Search

Begin New Search Topic Diplomacy Political Geography North America

21. US-Japan Relations: Ramping Up Diplomacy and Defense Cooperation

Author:
Sheila A. Smith and Charles McClean
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Comparative Connections
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
In the wake of the death of former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, the fall brought unexpectedly turbulent politics for Prime Minister Kishida Fumio. In the United States, however, President Joe Biden welcomed the relatively positive outcome of the midterm elections, with Democrats retaining control over the Senate and losing less than the expected number of seats in the House. Diplomacy continued to be centered on various impacts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but both Biden and Kishida focused their attention on a series of Asian diplomatic gatherings to improve ties. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s attendance at the G20 Meeting in Bali and APEC gathering in Bangkok proffered the opportunity finally for in-person bilateral meetings for both leaders. Finally, Japan’s long awaited strategic documents were unveiled in December. A new National Security Strategy (NSS) took a far more sober look at China’s growing influence and included ongoing concerns over North Korea as well as a growing awareness of Japan’s increasingly difficult relationship with Russia. Accompanying the NSS is a 10-year defense plan, with a five-year build-up commitment, that gave evidence that Kishida and his ruling coalition were serious about their aim to spend 2% of Japan’s GDP on its security. The desire for greater lethality was also there, with the inclusion of conventional strike investment.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, and Defense Cooperation
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

22. Normalizing U.S.–Pakistan Relations

Author:
Adam Weinstein
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
The U.S.–Pakistan relationship is often portrayed negatively among the lawmakers, media, and general public of both countries, with a focus on mutual resentment and dysfunction. The early relationship was burdened by mismatched expectations regarding support in conflicts with India. Different priorities from the start of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan during the 1980s further strained the relationship. The United States also sanctioned Pakistan and India for developing nuclear weapons, which had a disparate impact on Pakistan, causing ongoing tension. Many in Washington’s policy and journalistic communities hold negative views of Pakistan, viewing it as an enabler of terrorism that seeks geopolitical rents but rarely delivers. Pakistanis often resent what they view as Washington’s use of the country as a “frontline state” in both the Cold War and the War on Terror, claiming tens of thousands of lives, only to discard it later. These grievances are largely dismissed in Washington as self–inflicted. Despite the negative public debate, serving officials in both governments generally hold a more nuanced view, recognizing the broad overlapping interests shared by the United States and Pakistan in areas like climate change, trade, and counterterrorism. There is already an exhaustive literature on terrorism in Pakistan, nuclear security, and potential conflicts along the Line of Control with India. This brief will instead focus on revitalizing U.S.–Pakistan relations through innovative diplomacy in areas that have received less attention, such as trade, regional integration, people–to–people connections, and climate change. Its principal recommendation is that Washington should resist viewing Pakistan through the narrow lens of the “War on Terror” or great power competition. Instead it should pursue its interests through more normalized relations, while recognizing U.S. limitations in influencing events in Pakistan or the region.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Counter-terrorism, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Pakistan, South Asia, North America, and United States of America

23. Competition Versus Exclusion in U.S.–China Relations: A Choice Between Stability and Conflict

Author:
Jake Werner
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
The Biden administration’s China policy is pulling in two different directions, but the tension is not widely recognized because every antagonistic measure aimed at China is filed under the heading of competition. As a result, Washington’s debate on China loses the crucial distinction between “competition” — a kind of connection with the potential to be carried on in healthy ways — and “exclusion,” an attempt to sever connection that necessarily leads to conflict if the domain is significant. Biden’s exclusion policies focus on cutting China out of the principal growth sectors in the global economy and the most lucrative and strategically important markets. Administration officials think their approach is sensible and moderate compared to more extreme voices in Washington calling for exclusion in all realms. Even so, the Biden approach is highly destabilizing because both countries consider the targeted areas vital to the future of global authority and economic prosperity, and because the attempt to trap China in a position of permanent subordination represents a serious threat to the legitimacy of China’s leaders. Healthy competition requires a shared stake in the future. In earlier periods, despite sharp tensions and mutual suspicions suffusing the relationship, U.S.–China ties were stabilized first by the joint project of containing Soviet power and then by a shared commitment to market–led globalization. Now that leaders on both sides are disenchanted with key facets of globalization, the two countries are caught in an escalatory cycle of exclusion and retaliation that risks hardening zero–sum pressures in the global system into a permanent structure of hostility. In such a scenario, each country would organize its own society and international partners to undermine the other, dramatically increasing the likelihood of violent conflict. The warning signs are already clear on both sides, as each increasingly interprets every action on the other side as part of a conspiracy to achieve domination. Notwithstanding widespread complacency about the risks of conflict after a tentative diplomatic opening in recent months, the rise of securitized thinking in both countries is steadily building institutional and ideological momentum for confrontation that can only be broken by a new and inclusive direction for the relationship.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Political stability, Conflict, Strategic Competition, and Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

