« Previous |
1 - 20 of 51
|
Next »
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Russia’s 2023 foreign policy concept: war against Ukraine, confrontation with the west, and continuation of the tradition of imperialism
- Author:
- Medea Ivaniadze
- Publication Date:
- 08-2023
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
- Abstract:
- On March 31, 2023, the sixth Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation was published (The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation 2023). The document was updated for the first time in six years, the main reason for which is the deteriorating international situation for Moscow amid the Russo-Ukrainian war. The text of the concept is highlighted by harsh and revanchist calls against the West and especially the USA. The document almost entirely refers to the Russo-Ukrainian war, at the same time, the concept shows that the current war is only one part of Russia’s confrontation with the Western world. The concept contains a number of statements inconsistent with the real policy of Russia and even lies, but despite the absurd, propagandistic content of the new document, it is important to find out how the new concept differs from its predecessor, and also what factors Russia relies on in the current difficult international situation? Based on the 2023 Concept of the Foreign Policy of Russia the impact of Russia’s imperialist worldview on its foreign policy in the light of full-scale military intervention in Ukraine, the changed attitude towards the West, the prospects of Russia-West relations, Russia’s attempt to strengthen ties with non-Western countries, and finally, threats from Russia to Georgia are discussed in this publication.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Regional Politics, Russia-Ukraine War, and Threat Assessment
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Ukraine, Georgia, and United States of America
3. The Eagle in the South Caucasus: Armenia Tests Alternative Geopolitical Waters
- Author:
- Walter Landgraf and Nareg Seferian
- Publication Date:
- 09-2023
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Foreign Policy Research Institute
- Abstract:
- The US-Armenia “Eagle Partner” joint military exercise from September 11–20 may signal the beginning of a shift in the foreign policy direction of Armenia, historically a close ally to Russia. Armenia has been growing frustrated at the lackluster response of the Collective Security Treaty Organization to its appeals for assistance in the deepening conflict with Azerbaijan. However, it would be difficult to imagine a wholesale change in the geopolitical orientation in Yerevan, given the strong military, economic, energy, and cultural ties between Armenia and Russia.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, Military, Regional Security, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Armenia, North America, South Caucasus, and United States of America
4. Neutrality Not NATO: Assessing Security Options for Ukraine
- Author:
- Benjamin H. Friedman
- Publication Date:
- 07-2023
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Defense Priorities
- Abstract:
- The United States should not guarantee Ukraine’s security, whether via the NATO alliance or some lesser means. Guaranteeing Ukraine’s security serves no major U.S. interest and would increase the risk of a U.S. or NATO war with Russia and nuclear escalation. Those dangers are why the United States refuses to fight directly for Ukraine against Russia today, and they would induce similar caution if the United States guaranteed Ukraine’s security. Lacking a major interest, U.S. promises to defend Ukraine will be unserious and unbelievable. Fake security guarantees for Ukraine might have some deterrent value, despite their lack of credibility, given the terrible risks involved for Russia in testing those promises. However, fake security guarantees would likely degrade Ukraine’s security on balance, both by preserving a cause of the war and by encouraging Ukrainian leaders to make dangerous choices based on the false prospect of U.S. protection. Announcing plans to guarantee Ukraine’s security once the war ends would encourage Russia to continue fighting. Guaranteeing Ukraine’s security now would demand a choice between ignoring the commitment and undermining other U.S. security guarantees or fighting for Ukraine and sparking an immediate nuclear crisis. What the United States can credibly offer Ukraine is armed neutrality, where the United States, ideally with European allies taking the lead, provides Ukraine with arms and training without security guarantees.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Deterrence, Neutrality, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and United States of America
5. Overreach in Africa: Rethinking U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy
- Author:
- William Walldorf
- Publication Date:
- 08-2023
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Defense Priorities
- Abstract:
- Due to an overly broad definition of threat, the United States currently commits far too many military resources to counterterrorism, especially in Africa. The United States is pursuing military action against at least thirteen terrorist groups in Africa, but only one of those groups has the “global reach” to be a threat to Americans. Consequently, the U.S. military is fighting a slew of counterinsurgency—not counterterrorism—wars in Africa today, a strategy that borders on nation-building. Counterintuitively, U.S. security assistance, training, and military activity in Africa since the 2000s has inadvertently aided the growth of terrorist groups in the region. Most concerning, U.S. policy today could be helping to inspire the next generation of global jihadists tomorrow, intent on attacking the United States and its closest democratic allies. U.S. military activity in Africa has expanded significantly over the past decade and a half and this trend will likely continue even further without an intentional course correction. The potential for further mission creep and overexpansion is high. Washington should wind down direct military activity and close most military bases in Africa, while also curbing security assistance to local regimes.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Counter-terrorism, and Military Aid
