Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Political Geography United States of America

21. 50-30: From the Fall of Saigon to U.S. Political Participation

Author:
Duy Linh Tu, Lan Cao, and Hoi Trinh
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University
Abstract:
Duy Linh Tu, Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor of Professional Practice at the Columbia Journalism School, moderates a discussion with Lan Cao of the Chapman University School of Law and Hoi Trinh, Executive Director, Vietnamese Overseas Initiative for Conscience Empowerment, that traces the arc of Vietnamese American political engagement over the past 50 years. Co-hosted by the Weatherhead East Asian Institute and the Columbia Journalism School, this program was part of the three-day series "50-30: From War to Peace in Vietnam and the United States," held at Columbia University from April 30 – May 2, 2025.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Vietnam War, and Political Engagement
Political Geography:
Vietnam, North America, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

22. What the White House and Congress Can Do to Prevent Global Mass Atrocities

Author:
Federica D'Alessandra
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The Unites States has long recognized that preventing and responding to mass atrocities is both a moral responsibility and in its national security interest. Commitment to atrocity prevention and response has long enjoyed broad bipartisan support, and the U.S. government has long been a global leader on the issue. In 2011, the United States was the first country to establish an interagency body dedicated to atrocity prevention. Ever since, each Republican and Democratic administration—with the support of Congress—has taken additional, important steps toward implementing this objective. In 2019, under President Donald Trump, the United States was the first country to enact federal legislation addressing global mass atrocities. The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act mandates the White House to report annually to Congress on government-led atrocity prevention efforts. Under the act, the second Trump administration will again be required to report to Congress by mid-2025, raising the question: What is in store for the atrocity prevention agenda under Trump 2.0? This paper reviews the atrocity prevention track record of the first Trump administration and other relevant action taken so far in this second term to parse out what efforts to sustain and uphold U.S. atrocity prevention obligations could look like under Trump’s second White House. This paper highlights how a number of steps the administration has already taken, including but not limited to the recently announced reorganization of the U.S. Department of State and the effective dissolution of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), unless promptly addressed, will raise dire challenges for the readiness and capacity of the State Department and other relevant agencies tasked with operationalizing U.S. commitments to this end. Accordingly, this paper advances a number of actionable recommendations that both the White House and the U.S. Congress should urgently consider to ensure the administration stands ready and capable to fulfill its obligations under the Elie Wiesel Act and other relevant legislation.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, National Security, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

23. Assessing China’s Nuclear Decision-Making: Three Analytical Lenses

Author:
Jacob Stokes
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
China’s rapid nuclear buildup is raising questions about how the country makes decisions related to nuclear weapons. This policy brief analyzes that trend by presenting three overarching analytical lenses, or categories of factors, that shape Beijing’s nuclear decision-making: leadership, weapons systems and military organizations, and official policies and doctrine. On leadership, Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping likely sees nuclear weapons granting prestige and growing in relevance, but his views on nuclear weapons’ efficacy are less clear. On weapons systems and military organizations, the expansion of China’s nuclear arsenal provides the country’s leaders with new options, which could shift those leaders’ intentions over time. Implementation of those options, though, runs through often-corrupt People’s Liberation Army military organizations. On official policies and doctrine, Beijing possibly sees its professed stance as a country that does not engage in U.S.- and Russian-style arms buildups as a source of diplomatic influence, particularly in the developing world or Global South. Separately, the circumstances where China’s nuclear no-first-use policy would face a true test—for example, during a major Taiwan contingency—are precisely the moments when Beijing would have massive incentives to selectively interpret or simply abandon that policy. In the near term, China’s official nuclear weapons policies will likely stay the same, so the gap between rhetoric and action will grow. A bigger arsenal and more nuclear rhetoric and signaling will, over time, also shape future Chinese coercion campaigns. In response, U.S. policymakers should commission an intelligence assessment of Xi’s views of specific nuclear crises, pressure China to issue more explanation of its nuclear policies and capabilities, and expand information sharing about missile tests on a reciprocal basis. U.S. policymakers should also make an authoritative policy statement on what would constitute China reaching nuclear parity with the United States and counter China’s nuclear buildup using both conventional and nuclear capabilities.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Decision-Making
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

