Search

Begin New Search Topic Treaties and Agreements Political Geography United States of America Content Type Special Report Publication Year within 10 Years

1. Three Presidents, Three Flawed Iran Policies, and the Path Ahead

Author:
Robert Satloff
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
News reports of a nearing breakthrough in the Iran nuclear talks will trigger sighs of relief, but the deal will likely prove disappointing on many fronts. With Russia’s horrific onslaught against Ukraine, news reports of a likely breakthrough in the Iran nuclear talks will trigger sighs of relief. But sadly, that relief will be misplaced. U.S. negotiators have already admitted that the forthcoming deal will not match the nonproliferation achievements of the 2015 agreement, and no official has even hinted that the revised text will either penalize Iran for its flagrant violation of its commitments or address the range of problems that have emerged since the original deal was reached. In this Policy Note, Washington Institute executive director Robert Satloff delivers a powerful, bipartisan critique, assessing how and why three successive American presidents started their terms with sound ideas on Iran and leverage to advance them but accepted either flawed agreements or America’s own isolation. Looking beyond a new Iran deal, he proposes an urgent agenda: scrupulous enforcement; a renewed push for a “longer, stronger” agreement; early preparation for the day after restrictions expire; close coordination with regional partners to counter Iran’s rising influence; and outreach to the Iranian people, who will see little benefit from the windfall in sanctions relief likely coming to Tehran. American leadership, determination, and resilience, he notes, will be essential.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Negotiation, and JCPOA
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, and United States of America

2. Trouble on the Rocks: US Policy in East China Sea and South China Sea Disputes

Author:
Benjamin Tracy
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
The South and East China Seas are strategic not only for US security and commercial interests, but are vitally so for US treaty allies Japan and the Philippines. Both countries are involved in territorial disputes with China, a rising power and security concern for the US and its allies. Despite treaty alliances with both, the United States has consistently confirmed that the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea are covered under Article V of the US-Japan Security Treaty while stating that Philippine-claimed islands in the South China Sea are not explicitly covered in the Mutual Defense Treaty. This research project aims to understand why US policy is inconsistent in defending treaty allies’ territory. The methods used to solve this question are to look at the historical context of both disputes as well as strategic interests. UNCLOS is also analyzed to see whether international law influenced US policy. The result was that the US more consistently covered the Senkaku Islands due to the need to gain Japan’s trust as an ally in the post-war order and the US has an interest in maintaining status-quo in the region. There are three recommendations for the US in order to create a more consistent policy, which include signing UNCLOS, reengaging with regional allies such as the Philippines to establish a stronger defense commitment, and strengthening alliances with actors such as the Quad as well as the UK and France.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Treaties and Agreements, Territorial Disputes, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Philippines, North America, United States of America, and South China Sea

3. Afghanistan: The Fog at the End of the Tunnel

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
What is causing the uncertainty about when US ground forces will exit Afghanistan. The Biden administration insists that logistical factors explain its breach of the 2020 US-Taliban agreement, which reset the exit date from May to September. Logistical factors are also supposed to explain why the date may now be walked back to July. Actually, logistical issues explain neither. Using current data and historical precedent, this short analysis shows why. An alternative explanation for the delay is that it gave Washington more time to pursue some of its unfinished goals regarding Afghanistan. In this, the lingering troop presence serves as leverage. What goals? Improve Kabul’s military posture, polish plans and preparations for US forces to “fight from afar,” and pursue dramatic new international initiatives aiming to lock the Taliban into a cease-fire, peace settlement, and government reform plan substantially defined by the USA. This high risk-gambit won’t succeed, but it might prolong the conflict and America’s involvement in it.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Treaties and Agreements, War, Military Strategy, Armed Forces, Taliban, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, South Asia, North America, and United States of America

4. U.S.-Thai Economic Prospects–Turning A New Page

Author:
Judy A. Benn
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Judy A. Benn, Former Executive Director American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand, explains that “for Thailand to take full advantage of post-pandemic opportunities and reignite its economy to make-up for the last 18 months, the nation will need to capitalize on its centralized geographic location and position as one of Southeast Asia’s strongest manufacturing bases.”
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Regulation, and Economy
Political Geography:
North America, Thailand, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