- Political Geography:
- Africa and United States of America
6. Moving to an Offshore Balancing Strategy for East Asia
- Author:
- Peter Harris
- Publication Date:
- 10-2023
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Defense Priorities
- Abstract:
- Those calling for Washington to expand U.S. military presence in the Western Pacific have misread the regional security environment. The United States can reduce its military footprint in East Asia without jeopardizing its national security or the stability of the region. China is not poised to dominate East Asia or any other part of the Indo-Pacific region. While the distribution of power in East Asia has shifted in favor of Beijing, it does not follow that China constitutes a major threat to the territorial integrity or political independence of all neighboring states. Regional powers can deter China from launching wars of aggression by investing in the right kinds of defensive weaponry to capitalize on geographic advantages. The United States should play the role of an “offshore balancer” by helping China’s neighbors to become more resilient to coercion from Beijing. The leaders of several prominent states in East Asia are anxious to avoid a “cold war” between the United States and China. Washington should heed their calls for restraint. Pushing these governments to choose a side in the U.S.-China rivalry would needlessly antagonize them. The issue of Taiwanese security presents a special challenge for the United States and its allies. Taiwan has the most to lose from China’s rise and perceives U.S. military support as essential to its survival as a de facto independent entity. However, the United States can retrench from East Asia without “abandoning” Taiwan to China. Peace in East Asia and the wider Indo-Pacific does not depend upon the United States enjoying primacy in the region. On the contrary, the pursuit of U.S. military primacy in the Western Pacific will make it more difficult to maintain regional security and promote economic prosperity over the long term.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Military Affairs, Deterrence, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- East Asia, Asia, and United States of America
7. Preserving U.S. Military Advantages in the Middle East
- Author:
- Nathan P. Olsen
- Publication Date:
- 05-2023
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- The 2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS) calls on the U.S. military to sustain enduring advantages and build new ones for the future fight. According to the NDS, building and maintaining advantages to advance U.S. national interests will allow the military to deter attacks against the United States and its allies and partners, while fostering a resilient military force and defense ecosystem. In the Middle East, this challenge is especially relevant. The United States has several enduring advantages that could eventually disappear if the U.S. government does not make significant changes in how it operates in this part of the world.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Strategic Competition, and Military
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
8. Sudan's Civil War: Mediation Challenges and the U.S. Role
- Author:
- Yasir Zaidan, Reem Abbas, and Alex Rondos
- Publication Date:
- 07-2023
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- Three experts assess the conflict’s effects on regional humanitarian and security issues, outlining the requirements for a durable ceasefire.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Civil War, Conflict, and Humanitarian Crisis
- Political Geography:
- Africa, Sudan, Egypt, and United States of America
9. The EU–US Data Protection Framework: Balancing Economic, Security and Privacy Considerations
- Author:
- Federica Marconi
- Publication Date:
- 09-2023
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Istituto Affari Internazionali
- Abstract:
- The rapid evolution of digital technology has ushered in a data-centric economy, where data accessibility drives marketplace efficiency and economic growth across various industries. However, this shift, while offering numerous benefits, introduces significant privacy and data security challenges, particularly in the context of transatlantic data transfers. Considering the vast economic ties between the EU and the US, the transatlantic data flow vividly illustrates the complexities involved in governing and transferring data. It grapples with the ongoing challenge of striking a satisfactory balance between economic advantages stemming from data utilisation and various concerns pertaining to national security, digital sovereignty and individual rights. In recent years, the European Commission approved two different frameworks on transatlantic data flow – Safe Harbour in 2000[1] and Privacy Shield in 2016[2] – asserting that the US provided a level of data protection for data transfers essentially equivalent to that guaranteed in the EU. However, despite initial optimism, both adequacy decisions faced a significant setback when the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidated them in what is commonly referred to as the “Schrems saga”,[3] named after the Austrian activist who first challenged both frameworks before the European Court. The core arguments centred on the absence of adequate safeguards for personal data within US domestic law and the extent of state surveillance over such data when it was transferred, as initially disclosed by Edward Snowden in 2013.[4] This legal development led to a period of significant uncertainty and further heightened the ongoing debate concerning the regulation of transatlantic data transfer. To address the consequences of this legal turmoil, both EU and the US committed to establishing “a renewed and sound framework for transatlantic data flows”,[5] seeking a long-term solution to address the complexities of data privacy and security, eventually leading to the recently adopted EU–US Data Privacy Framework (“DPF”).