24. Common Good Diplomacy: A Framework for Stable U.S.–China Relations

Author:
Jake Werner
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
One curious feature of the emerging U.S.–China conflict is that each side claims to be defending the existing international order against the threat the other poses to it. Hidden beneath this seemingly irreconcilable dispute is a crucial truth: both the United States and China are status quo powers, sharing a deep interest in a stable global security environment and an open global economy. At the same time, both countries are pursuing urgently needed reforms to a global system increasingly defined by zero–sum pressures. Yet both are prone to exclusionary impulses that threaten to ruin the possibility of a shared reform agenda and instead throw the world into conflict. Working with China to revitalize the international order would not only prevent such a conflict, it would also establish the conditions for healthy forms of both competition and cooperation in the U.S.–China relationship. But how can U.S. leaders pursue such a project without simply giving a pass to China’s sometimes undesirable behavior? The focus should be diplomacy to frame an inclusive global system, focusing on actions that would reduce zero–sum constraints. In the three key realms of global authority and security, the global economy, and climate change, China is currently engaged in counterproductive moves that exacerbate existing tensions but is also pursuing promising reforms that could expand the scope for positive–sum outcomes. Rather than seeking to counter every Chinese initiative, U.S. leaders should carefully distinguish between beneficial and damaging outcomes, affirming and building on China’s constructive proposals and managing differences through negotiation rather than polemics and confrontation. Some potentially fruitful areas for cooperation include joint action to limit climate change, development in the Global South, revising the global guidelines for economic statecraft, and reforming international institutions to create a more open and inclusive world order. Pursuing cooperative efforts in such areas would both create direct benefits and improve U.S. credibility as a responsible leader of the world order rather than simply a rival of China. It would also open space to pursue competition within a rules–based order rather than risk a slide into destructive zero–sum conflict.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Political stability, and International Order
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

25. U.S. Diplomacy Can Prevent Canadian Transboundary Mining Pollution on the Northern Border

Author:
Michael Freeman
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The Biden administration’s America the Beautiful initiative1 has recently bolstered conservation and economic activity in southeast Alaska.2 Yet only a few miles away, Canada is allowing dangerous gold mines in British Columbia to put Alaskans, Alaska Native communities, and the ecosystems they rely on at risk. The United States must exercise its rights under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty3 to address these mining and diplomatic malpractices. The United States’ ability to clean up mining activity at home and abroad will soon be put to the test as the world moves to secure new supplies of the critical minerals needed to build a clean energy economy. New mining developments are moving forward in the transboundary region of British Columbia along the Alaskan border without the consent of Tribes and Alaskan communities downstream. Despite U.S. complaints under the Boundary Waters Treaty, both the Canadian federal government and the provincial government of British Columbia are pushing ahead. Much of this new mining activity is focused within the watersheds of the Taku, Stikine, and Unuk-Nass rivers. These rivers flow from Canada’s boreal forest into Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the site of one of President Joe Biden’s largest 4 conservation achievements5 and a bastion of ecosystem resilience for the state’s salmon fisheries.6 The dams used to capture and retain the toxic mine tailings—or waste—associated with gold-copper mining are prone to leakage and collapse, putting southeast Alaska communities, Tribes, and ecosystems at serious risk. Provincial mining activity in this region is recklessly underregulated, and efforts to introduce safeguards have faced diplomatic stonewalling from both the Canadian government and the provincial government of British Columbia. Low British Columbian bonding requirements, lax environmental protections, and no requirement to consult with the United States on new projects have attracted large gold mining operations to the region without consent or sufficient protections for downstream communities in Alaska. The International Joint Commission (IJC), a forum created to help the United States and Canada work out cross-border waterway issues and governed by the Boundary Waters Treaty,7 has been receiving increased attention as communities and Tribes call on both governments to find protective resolutions.8 The Biden administration should exercise its authority under the Boundary Waters Treaty—which Canada may already be violating by allowing British Columbian pollution to enter U.S. waters—to engage the government of Canada on these important transboundary environmental concerns: The United States should press Canada to join IJC proceedings to work out the mining pollution issues along the British Columbia-Alaska border. Through this process, the IJC should consider setting up watershed boards co-led by local Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. Similarly, the IJC should follow Indigenous nations’ recommendation to pause all mine permitting in the transboundary British Columbia region until watershed protections are implemented. Both Canada and the United States should also strengthen bonding requirements for mine liabilities so communities are not left holding the bag for tailings dam breaches.
Topic:
Climate Change, Diplomacy, Environment, Mining, Renewable Energy, Pollution, and Public Lands
Political Geography:
Canada, North America, and United States of America

