefore be an urgent priority. This paper argues that Australia is well-positioned to address these challenges, given its history of innovation and manufacturing in advanced sonar technologies; recent investments in sovereign defense industry capabilities and military infrastructure; deep alliance relationship with the US; and growing network of ASW-oriented regional security partnerships. To this end, Australia should pursue several interrelated lines of effort: 1) increase interim sonobuoy stockpiles while rebuilding its independent manufacturing capacity; 2) deepen defense industry cooperation with the US and Five Eyes partners on defense industry and supply chain issues; 3) strengthen cooperation in the defense industry, especially research and development within key regional security partnerships already predisposed towards ASW, such as with South Korea. Addressing the vulnerabilities in the sonobuoy supply chain would not only improve Australia’s independent ASW capacity, but would help underwrite collective ASW in the Indo-Pacific for years to come.
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Supply Chains, and Submarines
Political Geography:
Australia and Indo-Pacific

1907. Conflict and Coronavirus: How COVID-19 is Impacting Southeast Asia’s Conflicts

Author:
Jennifer Howe
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
Since COVID-19 spread out of China in January 2020, it has caused unprecedented damage to the global economy and national health systems. The virus also having serious ramifications for conflicts throughout the world. This paper reviews the literature up to its time of writing in July 2020 in order to assess how the coronavirus crisis has impacted conflicts in Southeast Asia. The paper found that the pandemic has been detrimental to conflict resolution in the region—it has hampered peacebuilding efforts and contributed to rising tensions. Moreover, the outbreak has enabled extremist organizations to operate more freely and make government lockdowns and the economic downturn a part of their recruitment messaging. Conflict-affected populations are confronted by the dual impact of disease and violence—health systems have been weakened by years of conflict, violence is obstructing the delivery of aid, and forcibly displaced communities are living in unsanitary and crowded camps, incapable of handling a viral outbreak. Women in unstable settings are particularly vulnerable as gender-based violence increases, while services essential to their health and wellbeing are being forced to close. The paper concludes with policy recommendations in view of the effects the virus is having on Southeast Asian conflicts. Recommendations emphasize the importance of supporting local peacebuilders and implementing response and recovery measures that work towards a fairer post-pandemic society.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Economy, Conflict, COVID-19, Peacebuilding, and Gender
Political Geography:
Southeast Asia

1908. The role of regional organizations in building cyber resilience: ASEAN and the EU

Author:
Eugenio Benincasa
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
This paper explores the role of regional organizations in crafting solutions that are able to address both the scale and cross-border nature of cyber threats, as well as the challenges inherent to an anarchical international system. It focuses on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union (EU) and the cybersecurity frameworks they have developed in the last few years. The EU has significantly improved regional cyber resilience and cooperation by setting out ambitious goals, enhancing information sharing and harmonizing practices across its member states. In contrast, ASEAN has a lack of a strong unifying governance or legal framework, which limits the collective capability of the region to capitalize on shared knowledge to prevent and mitigate cyber threats. The paper aims to elaborate on relevant measures that could be implemented in ASEAN based on a comparative analysis with the EU. Despite the stark differences between the two organizations, there is common ground in some areas for the development of policy recommendations aimed at enhancing ASEAN’s cyber resilience, eliminating the need to reinvent the wheel in key policy areas. To this end, this paper analyzes the two organizations’ cybersecurity frameworks in line with the four pillars of cyber capacity building identified by the European Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) and adjusted to a regional context: overarching regional strategy, institutional framework for cyber threat prevention and response, harmonization of cybercrime and data privacy legislation, and cyber awareness and hygiene.
Topic:
European Union, Cybersecurity, ASEAN, and Regional Organizations
Political Geography:
Europe and Asia

1909. Far, Far More Than Meets the Eye: Extended Deterrence in Complex Crises in Northeast Asia

Author:
Brad Glosserman
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
The Pacific Forum, with support from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), brought 41 officials and experts from the United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea (ROK), along with eight Pacific Forum Young Leaders, all attending in their private capacity, to Maui, Hawaii, Sept. 5-6, 2019 to explore the three countries’ thinking about extended deterrence and prospects for and obstacles to strengthened trilateral security cooperation. A two-move tabletop exercise (TTX) was focused on concerted and coordinated efforts by China and North Korea to revise the status quo in Northeast Asia. Key findings include: Despite political difficulties, there was little difference among participants regarding assessments of the situation and dynamics in Northeast Asia. They were generally aligned and this was evident in responses to the TTX: they sought to prevent opportunism, provide off-ramps for adversaries, and didn’t rush to connect the incidents.
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Armed Forces, Crisis Management, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
Asia

1910. The United States Should Prioritize Energy Cooperation With Taiwan

Author:
Patrick Yu
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Solving Taiwan’s energy problems is an opportunity for the United States to achieve multiple goals.
Topic:
Energy Policy, International Cooperation, Strategic Interests, and Energy Crisis
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America