Search

Begin New Search Publishing Institution Atlantic Council Publication Year within 5 Years

121. Renewing transatlantic strategy on Iran

Author:
Ellie Geranmayeh, Barbara Slavin, and Sahil Shah
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The election of former Vice President Joe Biden in the United States presents the prospect of major changes in US foreign policy, especially toward Iran. These changes cannot begin to be implemented until after Inauguration Day in January of the new year, while an urgent need exists for other players to bridge the gap. None are better suited to this task than the US’s closest allies in Europe which have already played a significant role in the negotiations that led to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Britain, France and Germany – the E-3 – and the European Union have also worked tirelessly to keep the JCPOA alive in the face of the unilateral US withdrawal from the agreement in 2018, the imposition of draconian sanctions by the Trump administration and escalating tensions in the Middle East. A new report by Ellie Geranmayeh, Barbara Slavin, and Sahil Shah presents a series of recommendations for the E-3 and the EU to preserve the JCPOA, promote regional peace and development and boost people-to-people contacts with Iran in concert with the new US administration. Taken together, these steps would amount to a renewed transatlantic diplomatic agenda through which the United States and European allies can stabilize the nuclear file and then build on the resulting diplomatic momentum to address other concerns with Iran.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Transatlantic Relations
Political Geography:
Europe, Iran, Middle East, and United States of America

122. African agency in the new Cold War: Traditional power competition in the post-COVID-19 African landscape

Author:
Bronwyn Bruton
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Since the end of the Cold War, a handful of powers have been able to exert influence across the whole of the African continent: the United States, China, the European Union (EU), and India. These external powers have rarely competed directly against each other, as they have exercised influence in well-defined, separate spheres: The United States has held the soft power advantage for its aid and security assistance; China in infrastructure and increasing trade; India in the mercantilist activities of its diaspora; and Europe as an ally of the United States focused on countering irregular migration. The resource-scarce post-COVID environment will accelerate competition between these powers and lead them into intersecting spheres of influence. Even with an incoming Joseph Biden administration, the United States is set for declining influence on the continent, creating a vacuum for Europe and China to either willingly or begrudgingly fill. Budget constraints on aid and defense, complemented by a shifting strategic emphasis toward great power competition, will lead the United States to scale down its security and development assistance in nonstrategic nations, instead urging American businesses to compete head on with Chinese firms in the marketplace. China, in turn, will be faced with an opportunity to ramp up its security assistance and will try to forge a new soft power advantage. This will be meant to overcome growing reputational concerns over debt relief and as a means to maintain the support of the African voting bloc in the United Nations as China faces enhanced global scrutiny. Europe may diverge more from the United States as it, too, is forced to carry a greater counterterrorism burden and seeks to combat a new surge of irregular migration, possibly nudging NATO to expand its footprint as well. And India will emerge from COVID-19 with a compelling value proposition for African nations seeking new economic partnerships. Some African nations will find themselves in the crosshairs of a new Cold War mentality that could threaten regionalization and the blooming ethos of pan-Africanism. Key countries that will be implicated include Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, Senegal, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Their pursuit of bilateral versus pan-African interests will be decisive in setting the continent’s trajectory—toward a new African Century, or another period of thwarted ambitions. This paper explores the shifting roles of Africa’s traditional external powers: China, the United States, the EU, and India. Section 1 introduces the evolving postures and colliding interests of these powers. Section 2 maps out the competitive post-COVID landscape and outlines economic and security flashpoints. Finally, Section 3 identifies opportunities for African nations to pursue their own ambitions while resisting the imposition of a new Cold War–style competition on the continent.
Topic:
Cold War, Strategic Competition, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Africa

