Search

Begin New Search Topic Diplomacy Journal Fletcher Security Review Publication Year within 10 Years

1. Is there Eurasian Connectivity without Europe?

Author:
Niva Yau
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Tucked between Russia, Iran, and China, Central Asia is now desperately looking for solutions to cushion the impacts of global tension on its fragile economies, which are deeply tied to sanctions against Russia and a local production slowdown as China recovers from its zero COVID policy. While European diplomacy has come at a crucial time, its Central Asian policy is ambiguous, and commitments misplaced. Central Asia is continuously perceived by the EU as a region in need of developmental assistance, which leads to European regional policies that focus on digitalization and climate issues. What Central Asia needs is the establishment of concrete logistical connectivity that will enable efficient flow of products across Eurasia.
Topic:
Climate Change, Diplomacy, Economics, European Union, Connectivity, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Iran, Central Asia, Eurasia, and Asia

2. Can Back Channels Prevent Direct Military Conflict Between Russia and NATO?

Author:
Yury Nadtochey
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Against the background of ongoing war in Ukraine few options remain to escape the worst scenario of tensions between Russia and the West in Eastern Europe and beyond. We might point out three possible ways on how this disastrous future can be avoided: ​ 1) unilateral steps taken by the conflicting parties in order to de-escalate; 2) enhancing existing communication lines; 3) back channel diplomacy
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, Communications, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe

3. Transitions in Global Health Diplomacy: Views of Donors During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Author:
Cynthia Buckley, Ralph Clem, and Erik Herron
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Sickening and killing people worldwide, the COVID-19 pandemic is disrupting national and international economies and creating enormous human suffering. Current and future geopolitical implications are substantial, requiring long term attention by national security policymakers in the United States and elsewhere.245 Central among these foreign policy concerns is the capacity of states across the globe to deliver health care (and other services) to their populations and the role of health and human security in promoting national security.246 Prior to the pandemic, interest in Global Health Diplomacy (GHD) as a foreign policy tool was growing, reflecting the recognition of border crossing health concerns and the effectiveness of health-focused development aid. Health assistance provided through GHD enables improvements in the quality of life, expansion of infrastructure, and strong donor-recipient ties, each of which can contribute to recipient state capacity. Emerging impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic increase the importance of international health assistance.247 The value of health assistance in generating grassroots aid recognition, thereby capturing “hearts and minds,” is a potent means of building international recognition of both a state’s humanitarian mission and building a positive reputation in recipient state public opinion. In the American context, the four years of the Trump administration were marked by a decline in American bilateral and multilateral engagement in terms of GHD, specifically its stated intention to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO).248 Importantly, this coincided with a period of rising efforts in this area by China and Russia. These changes highlight the importance of understanding how changes in GHD participation emerge and enable stronger linkages between GHD studies and global rivalries (more common in the field of International Relations).249 We set out to explore how transitioning patterns of GHD engagement inform the positioning priorities of the United States, Russia, China, and multinational organizations such as the European Union. How have the acute health, economic, and in some cases political crises of the global COVID-19 pandemic altered donor engagement in GHD? What are the effects of changes in the perceptions of their engagement in recipient states? We incorporate data from three strategically important post-Soviet countries—Estonia, Ukraine, and the Republic of Georgia—to illustrate how major players in GHD are viewed on the ground. Situated on a long arc from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and beyond to the Caucasus, these states neighbor Russia proper. Proximity to Russia itself implies a core national security problem: Moscow has actively undermined the territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine, seizing parts of both via kinetic warfare while causing massive infrastructure damage (including healthcare infrastructure), thousands of deaths, and the internal displacement of millions.250 Estonia has been the target of cyberattacks emanating from Russia, and all three countries must cope with relentless disinformation campaigns intended to destabilize their governments and societies. These three cases provide insights into how citizens in recipient states view GHD engagement in a time of crisis.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Pandemic, COVID-19, Donors, and Global Health
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. Do Morals Matter? A Conversation with Dr. Joseph Nye

Author:
Joseph S. Nye, Grady Jacobsen, and Alex Betley
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Fletcher Security Review (FSR): Welcome, Dr. Nye, to The Fletcher Security Review. Thank you very much for spending time with us today. Before we discuss your recent book, Do Morals Matter? Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump, would you mind speaking first about the origins of your career? Many readers of FSR are young professionals pursuing careers in diplomacy and national security. I am sure they would appreciate hearing that background. Joeseph Nye (JN): Well, I came to Harvard to do a Ph.D. Thinking I was going to go into the State Department, I thought it might be useful to have a Ph.D. but, in the process, I wound up doing some teaching and enjoyed it. I went and did my thesis in Africa and enjoyed writing about that. When Harvard offered me a job, I thought I would take it for a little while. A “little while” turned out to be quite a long while. I emphasize this to say that if you do not have all your career moves figured out at this stage, not to worry about it. Leave room for serendipity. In any case, as it turned out, I enjoy the writing and the research. After working in Africa, I went to Central America, and then spent some time in Europe looking primarily at regional integration and then broadened out to a number of things related to trade. . .
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Ethics, Interview, and World System
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