- Topic:
- Security, Economics, Political Economy, European Union, Privacy, Transatlantic Relations, and Digital Policy
- Political Geography:
- Europe and United States of America
10. Climate Action, Geopolitical Risks and Strategic Policy: The Western Race to Secure Critical Raw Materials
- Author:
- Salvatore Finizio
- Publication Date:
- 10-2023
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Istituto Affari Internazionali
- Abstract:
- Climate action, economic competition and geopolitical shifts are more intertwined than ever. In the wake of the skyrocketing inflation and deteriorating China relations, United States President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law on 16 August 2022. Conceived as the foundation of the new US industrial policy, the IRA aims to rebuild the country’s industrial capacity, including 500 billion US dollars in new spending and tax breaks, among which almost 400 billion aimed at boosting clean energy.[1] Across the Atlantic, the European Union expressed concerns about the potential loss of industrial competitiveness resulting from the IRA. In response, the EU unveiled its own Green Deal Industrial Plan (GDIP) in February 2023.[2] The objective of this plan is to promote the enhancement of net-zero manufacturing capacities in order to meet the EU’s climate targets. Both the IRA and the GDIP have a common goal of reducing dependence on China, especially in clean technology, although through different approaches. The US focuses on bringing high-value production back to its shores, while the EU aims to develop and diversify supply chains.[3] This divergence is also reflected in the debate between “decoupling” and “derisking”, with the latter recently gaining prominence as policymakers recognise the challenges of completely reshoring supply chains domestically.[4] The US and the EU share industrial and geoeconomic objectives, but will also encounter similar challenges, in particular concerning the first stages of green supply chains. Despite their heterogeneous approaches, Western policymakers will in fact have to secure critical raw materials for clean technology manufacturing, with the aim of resourcing the energy transition.
- Topic:
- Security, Politics, European Union, Institutions, Energy, and Raw Materials
- Political Geography:
- China, Europe, and United States of America
11. A New and Better Security Order for Europe
- Author:
- Rajan Menon
- Publication Date:
- 02-2022
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Defense Priorities
- Abstract:
- Far-reaching changes in the global balance of power and Europe’s security environment call for a new U.S. strategy toward Europe—for the benefit of Americans and Europeans alike. European states should take deliberate steps toward autonomy in defense, which the U.S. should foster by reducing its military presence in, and security commitments to, Europe, gradually and in coordination with its NATO allies. The eventual goal should be to eliminate permanent U.S. military deployments in Europe. Europe, particularly France and Germany, possesses the material wherewithal to balance Russia’s military power. What Europe lacks is the motivation, something it will not acquire so long as it can count on a blanket, open-ended American commitment. Europe’s stability and security demand a regional order into which Russia—the continent’s strongest single military power—is eventually integrated, rather than one from which it has become progressively alienated. The post-Cold War crises over Ukraine arose from complex circumstances; but one of them has been the absence of a pan-European security order that extends from the Atlantic to the Urals and contains provisions for engagement with Russia, including arms control and crisis management, as well as confidence-building measures designed to reduce the risk of war. Restructuring Europe’s security order to promote European strategic autonomy will improve, not harm, trans-Atlantic relations and cooperation. The U.S. and Canada are bound to Europe by centuries-old ties—historical, cultural, and economic. While the extent and nature of these ties will necessarily change over time, their existence does not depend on an American willingness to serve indefinitely as Europe’s prime defender.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, NATO, and Strategic Stability
- Political Geography:
- Europe, France, Germany, North America, and United States of America
12. Implications of a Melting Arctic
- Author:
- Sascha Glaeser
- Publication Date:
- 07-2022
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Defense Priorities
- Abstract:
- Melting ice is making the Arctic more accessible, which in turn may affect three key issues in the region—militarization, maritime trade, and natural resource development. U.S. security interests in the Arctic remain deterring an attack on the United States and NATO allies and ensuring the lawful use of Arctic waters. The United States can secure both at minimum cost and risk. Greater accessibility does not increase threats emanating from the Arctic, so the United States does not need to do more militarily to ensure its security. Militarization absent threats could lead to a destabilizing security dilemma. Trans-Arctic maritime trade routes and natural resource development present potential economic opportunities; however, both still face significant challenges that limit their near-term viability. The United States should be vigilant to Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic and avoid overreacting or reflexively mirroring their behavior. A U.S. Arctic strategy built on the reality that the United States enjoys a strong conventional and nuclear deterrent, a robust network of Arctic allies, and favorable geography, is the best avenue to protect U.S. interests and keep the Arctic at peace.