26. Primer: Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Visit to the United States

Author:
John Lee
Publication Date:
10-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
While Ukraine, Gaza, and climate change will feature heavily on the agenda during Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s visit to Washington, DC, the most important and enduring issue between the two countries is progressing AUKUS (Australia–United Kingdom–United States) as the key ANZUS (Australia–New Zealand–United States) contemporary alliance initiative. If the AUKUS arrangement stalls and fails to have a meaningful impact on the strategic and military balance of power, then America’s regional allies and partners will lose faith that a reinvigorated American-led alliance system can serve as a check on Chinese power. America’s slow progress to reform the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is an immense frustration for Australian and American proponents of AUKUS. However, concerns regarding inadequate investment in the American military industrial base are reasonable and legitimate. Australian defense policy is underfunded and lacks urgency despite defense analysts’ assessment that the strategic environment is rapidly deteriorating. Australian underperformance will increase skepticism of AUKUS in both countries. Both countries need to undertake much more detailed scenario planning and commit to the agreed sharing of burdens and responsibilities to deter or defeat China.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and AUKUS
Political Geography:
Australia, North America, and United States of America

27. America’s Response after Russian Suspension of New START

Author:
Rebeccah L. Heinrichs and Marshall Billingslea
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
This week’s news that Russia will suspend participation in the New START nuclear treaty follows the State Department’s January announcement that Russia is in breach of New START and its obligation to allow inspection activities on its territory. Since the Cold War, the United States has led efforts to promote nuclear non-proliferation and to create a transparent and stable dynamic between Moscow and Washington regarding our nuclear weapons forces. But the Russians have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate the terms of our agreements. While the United States has sought to decrease our reliance on nuclear weapons in our military strategies, Russia has gone the other way. Russia is developing, testing, and fielding new delivery systems within traditional categories like road-mobile and silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. But it has also developed novel systems like nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicles that raise questions about their intent. And its large arsenal of non-strategic nuclear weapons remains outside the bounds of any treaty. As we’ve seen in Ukraine, Russia uses the threat of nuclear employment to coerce nations in wars of aggression that Russia has chosen. Moscow appears to have lowered the nuclear threshold. The best path for peace is for the United States to maintain credible deterrence options. This provides incentives for our adversaries to engage in diplomacy.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, Military, and New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START)
Political Geography:
Russia, North America, and United States of America

28. Reagan in China: Don’t Say Anything about the Turkeys

Author:
Beatrice Camp
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
Twelve years after President Nixon’s historic opening to China, President Ronald Reagan visited the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in April 1984. The visit was a vast undertaking with an enormous entourage – Ambassador Arthur Hummel was reportedly stunned to hear that the president’s party would number over 800. For a politician like Reagan who had repeatedly criticized President Jimmy Carter for establishing diplomatic relations with Beijing, it was a huge move. For the Chinese, it was a very welcome symbol of acceptance. First lady Nancy Reagan accompanied her husband; some 600 journalists covered the trip. The Reagans toured historical and cultural sites in Beijing and attended a State Dinner at the Great Hall of the People before traveling on to Xian and Shanghai.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Memoir
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

29. Reconciling with a Former Enemy: Post-War Diplomacy between the US and Vietnam

Author:
Justin Ahn
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
After the Vietnam War ended in 1975, US–Vietnam relations were marked by continuing hostility. Deaths during the war have been estimated as 58,220 American soldiers and, on the Vietnamese side, a staggering two million civilians and one million soldiers.[1] The US had no diplomatic ties with Vietnam and imposed a full trade embargo on the country.[1] Less than fifty years later, the two countries are close economic and strategic partners thanks to their successful diplomatic efforts.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Reconciliation, and Vietnam War
Political Geography:
Vietnam, North America, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

30. HIV, the Legacy of America’s Response, and Lessons for Future Outbreaks

Author:
Alisha Smith-Arthur
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
As I stood in line (safety distanced) to receive a COVID test before returning home to the US after a trip to Cote d’Ivoire in 2022, I was able to see and reflect upon the enduring legacy of the American public health diplomacy effort to fight the global pandemic of HIV. The testing site had the unmistakable dual-flag PEPFAR (The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, announced by George W. Bush in 2003) logo outside, indicating that the testing equipment (and likely the training for the personnel inside) came via a PEPFAR project. I’ve seen similar stamps on rural labs and remote health posts across the countries I’ve worked in (as well as on the airport welcome signs of many a friendly health worker who has readily included me in their work), and it always serves to remind me of the common goals we are working towards in these health diplomacy projects.
Topic:
HIV/AIDS, Diplomacy, Public Health, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Africa, North America, and United States of America