123. Strategic estrangement between South Korea and Japan as a barrier to trilateral cooperation

Author:
Cheol Hee Park
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Demand for trilateral cooperation between the United States, South Korea, and Japan is on the rise. However, political willingness and capacity for trilateral cooperation are declining, especially given recent diplomatic and economic tensions between South Korea and Japan. “Strategic Estrangement Between South Korea and Japan as a Barrier to Trilateral Cooperation,” a comprehensive report by Dr. Cheol Hee Park, nonresident senior fellow in the Atlantic Council’s Asia Security Initiative, examines shifting perspectives on trilateral cooperation, the layers of conflict between South Korea and Japan, and the role of the United States and concludes by providing concrete policy recommendations for enhancing prospects for trilateral cooperation moving forward.
Topic:
International Relations, Defense Policy, National Security, Elections, Partnerships, and Norms
Political Geography:
Japan, South Korea, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

124. A candle in the dark: US national security strategy for artificial intelligence

Author:
Tate Nurkin and Stephen Rodriguez
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
AI is expected to have a transformational impact on the future of geopolitics, defense, and security. The emerging geopolitical and security context influencing the future of AI technology development has been driven by the erosion of traditional geopolitical frameworks, increased conflict between liberalism and authoritarianism, the pervasiveness of social media use and 4IR-driven digitization of industries, as well as the ability of more actors to affect strategic and operational environments. However, the future of AI will depend on the decisions of great power competitors—the US, China and Russia—global trends development, and the management of uncertainties associated with emerging technologies. In this fluctuating environment, where the US is engaged in a high-stakes competition with is near-peer adversaries, and AI is enabling paradigm-shifting changes in public and private sector operations, how should the US respond? In this new Atlantic Council Strategy Paper, A Candle in the Dark: US National Security Strategy for Artificial Intelligence, Tate Nurkin and Stephen Rodriguez provide an integrated strategy to respond to this key issue. According to Former US Secretary of Defense Dr. Ashton B. Carter, author of the foreword, this paper “effectively articulates the current technological landscape and offers a coherent strategic framework for the United States and its allies to harness AI’s upside potential, while mitigating downside risks and defending against emerging threats.” In a world full of uncertainties, this paper provides a holistic way forward for the US to leverage the full potential of AI while maintaining America’s technological competitiveness.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, Intelligence, National Security, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Entrepreneurship, Drones, Conflict, and Disinformation
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eurasia, Asia, North America, and United States of America

125. Aviation cybersecurity: Scoping the challenge

Author:
Pete Cooper, Simon Handler, and Safa Shahwan Edwards
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
In the past decade, the aviation industry has reaped the benefits of digitization. With the aircraft efficiency gains and enhancements to the passenger experience catalyzed by new technologies, we have to acknowledge the corresponding new risks, including social and technical vulnerabilities never before addressed. In 2017, the Atlantic Council released its ground-breaking report, Aviation Cybersecurity—Finding Lift, Minimizing Drag. The report raised awareness on the state of cybersecurity in the aviation industry, sparking public dialogue on the intersection of cybersecurity and aviation. This created a foundation for the aviation community to convene around protecting the traveling public. Since then, it has become evident that anticipating, identifying, and mitigating cyberspace vulnerabilities in aviation will require the buy-in of all stakeholders in this ecosystem. Two years on, Thales is honored to continue its support for the Atlantic Council and this crucial initiative that aims to map perspectives on cybersecurity across this diverse industry and highlight the growing need for collaboration across stakeholders. Ultimately, there is no silver bullet for aviation cybersecurity, and confronting cyber risk in aviation will require a global approach, working across safety, security, cybersecurity, and enterprise IT. This report and the accompanying global survey developed by the Atlantic Council will increase our holistic understanding of aviation cyber risk and drive meaningful engagement across the aviation community. This effort to broaden the community of stakeholders examining cybersecurity in aviation will increase our collective security, safety, and resilience. When it comes to the trust of travelers, we are all only as strong as those most vulnerable among us. It is only through mutual understanding and collaboration that we can continue to challenge one another, grow, and improve. I applaud the Atlantic Council for embracing this topic and am proud Thales has the chance to support this work.
Topic:
International Organization, Science and Technology, Infrastructure, Cybersecurity, Innovation, and Aviation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