5. Understanding Non-Violent Movements Today: A Conversation with Dr. Maria J. Stephan

Author:
Eli Stiefel and Maria J. Stephan
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Dr. Maria J. Stephan is a senior policy fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, where she focuses on civil resistance, nonviolent movements and their relevance to conflict transformation and democratic development. At the Atlantic Council, she co-leads the Future of Authoritarianism project. Previously, Stephan was lead foreign affairs officer in the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO), where she worked on both policy and operations for Afghanistan and Syria engagements. Earlier, Stephan directed policy and research at the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC), a private foundation dedicated to developing and disseminating knowledge about nonviolent struggle. She simultaneously taught courses on human rights and civil resistance at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and American University’s School of International Service.
Topic:
Civil Society, Diplomacy, Social Movement, Women, and Protests
Political Geography:
Syria, North America, and United States of America

6. What We Can Learn from Inclusive Security: A Conversation with Ambassador Swannee Hunt

Author:
Eli Stiefel and Swannee Hunt
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Swanee Hunt is an activist, philanthropist, academic, author, and internationalist. She is the Eleanor Roosevelt Lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School. She was the Founding Director of the school’s Women and Public Policy Program and is currently core faculty at the Center for Public Leadership and senior advisor to the Working Group on Modern Day Slavery at the Carr Center for Human Rights. She has taught The Choreography of Social Movements at Harvard College and lectured at Harvard's business, law, divinity, and education graduate schools. Hunt also chairs the Washington-based non-profit Inclusive Security, conducting research, training, and advocacy to integrate women into peace processes. Her work in this area began when, as the US Ambassador to Austria from 1993 to 1997, she hosted negotiations and international symposia focused on stabilizing the neighboring Balkan states and advancing women’s leadership in Eastern Europe. Her fourth book, Rwandan Women Rising will be released in May 2017 (Duke U. Press).
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Civil Society, Diplomacy, Women, and Interview
Political Geography:
United Nations, Balkans, and United States of America

7. China’s New Afghan Diplomacy: Awakening from Inertia or Exception to Old Habits?

Author:
Abdur Rehman Shah
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
For decades, China has pursued a policy of hands-off diplomacy towards regional and international affairs, while narrowly focusing on internal development. Beijing’s recent approach to the Afghanistan conflict, however, has been a major shift. Getting Pakistan’s full support to help end the Afghan insurgency is a possibility given that the U.S. and Afghan governments have utterly failed to bring it to a close. China’s change may signal a shift in China’s “non-interference” approach. However, despite its early activism in the form of outreach to major actors—hosting the Taliban for talks, participation in Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG) and now Russia-led talks—China’s Afghan diplomacy has not produced any desirable results to alter Pakistan’s approach towards the Afghan insurgency. One explanation for this lackluster approach is that Pakistan has successfully stemmed the flow of cross-border militants toward China. Furthermore, post-2014 uncertainty in Afghanistan rather than strategic alterations prompted the shift of China’s Afghanistan policy.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and International Affairs
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, and Asia

8. Weak Sanctions Breathe Life Into North Korean Defiance of International Community: FSR Interviews Joshua Stanton

Author:
Joshua Stanton
Publication Date:
07-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Joshua Stanton, an attorney in Washington, D.C., has advised the House Foreign Affairs Committee on North Korea-related legislation, including the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act, and blogs at OneFreeKorea. His article, "North Korea: The Myth of Maxed-Out Sanctions", a legal analysis of North Korean sanctions, refuted the idea that there is nothing left that the world community can do to bring them to the negotiating table. In this interview, he expands further on this idea addressing why people think that nothing more can be done and how the Iranian nuclear deal will affect relation with North Korea. The views expressed are solely his own.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Sanctions, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
Iran, Asia, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

9. Avatars of Checkbook Diplomacy: From the Afghan Jihad to the Arab Spring

Author:
Ibrahim Warde
Publication Date:
01-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
​ The United States and Saudi Arabia lavished money and weapons on unsavory characters during the anti-Soviet jihad of the 1980s, giving little thought to the possibility of a blowback or boomerang effect—that they would in effect be funding and arming their future enemies. It is indeed ironic that the principal bankrollers of the jihad later became the main targets of offshoots of that jihad. A non-negligible part of the money and weapons sent by the United States to Iraq, in particular as part of the “Sunni awakening”, is now in the hands of extremists.With the near-exclusive focus on military developments, the financial front of the war on terror is all but ignored. This article traces the evolution of checkbook diplomacy in conflicts involving the Islamic world.
Topic:
Diplomacy, History, Finance, Weapons, Islamism, War on Terror, and Jihad
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America

10. Enough to Go Around? Money Matters Complicate U.S. Strategic Rebalance to Asia-Pacific

Author:
Leon Whyte and Richard Weitz
Publication Date:
01-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
The U.S. Strategic Rebalance to Asia – also known as the “Asia Pivot” – has been a cornerstone of the Obama administration’s foreign policy since 2011. Hillary Clinton offered a detailed explaination of the concept in a 2011 Foreign Policy article.[1] The basic idea behind the Rebalance is that many U.S. core economic and security interests are increasingly centered in the Asia-Pacific region, so the United States needs to allocate more diplomatic, economic, military, and other assets towards the region. The Strategic Rebalance would do just that. The Defence Strategic Guidance relaeased by the Defence Department in January 2012 made supporting the rebalance a key Pentagon objective. The Obama Administration accordingly plans to increase the percentage of naval assets in the Pacific to 60 percent by 2020[2] in addition to stationing 2,500 Marines in Darwin, Australia, and 4 littoral combat ships in Singapore.[3][4] Given the region’s economic importance, this makes sense. The Asia-Pacific region accounted for 40 percent of global economic growth in 2013. In 2012, the U.S. exports to the region totaled $555 billion, which supported 2.8 million U.S. jobs.[5]
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Economy
Political Geography:
Asia-Pacific and United States of America