- Topic:
- Security, Climate Change, Natural Resources, Trade, and Militarization
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Arctic, and United States of America
13. Three Reasons Why CHIPS-plus is a Big Win for US National Security
- Author:
- Tom Klein
- Publication Date:
- 08-2022
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- On August 9th, 2022, President Biden signed vital bipartisan legislation to compete with China. H.R. 4346, called the CHIPS and Science Act or “CHIPS-plus,” would pave the way for nearly $280 billion in incentives to boost US-based chip manufacturing, scientific research, technology standards setting, and STEM education. These initiatives directly protect our immediate security vulnerabilities in the US military and support our long-term national security competition with China by promoting democratic norms and spurring critical defense innovations.
- Topic:
- Security, National Security, Science and Technology, Military Strategy, Innovation, and CHIPS
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
14. The Killing of Al-Zawahiri and the Future of Al-Qaeda
- Author:
- Dario Cristiani
- Publication Date:
- 08-2022
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Istituto Affari Internazionali
- Abstract:
- In the afternoon of 1 August, Joe Biden gave a speech from the White House confirming the killing of Al-Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in Afghanistan. According to senior sources from the administration, Zawahiri was killed by “a precise tailored airstrike” conducted at around 06:30 am local time in the Sherpur neighbourhood of Kabul.[1] The strike was carried out via two Hellfire missiles (allegedly, two R9X missiles) fired from a drone.[2] The area in which the attack was carried out is particularly significant: the Sherpur neighbourhood is located in a deeply protected area of the capital, in which many Taliban leaders now live. Al-Zawahiri was reportedly killed in the house owned by a top aide to senior Taliban leader, Sirajuddin Haqqani.[3]
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Ayman al-Zawahiri
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, South Asia, and United States of America
15. WHO ATTACKED MONTENEGRO? THE MORAL AND STRATEGIC HAZARDS OF MISASSIGNING BLAME
- Author:
- Erica Lonergan and Maggie Smith
- Publication Date:
- 09-2022
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Political Violence @ A Glance
- Abstract:
- A few weeks ago, Montenegro—a NATO member—was hit with a cyber attack that targeted government servers. Montenegro’s outgoing Prime Minister, Dritan Abazovic, initially hedged about potential responsibility for the attack, stating on August 26: “We do not have clear information about the organizers… Security sector authorities couldn’t confirm that there is an individual, a group, a state behind [the attack].” Nevertheless, later that same day officials from Montenegro’s national intelligence agency attributed the attack to Russia. They also implied that the attack was related to Montenegro’s support for Ukraine and push for membership in the European Union. Yet, the extent of Russian involvement in the cyber attack remains ambiguous, which poses significant political and strategic challenges.
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, European Union, and Cybersecurity
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, North America, Montenegro, and United States of America
16. MANAGING CONFLICT BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL RIVALS
- Author:
- Elizabeth Radziszewski and Jeremy Berkowitz
- Publication Date:
- 07-2022
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Political Violence @ A Glance
- Abstract:
- Sweden’s and Finland’s recent decisions to join NATO marked a historic moment for the two Nordic states known for their neutrality. The move not only reflects evolving security concerns about Russia’s aggression in Ukraine but marks a shift that is set to end decades of accommodation toward Russia. It also sheds light on a broader question about why some rival countries—or those that have a history of tensions—sustain policies of accommodation over the years, and what pushes them to abandon such policies. Why would Sweden and Finland refrain from alienating Russia for years only to break suddenly with this tradition with their unprecedented decision to apply for NATO membership?
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, NATO, Military, and Conflict Management
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Europe, Ukraine, Finland, Asia, Spain, North Africa, Sweden, Morocco, and United States of America
17. The Future of U.S.-North Korea Relations After the 2022 U.S. Midterm Elections
- Author:
- Jungkun Seo
- Publication Date:
- 11-2022
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- Jungkun Seo, Professor at Kyung Hee University, claims that with the results of the midterm elections in favor of Biden and the Democrats, Biden could likely run for re-election. Added to this, he expects that there will be no innovative strategy to tackle North Korea as Biden would have no choice but to take a hardline stance ahead of the 2024 election if North Korea's provocations make a prominent security threat to the United States. Professor Seo emphasizes that it will be extremely difficult for the U.S. to find a new breakthrough to the stalled peace process on the Korean Peninsula.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, and Elections
- Political Geography:
- Asia, North Korea, North America, and United States of America
18. Evaluation and Suggestion on the ROK-U.S. Extended Deterrence Strategy and Consultation Group Meeting
- Author:
- Jungsup Kim
- Publication Date:
- 10-2022
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- Jungsup Kim, Vice President of Research and Education at the Sejong Institute, evaluates ROK-U.S. Extended Deterrence Strategy and Consultation Group (EDSCG) meeting held on September 16, 2022. He claims that the clear warning of an “overwhelming and decisive response” to any North Korean nuclear attack and Washington’s ironclad commitment to drawing on the full range of its military capabilities to provide extended deterrence for South Korea are positive outcomes. However, he indicates that they did not elaborate on how the “tailored deterrence” strategy could be applied to the Korean Peninsula. To address this issue, Dr. Kim highlights the need to institutionalize the concept of extended deterrence and suggests expanding opportunities for information sharing with the U.S., utilizing various consultative bodies to provide an effective extended nuclear deterrent, and stabilizing the crisis while responding to the North Korean nuclear threats.