126. Managed competition: Meeting China’s challenge in a multi-vector world

Author:
Franklin D. Kramer
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The world is now witnessing the rise of China, which has a global reach and real implications for the transatlantic community. As new challenges and opportunities unfold, the United States is seeking to formulate an adapted approach to China in cooperation with its closest allies and partners in Europe. In his latest report, Managed Competition: Meeting China’s challenge in a multi-vector world, Atlantic Council distinguished fellow Franklin D. Kramer suggests a strategic approach of “managed competition” to meet the full spectrum of challenges posed by China, including economic and innovation, diplomatic and influence, and security, both hybrid and conventional military. Kramer argues that a successful economics and innovation strategy will require substantially enhanced efforts to support innovation. It will also demand a multi-tier economic approach differentiating strategic sectors and those sectors affected by market distortions from those sectors that would benefit from reciprocal access of commercial products and services to commercial entities allowing for generally free trade in those arenas. In the diplomatic and influence arenas, key elements include multilateral efforts with close US allies and coordination of activities to counter disinformation and subversion. In the security arena, undertaking assurance, resilience, and deterrence measures will be necessary when responding to both hybrid and conventional challenges. Resolution of “one world” challenges, such as climate change, requires the involvement of so significant a factor as China presents. This report is the first publication in a new body of work led by the Scowcroft Center’s Transatlantic Security Initiative focused on understanding and managing the implications of China’s rise for the transatlantic community.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and Asia

127. US-China collaboration on the Internet of Things safety: What next?

Author:
Karl Frederick Rauscher
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The Internet of Things describes a future world with pervasive connectivity. While IoT offers a range of humanitarian, commercial, and national security benefits, its pervasive nature has many concerned over its impacts on safety and security in society. A great disservice is done when national security, commercial, and humanitarian interests are conflated. In a new report by the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Karl Rauscher notes that the world’s two largest powers are at a crossroads with regard to their level and scope of cooperation in continued IoT advances. United States–China Collaboration on the Internet of Things Safety: What’s Next? analyzes possibilities for the United States and China to work together to establish consensus policies and standards to make their societies safer and provide a model for the world.
Topic:
National Security, Power Politics, Cybersecurity, and Internet of Things
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

128. Leading the free world: How America benefits

Author:
Paul D. Miller
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
What is “world order” and why should Americans care? Less than half of all Americans have a passport, and less than five percent travel internationally. Only 26 percent of US gross domestic product (GDP) comes from international trade. Since the end of the Cold War most Americans probably feel safe from foreign threats most of the time: they feel little sense of danger or threat from the world. Even the terrorist attacks of 2001 have receded into memory and increasingly feel like an aberration rather than a precedent. Americans may feel a sense of unease about the world, but we are confident that even the nation’s wars safely take place “over there,” not here at home. If the United States can afford to tune out much of the world because of its geography, wealth, and power, why should we care? Americans have been the unconscious beneficiaries of a world order that would not exist without them. Just as we take for granted electricity and indoor plumbing without thought to the wiring and piping that make them possible, so too we take for granted the peace, prosperity, and stability of our world without thought to the infrastructure of the free world. The free world exists because the most powerful states in the world are open societies: liberal capitalist democracies who largely see the world the same way and have worked together to keep the peace and build wealth. That order is now imperiled. The United States no longer enjoys an unquestioned advantage over its rivals, Russia and China, as it once did. North Korea and Iran threaten the United States with nuclear weapons and support for terrorism. Perhaps most threatening of all: rising nationalist and populist movements around the world, including in the United States, are undermining popular support for international cooperation, free trade, and collective security. This report is about the free world: what it is, why it is imperiled, why Americans should care, and what we can do about it. Some skeptics have criticized the international order. President Donald Trump regularly criticizes “globalism,” and many Americans seem inclined to believe that the United States is losing its sovereignty and that the world is taking advantage of America’s generosity. We respectfully disagree. The free world, and American leadership of it, is good for America and good for the world. It helps keep us safe and give us opportunity. Far from eroding America’s sovereignty, it is a tool of American influence. Most importantly, the aspirations of the free world are just. It is a system of ordered liberty among nations, a tool or mechanism for allowing nations and individuals to flourish in freedom and safety. Investing in the free world is an investment in our values and our common values.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nationalism, and Politics
Political Geography:
Russia, China, North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