24. Regional and Global Responses to a Taiwan Contingency: Gauging the Prospects for Coalition-Building Under Fire

Author:
Jacob Stokes, Kareen Hart, Ryan Claffey, and Thomas Corel
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
Acontingency across the Taiwan Strait has the potential to reshape the Indo-Pacific and even global security environment. This report explores how states beyond the United States and Taiwan would respond to a major Taiwan contingency. It defines a major Taiwan contingency as a conflict that might start in the so-called gray zone between peace and war but clearly escalates into a larger campaign that has unification as the near-term objective of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Specifically, the report examines how geopolitical interests, values, and material power might determine the approaches of countries across the region and the world. Regional and global responses to a major Taiwan contingency would depend heavily on structural factors present at the time it happens, as well as the specific circumstances of the situation. The report details four key structural factors that would shape states’ responses: the specific nature of the Taiwan contingency, the global trade and technology landscape when the contingency occurs, Taiwanese and U.S. capabilities and responses, and the spectrum of intervention options. Beyond those structural factors, the response from four groups of states would play a major role in determining the outcome of a major Taiwan contingency. The first group is Japan and the Philippines. Both U.S. allies would be on the front lines of a Taiwan conflict and host U.S. forces but are also the most exposed to military retaliation from China. The second group is close U.S. allies and partners South Korea, Australia, and India. Their locations are farther from the main battlespace, but each would have to consider how its response would affect its own security concerns and relations with the United States in the future. Regional and global responses to a major Taiwan contingency would depend heavily on structural factors present at the time it happens, as well as the specific circumstances of the situation. The third group includes the other states in Southeast Asia. Thailand and Singapore would have to consider their defense ties to Washington, while Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar might get requests from Beijing. Other Southeast Asian states would adopt a studiously neutral stance. The fourth group is Europe and the rest of the world. European states now pay more attention to Taiwan, and many see parallels with Ukraine’s plight. But uneven ties with China and a lack of power projection capabilities would mostly limit direct European intervention. Meanwhile, the developing world would likely side with Beijing. And it lacks the political will—much less the proximity or military power—to come to Taipei’s aid. Several findings flow from the analysis: First, it is unlikely that any other states will come to Taiwan’s aid if Taiwan does not fight fiercely and the United States does not intervene on a large scale. Second, geographic proximity increases a country’s stake in the defense of Taiwan, but that same closeness also makes countries more vulnerable to PRC retaliation. Third, any Taiwan contingency would cause massive economic harm, so states would try to balance protecting their economic interests—especially access to high-end semiconductors—with ending the conflict just to stem the disruption caused by the fighting. Fourth, states’ choices will reflect their national interests and values, but those responses will depend to a significant degree on what others do. U.S. policymakers should take the following actions to best position Washington to mount an effective coalition defense of Taiwan during a contingency, should those policymakers choose to do so: Prioritize preventing a Taiwan contingency. Reinforce with Taipei how much would hinge on Taiwan’s contingency response, both in terms of demonstrating will and capabilities. Expect limited contributions but be creative in exploring what in the spectrum of intervention might be possible. Deepen intra-Asian and Euro-Asian security ties that include the United States. Support and, where possible, facilitate the growth of intra-Asian security ties that do not rely on the United States as the hub. Plan for humanitarian evacuation operations as a means to encourage Southeast Asian countries to think through a Taiwan contingency.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Coalition, and Regional Security
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, and United States of America

25. Options of Jordan Foreign Policy in Light of “Deal of the Century” Regionally and Internationally

Author:
Sahar Tarawneh
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:
Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:
This study aimed to highlight the options of Jordan's foreign policy and its political behavior in light of the Deal of the Century regionally and internationally, in addition to identify it by examine the political conditions that prompted the US administration to propose this project, and by clarify its terms and the Jordanian popular and official position on it, as well as future features of the deal of the century, in particular after the American President lose / Donald Trump, and leave of Benjamin Netanyahu from the Israeli prime minister.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Regional Politics, and Deal of the Century
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and United States of America