5. The United States and Japan Should Cooperate to Include India in Indo‐Pacific Economic Governance

Author:
Kensuke Yanagida
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Both the United States and Japan consider India as an important strategic partner in their respective Indo-Pacific concepts. However, India still faces many domestic challenges as a developing country. India also has traditionally been reluctant when it comes to trade liberalization. U.S. bilateral trade negotiations with India, and Japan`s effort in promoting an East Asia regional trade agreement that includes India share objectives and interests and hence can be coordinated. On November 15, 2020, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was signed by 15 countries with the glaring exception of India. RCEP is a regional free trade agreement (FTA) whose negotiations were initiated by ASEAN and six partner countries, namely Japan, China, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and India in 2012. The signing of RCEP finally came after eight years of negotiations, but India decided to pull out from the pact at the final stage of negotiations. The Japanese and U.S. Indo-Pacific concepts aim to achieve regional peace, stability, and prosperity through ensuring a rules-based international order, and to enhance cooperation among like-minded countries in both economic and security spheres. RCEP can be positioned as an important economic partnership initiative that embodies the Indo-Pacific concepts of rules-based, free and fair trade and investment governance, and contributing to the economic prosperity of the region.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, and Trade
Political Geography:
Japan, India, Asia, North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

6. Reimagining Nuclear Arms Control: A Comprehensive Approach

Author:
James M. Acton, Thomas Macdonald, and Pranay Vaddi
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The governments of China, Russia, and the United States all express support for arms control. They disagree profoundly, however, about its purposes and preconditions. To try to find common ground, this report presents nine detailed practical measures that—implemented individually or as part of a package—would help address each state’s specific security concerns and the shared dangers of arms racing and inadvertent escalation.
Topic:
Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Asia, and United States of America

7. Mexico and the United States: a new beginning | México y Estados Unidos: un nuevo comienzo

Author:
Agustín Barrios Gómez, Henry Cuellar, Juan Carlos Baker, and Kenneth Smith
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI)
Abstract:
North America started 2020 as a bloc of three democratic countries with shared values that trade freely in the context of regional peace and cooperation. We are nearly 500 million North American citizens who came together to sign the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994 and its successor, the United StatesMexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) of 2018, providing a legal framework for commercial freedom on our continent. The world often conducts its affairs with a zero-sum game mentality, meaning that one country’s gain is another’s loss. This is why agreements like NAFTA, in 1994, and the USMCA, today, are particularly valuable. It is also the reason that we must not take them for granted. The effort invested in creating the USMCA was born precisely from the understanding of a fundamental idea: restricting the liberty of our people to trade freely is a mistake. It was not an easy case to make. The current U.S. president based his political campaign on animosity towards Mexico, in particular, and against exchange with the world, in general. However, he was led to a position of saving free trade in North America by the millions of his fellow citizens who saw their economic livelihood threatened by protectionism and the possibility of severing close economic ties with their neighbors. At the same time, a sector of Mexican society that has always been antagonistic to two pillars of trade in our continent: integration with the United States, and economic freedom, came to power in Mexico. This raised the specter of a challenge to free trade from Mexican socialists. However, the overwhelmingly positive results and obvious benefits of NAFTA for Mexico were of such magnitude, that protectionism was not an issue in the return to power of the nationalist Left. It now looks like a given, but both in the case of the U.S. and in the case of Mexico, the survival of the framework of openness born on January 1, 1994, is a testament to enormous political and economic success. In a world that increasingly favors the Pyrrhic victories of political symbolism, the triumph of reason over nativist fervor is well worth highlighting. For each of the three countries, the USMCA was the way to protect these gains, but each country placed its own emphasis on their priorities. Canada, currently the most politically stable country of the three, clearly sought to uphold a system that provides the country with access to its main market, as well as to another market (Mexico) in which it has fewer interests, but which is still important. The United States, the former architect of the world order that promoted economic freedoms for 71 years (1945-2016), was set to become its spoiler. Fortunately for the general interest, despite the rhetoric, with the USMCA it was possible to find a compromise that safeguarded the gains made from economic integration since 1994. Sectors of society, such as farmers and border communities which had never organized to defend their markets, got together to successfully make their case directly to the Administration. Mexico’s interests were clearer: manufactured exports are the most dynamic and competitive part of its economy. They not only provide a major source of hard currency, but in conjunction with the imports made possible by income from exports, they support the internal market, as well. For Mexico, even more than for Canada, protecting free trade of North America was imperative. The result was an Agreement that protected the benefits of North American commercial freedom, at the same time as it brought certain aspects up to date. It also addressed a number of the concerns that had been raised by blue collar workers in the United States, particularly pertaining to the automotive sector. This document helps us understand these changes and provides perspective from three authors who were directly involved in making the USMCA a reality.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Economy, NAFTA, Free Trade, Trade, and USMCA
Political Geography:
North America, Mexico, and United States of America