- Topic:
- Security, Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, and Denuclearization
- Political Geography:
- Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America
19. Don’t Fear Vacuums: It’s Safe To Go Home
- Author:
- Benjamin H. Friedman
- Publication Date:
- 12-2022
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Defense Priorities
- Abstract:
- “We will not walk away and leave a vacuum to be filled by China, Russia, or Iran,” President Biden said this July in defense of his administration’s continued commitment to the Middle East.1 His comments reflect a widely held misconception: that a U.S. military exit from the Middle East would empower U.S. adversaries, and thus somehow make Americans less secure.2 U.S. leaders and pundits have expressed similar fears about the danger of creating vacuums by leaving Syria, Afghanistan (before U.S. exit of course), and even Africa, where only smatterings of U.S. troops are stationed.3 Vacuum fears also fuel more general warnings against surrendering influence in the developing world. Chinese investments via its Belt and Road Initiative—a massive set of infrastructure-development loans—for example, are said to exploit a vacuum the United States should compete to fill. Chinese trade in South America, or Russian port calls there, are said to reflect a failure to exert U.S. influence.4 The burgeoning idea behind these claims is that “great power competition,” which once seemed a useful rationale for exiting conflicts and lingering endeavors of the global war on terror, demands winning an open-ended, ill-defined contest for influence with Russia and China in the greater Middle East and developing world, or what is now sometimes called the global south.5 Vacuums that could be said to follow a U.S. exit—not the terrorists or insurgents U.S. forces were deployed to fight—are the new justification for staying.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Military Affairs
- Political Geography:
- China, Middle East, and United States of America
20. Taking Action on Cyber Enforcement: Assessing US Legislative Progress in the 116th Congress
- Author:
- Michael Garcia and Pat Shilo
- Publication Date:
- 02-2021
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- The 116th Congress experienced events like no other in American history, including unprecedented levels of malicious cyber activity. Global estimates say that ransomware attacks have increased by 148% since February 2020, with many US hospitals and schools falling victim and having their operations suspended.1 Leading up to and during the pandemic, Members of the 116th Congress responded and drafted cybersecurity legislation, introducing 316 bills to tackle the issue—a 40% increase from the previous Congress. This memo presents a comprehensive analysis of the cybersecurity legislation introduced in the 116th Congress and is a successor to our memo assessing the cybersecurity legislation in the previous Congress. Unlike the 115th Congress, the two chambers of the 116th were each under the control of a different party. Still, more than half of the introduced bills were bipartisan, including 85% of the bills signed into law. However, only 11% of the introduced bills focused on imposing consequences for the human actors behind cyberattacks, such as imposing sanctions or strengthening laws to prosecute criminals to hold them accountable for their actions. Following the trend of past congresses, most of the bills focused on protecting data and securing critical infrastructure. But while defending data and infrastructure is important, the lack of legislation to address the challenges of imposing consequences on the human actor suggests that Congress should prioritize introducing and passing bipartisan legislation that reduces the impunity with which malicious cyber actors, particularly cybercriminals, act. Here are the main takeaways from the bills introduced last Congress: Cybersecurity-related legislation increased by 40% since the 115th Congress. Of the 316 bills introduced, 14 became law, with nine related to appropriations or agency authorizations legislation. However, only 36 of the 316 bills introduced in the 116th Congress, and just three of the 14 provisions signed into law, focused on imposing consequences on the human actors behind cyberattacks. Cybersecurity remains a largely bipartisan issue. Over 50% of all legislation and 85% of all bills signed into law had a bipartisan co-sponsor.
- Topic:
- Security, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Legislation, and Cyberspace
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
- « Previous
- Next »
- 1
- 2
- 3