26. From Soft Balancing to Bandwagoning: Contemporary Brazil–Us Relations in South America

Author:
Augusto Rinaldi
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:
Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:
Using the soft balancing concept and a comparative methodology, I analyze the diplomatic strategies mobilized by Brazil towards the US in South America from 2003 to 2022. The empirical results suggest that in the last two decades, Brazil moved away from the role of “soft balancer” during Lula’s and Rousseff’s mandates (2003–2016) to a “tactical convergence” in Temer's (2016–2018) to “bandwagoning” in Bolsonaro's (2019–2022). The main drivers for these different strategies are domestic and regional changes. Approaching this thematic contributes to a better understanding of Brazilian regional priorities and abilities to deal with the US in the region.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Competitive Balance, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:
Brazil, South America, and United States of America

27. Starr Forum: The US and the World Under Trump: The First 100 Days

Author:
Juliette N. Kayyem and Kori Schake
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Starr Forum: The US and the World Under Trump: The First 100 Days: Wednesday, April 16th, 2025. Juliette Kayyem and Kori Schake analyzed President Trump’s first 100 days in office and what this means for our nation and the world. Speakers: Juliette Kayyem is the faculty chair of the Homeland Security and Security and Global Health Projects at Harvard University and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. She also serves as a senior national security analyst for CNN where she has been described as CNN’s “go to” for disasters. A contributing writer to The Atlantic, Professor Kayyem has a weekly security segment on NPR’s Boston station WGBH. Her most recent book, "The Devil Never Sleeps: Learning to Live in an Age of Disasters," was described in a New Yorker profile as an “engagingly urgent blueprint for rethinking our approach to disaster preparedness and response.” She served as President Obama’s assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs at the Department of Homeland Security. Kori Schake leads the foreign and defense policy team at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of "Safe Passage: the Transition from British to American Hegemony," and a contributing writer at the Atlantic, War on the Rocks, and Bloomberg. Before joining AEI, Dr. Schake was the deputy director-general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. She has had a distinguished career in government, working at the US State Department, the US Department of Defense, and the National Security Council at the White House. She has also taught at Stanford, West Point, Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, National Defense University, and the University of Maryland. She has written additional books, including "America vs the West: Can the Liberal World Order Be Preserved?" and is coeditor, along with former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, of “Warriors & Citizens: American Views of Our Military.” Moderator: Evan Lieberman is the Total Professor of Political Science and Contemporary Africa and the director of the MIT Center for International Studies. He conducts research on the political-economy of development, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. He studies the democratic politics of governing ethnically and racially diverse societies, including the challenges of public health, climate adaptation, and ensuring respect for human dignity. Lieberman is the author, most recently, of "Until We Have Won Our Liberty: South Africa after Apartheid."
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, Public Health, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

28. Trump’s Alternate Reality in the Middle East

Author:
Hussein Ibish
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
With his recent foray into drastic measures to resolve the Israel-Palestine continuum, could there be a method to the madness of King Trump?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Donald Trump, Real Estate, and Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Gaza, and United States of America

29. President Trump’s Policies in the Middle East

Author:
Raphael Cohen-Almagor
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
The U.S. president’s pragmatic approach and his out-of-the-box bold ideas may bring a positive change to both Israel and the Palestinians provided they will be translated into action plans carefully and through sensitive communication with all concerned stakeholders
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Donald Trump, and Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America

30. A Resurgent Trump Returns to a Turbulent Middle East

Author:
Paul Salem
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
Trump’s unpredictable yet forceful leadership is entering a region in flux, offering both challenges and opportunities for his second term
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Hezbollah, Regional Politics, and 2023 Gaza War
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Israel, and United States of America