129. Thinking foreign policy in Russia: Think tanks and grand narratives

Author:
Anton Barbashin and Alexander Graef
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Over the course of the last decade Russian foreign policy has taken critical turns, surprising not only the entire international community but also Russia’s own foreign policy experts. Arguably, the most notable turn came in March 2014 when Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula, setting in motion developments that are continuously shaping Russia, its neighbors, and, to a certain degree, global affairs. Clearly, Russia’s post-Crimean foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum. Its ramifications are colliding with regional and global trends that are effectively destabilizing the post-Cold War international order, creating uncertainties that are defining the contemporary international moment. In this report, we deal with those whose job it is to explain the logic of Russia’s foreign policy turns and to analyze global trends and their meaning for Russia and the rest of the world. Although these experts, as a rule, do not directly influence political decision-making, their debates, as Graeme Herd argues, “set the parameters for foreign policy choices” and “shape elite and public perceptions of the international environment” in Russia.1 Especially in times of crisis and rapid change ideas produced at some earlier stage by experts and think tanks external to the state bureaucracy can suddenly obtain instrumental value and direct policy options. In Part 1, we briefly discuss the role of think tanks in Russian foreign policymaking and present the landscape of Russian think tanks working on foreign policy issues. We distinguish among three basic institutional forms: academic and university-based think tanks, private think tanks, and state-sponsored think tanks. Highlighting the diversity of organizations, we then focus on four state-sponsored think tanks whose size, political contacts, and financial means allow them to dominate the think tank scene in Russia and that represent different ideological angles of a broad, yet also comparatively volatile mainstream: the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (SVOP), the Valdai Discussion Club, the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), and the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISI). Part 2 follows this selection by looking at Russian foreign policy debates since 2014. We consider how experts writing for these four organizations have approached three major themes: the evolution of the concept of Greater Europe and European Union (EU)-Russia relations, the establishment of the Greater Eurasia narrative in the context of Russia’s declared pivot to the East, and the concepts of multipolarity and the liberal world order.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Civil Society, Diplomacy, and Norms
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Eurasia

130. Over the horizon: NATO joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in the Baltic Sea region

Author:
Mark E. Ferguson, Christopher Harper, and Richard D. Hooker
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Since the Russian occupation of Crimea in 2014, NATO threat perceptions have significantly intensified, particularly with regard to the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania that today face the most direct threat of any of NATO’s allies. To deter aggression in the Baltic region, NATO must deploy a credible and effective defense, grounded in a comprehensive understanding of adversary capabilities, actions and intent. A critical element of deterrence and defense is NATO Joint Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance a networked system of sensors, collectors and analysts fielded by the Alliance and its member states to provide situational awareness, early warning and if necessary, decision support for combat operations. Put simply JISR is about getting the right information to the right person, at the right time in the right format. But if a crisis erupted in the Baltic Sea region, is NATO equipped to gather and process the information necessary to give commanders on the ground a clear operating picture? What improvements, if any, could be made to the way NATO and NATO allies collect and process intelligence? To answer these and other questions, the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security assembled a task force of leading regional security experts, led by co-chairs ADM Mark E. Ferguson, III, USN (Ret.) and AM Sir Christopher Harper, RAF (Ret.) and project director Dr. Richard D. Hooker, Jr, that examined NATO’s JISR posture in the Baltic Sea region and offers a series of recommendations to improve both collection and processing of vital intelligence so that NATO is ready to meet any challenge that may be waiting over the horizon.
Topic:
NATO, Intelligence, Drones, and Surveillance
Political Geography:
Europe, Northern Europe, and Baltic Sea