8. Conflict and Cooperation in Asia: Geopolitical Issues

Author:
Tatiana Rosito, Andy Mok, James Crabtree, and Rudolph Lohmeyer
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Brazilian Center for International Relations (CEBRI)
Abstract:
The document produced by CEBRI’s Asia Program analyzes the following issues: 1) a long-term view of China's role in the region; 2) Regional and bilateral agreements in Asia/Eurasia and security policies; 3) The evolution of the role of the United States in the Indo-Pacific. The panelists pointed out that "Two questions remain open: China's ability to lead the international system and the United States' ability to build a broader agenda in addition to military issues in the Asian region".
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, Geopolitics, and Conflict
Political Geography:
China, Asia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

9. United States-Canada Transboundary Water Governance Prioritizes Stakeholder Engagement

Author:
Jane Corwin
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
A review of the construct and functionality of the International Joint Commission may offer an example of effective water governance to be emulated in the Indo-Pacific Region. As water knows no boundaries nor political authority, collaboration across borders is necessary in order to manage water apportionment, flood/drought mitigation, and water quality in transboundary waters. Additionally, the importance of effective water governance will only increase with a changing climate. The governments of the United States and Canada recognized this in 1909 with the signing of the Boundary Waters Treaty (BWT). In the BWT, the governments established the mechanism by which the two countries would jointly manage their common waters. The governments created the International Joint Commission (IJC) to be one of those mechanisms. Further affirmation of the need for cross boundary cooperation resulted in the signing of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972, most recently updated in 2012, which directs the IJC to assess progress and garner public input to achieve water quality objectives established by the two governments. The BWT gives the IJC power to resolve water disputes through Orders of Approval and References.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Territorial Disputes, Governance, and Borders
Political Geography:
Canada and United States of America

10. A New Erdogan-Putin Deal in Idlib May Help—For Now

Author:
Soner Cagaptay
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Turkey, Russia, and Washington have compelling reasons to welcome a new ceasefire agreement, however imperfect, but they still need to address the longer-term dangers posed by the Assad regime’s murderously maximalist strategy. Recent fighting between Turkish and Syrian regime forces in Idlib province has seemingly wiped away the last vestiges of the September 2018 Sochi agreement, brokered by Russian president Vladimir Putin as a way of pausing hostilities and dividing control over the country’s last rebel-held province. Beginning last December, renewed Russian and Syrian attacks against civilians sent a million residents fleeing toward the Turkish border, creating another humanitarian disaster. Then, on February 27, thirty-three Turkish soldiers were killed when their unit was attacked in Idlib—Ankara’s largest single-day loss in Syria thus far. Turkey initially blamed Bashar al-Assad for the deaths, but eyes soon turned to his Russian patron as the more likely culprit, elevating tensions between Ankara and Moscow to a level not seen since Turkish forces shot down a Russian plane in November 2015. Meanwhile, the Turkish military and its local partner forces launched a string of attacks against the Syrian regime and its Iranian-backed militia allies. On March 5, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet with Putin in Moscow to discuss these rising tensions. If the two leaders reach another ceasefire deal, will it last any longer than the short-lived Sochi agreement? More important, what effect might it have on the latest refugee crisis threatening to wash over Turkey and Europe?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Syrian War, and Negotiation
Political Geography:
Russia, Turkey, Middle East, Syria, United States of America, and Idlib