« Previous |
101 - 193 of 193
|
Next »
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
102. Trump’s Plan is Opportunity to Change Paradigm
- Author:
- Efraim Inbar
- Publication Date:
- 03-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Any government elected in Israel will undoubtedly agree to discuss the plan with the Americans.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, Territorial Disputes, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America
103. Fear Not the Trump Plan
- Author:
- David M. Weinberg
- Publication Date:
- 03-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- It is inconceivable that the Trump plan will parrot the stale Clinton/Obama parameters of yesteryear or force any “peace paradigm” on Israel.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Territorial Disputes, Leadership, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America
104. Trump’s Law of Diminishing Returns
- Author:
- David M. Weinberg
- Publication Date:
- 04-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Trump’s landmark Golan decision asserts the law of diminishing returns: Arabs who refuse to make peace with Israel lose rights and assets as time goes forward. Mahmoud Abbas: Take notice.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America
105. Will Trump’s ‘deal of the century’ lead to change?
- Author:
- Efraim Inbar
- Publication Date:
- 04-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- The guaranteed failure of the “deal of the century” is an opportunity for Israel to open the Americans’ eyes to the harsh and complicated reality in our region and lead them to support the strategy of managing the conflict and wait for better times.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Territorial Disputes, Leadership, Peace, and Strategic Stability
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America
106. Beware Precipitous Talks with Iran
- Author:
- David M. Weinberg
- Publication Date:
- 08-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign must not be curtailed before Iran’s leaders truly have no choice but to capitulate to Western demands.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Military Strategy, Hegemony, Conflict, and Regional Power
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
107. A Stronger Mediterranean Partnership: Why More Than Gas is at Stake
- Author:
- Eran Lerman
- Publication Date:
- 08-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Israel, Egypt, Greece and Cyprus must encourage the US to assert a higher military and diplomatic profile as a counterweight to Turkish pressures, Russian and Iranian ambitions, and Chinese inroads.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Energy Policy, Military Strategy, and Foreign Interference
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Europe, Iran, Turkey, Middle East, Israel, Greece, Asia, North America, Egypt, Cyprus, and United States of America
108. How Israel Will Prevent Trump Appeasing Iran
- Author:
- Yossi Mansharof
- Publication Date:
- 09-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Deadlock between Washington and Tehran won’t easily turn into détente even if Trump and Rohani do find a way to meet in New York. However, even a tentative rapprochement between the US and Iran would severely strain Israel’s close ties with the White House.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Rivalry, and Appeasement
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
109. The Lessons of Betrayal in Northern Syria
- Author:
- Jonathan Spyer
- Publication Date:
- 10-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- The move confirms that the current US administration is not interested in heading an alliance of regional forces against Iranian expansionism or Sunni political Islam, but is, like its predecessor, managing imperial decline.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Regional Cooperation, and Alliance
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iran, Middle East, Israel, and North America
110. Beyond the Chorus of Indignation
- Author:
- Efraim Inbar
- Publication Date:
- 10-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Trump’s Syria decision accords with previous presidential decisions and is not necessarily a disaster for Israel.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Leadership, Conflict, and Foreign Interference
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Syria, North America, and United States of America
111. Self-Determination and U.S. Choices
- Author:
- Will Todman
- Publication Date:
- 01-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- The United States government can neither engender new states nor prevent them from coming into being, but it does possess a range of policy tools to influence the trajectory of new or aspiring states. While U.S. history creates a certain amount of empathy for self-determination groups, as a general rule the U.S. government views most independence movements skeptically. This is appropriate, in part because few such movements are viable. Economies are small or fragile (or both), the cause enjoys limited internal support, or the forces arrayed against it are too massive. In addition, the United States is tied diplomatically to some 190 countries around the world, and it usually privileges intergovernmental ties over those with non-governmental groups. Supporting secession not only would threaten U.S. relations with countries fighting U.S.-backed movements, but also other countries that feared that the United States might come to support secessionists elsewhere. For the United States, some sort of decentralization or autonomy arrangement is often a less costly option. It is also more agreeable to partner governments and reduces the risk of regional instability. However, exceptions can occur when secessionist movements take root in countries where the United States has more difficult relations, or where repression of minority groups or some other humanitarian factor weighs heavily on the scale.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Non State Actors, Governance, Self Determination, and Humanitarian Crisis
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
112. Settling Kurdish Self-Determination in Northeast Syria
- Author:
- Will Todman
- Publication Date:
- 01-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- When President Trump declared on December 19 that U.S. troops in Syria were “all coming back and coming back now,” it plunged the future of the East of the country into uncertainty.1 Dynamics in Syria were already shifting against the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration (AA) in Northeast Syria, as threats from Turkey and the regime increased. The impending withdrawal of U.S. forces eliminates the AA’s main source of leverage over the Assad regime and increases its vulnerability to the Turkish invasion President Erdogan has threatened. Scrambling to avoid conflict, AA officials have turned to Russia to mediate a political deal with President Assad, hoping to restore regime control to Syria’s eastern borders in exchange for self-administration.2 However, the lack of clarity over the timeline of the withdrawal means the United States maintains important influence in eastern Syria.3 Shaping the outcome of the Kurdish question at this critical juncture and preventing a new conflict in Northeast Syria are among the few remaining positive steps it can take in Syria. Although the Kurdish issue seems tangential to U.S. interests, the United States should invest in its diplomatic and military tools to facilitate a limited autonomy settlement in Northeast Syria when the area is formally reintegrated into Assad’s territory. To do so, the United States should work to discourage potential spoilers to such a deal and then forge an international coalition to act as guarantors to the agreement. Failing to secure an autonomy settlement could sow the seeds of long-lasting instability in Northeast Syria. The experience of autonomy has fanned the flames of Kurdish self-determination, and although the position of Syrian Kurds is now precarious, they are nonetheless stronger and more united than they ever have been. Throughout the conflict, they have won freedoms which Damascus long denied them and built a formidable army: the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) reportedly numbers over 60,000 troops.4 Such self-determination movements do not flare out so easily. A new CSIS edited volume, Independence Movements and Their Aftermath: Self-Determination and the Struggle for Success,” shows that from Bangladesh to East Timor, governments’ attempts to curb a minority’s rights have often accelerated their push for independence.5 A U.S. abandonment of Syrian Kurds without facilitating a negotiated settlement could therefore ignite another bloody, long-term struggle for self-determination in the Middle East, with wide-reaching regional implications.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Governance, Self Determination, Settlements, and Foreign Interference
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Syria, North America, Kurdistan, and United States of America
113. The Game Has Changed: Rethinking the U.S. Role in Supporting Elections in Sub-Saharan Africa
- Author:
- Judd Devermont
- Publication Date:
- 02-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- It is election season again in sub-Saharan Africa. Roughly every five years, the region faces a tidal wave of elections. In previous cycles, starting in the mid-1990s, the outcome was generally predictable. The ruling party leveraged its considerable advantages—including access to state resources—to secure another term. If the incumbent party rigged the poll, international monitors easily spotted the fraud and strenuously objected, even if to little effect. For the past two decades, five out of every six elections have produced the same result. This next batch of some two dozen elections will be different. A combination of demographic, technological, and geostrategic developments is disrupting the region’s electoral landscape. African leaders, opposition, and publics are adapting and writing a new playbook in the process. From street protests and parallel vote counts to election hacking and internet shutdowns, sub-Saharan African politics are becoming more competitive and more unpredictable. The case for democracy and improving the quality of elections is not simply a moral or altruistic one. U.S. national security objectives, including promoting prosperity and stability, are more achievable in democratic systems. Autocratic regimes, in contrast, worsen corruption, undercut sound economic management, and fail to produce long- term growth. Indeed, recent research indicates that Africa’s democracies grow at a faster rate than its autocracies, and this is more pronounced among countries that have been democracies for longer.1 Moreover, historically, democracies rarely have gone to war with one another. If the United States wants to advance its broad objectives in the region, it will need to reconceptualize its investments, partnerships, and interventions regarding elections.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Elections, Democracy, and Election Interference
- Political Geography:
- Africa, North America, United States of America, and Sub-Saharan Africa
114. CSIS European Trilateral Track 2 Nuclear Dialogues
- Author:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Publication Date:
- 02-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- The European Trilateral Track 2 Nuclear Dialogues, organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in partnership with the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and the Fondation pourla Recherche Stratégique (FRS), has convened senior nuclear policy experts from the United Kingdom, France, and the United States (P3) for the past ten years to discuss nuclear deterrence, arms control, and nonproliferation policy issues and to identify areas of consensus among the three countries. The majority of the experts are former U.S., UK, and French senior officials; the others are well-known academics in the field. Since the Dialogues’ inception, high-level officials from all three governments have also routinely joined the forum and participated in the discussions. The Dialogues have been unique in bringing U.S., UK, and French representatives into a trilateral forum for discussing nuclear policy. The United States, United Kingdom, and France hold common values and principles directed toward a shared purpose of global peace and security, as well as an understanding of their respective roles as responsible stewards of the nuclear order. Their sustained engagement will thus, irrespective of political shifts in any of the three countries, remain unique in the context of international alliances and partnerships and essential into the foreseeable future. In 2018, the group’s discussion addressed a range of issues in the Euro-Atlantic security environment and beyond, prompting agreement among the group’s nongovernmental participants to issue the following statement reflecting the consensus views of the undersigned. All signatories agree to this statement in their personal capacity, which may not represent the views of their respective organizations.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- United Kingdom, Europe, France, North America, and United States of America
115. Korea, the JCPOA, and the Shifting Military Balance in the Gulf
- Author:
- Anthony H. Cordesman
- Publication Date:
- 03-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- The analysis concludes that the sudden breakdown in the latest round of U.S.-Korean nuclear arms control talks in Vietnam should scarcely come as a surprise to anyone. Both sides sought too much too soon and did so despite a long history of previous failures. Heads of state engaged before their staffs had reached a clear compromise and did so seeking goals the other leader could not accept. It is not clear that an agreement was reachable at this point in time, but each side's search for its "best" ensured that the two sides could not compromise on the "good." This failure sent yet another warning that agreements like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear arms agreement with Iran that offers major progress in limiting a nation's nuclear weapons efforts can be far better than no agreement, and of the danger in letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. The failed U.S. negotiations with Korea sends a warning that any set of compromises that preserves Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, and creates a structure where negotiation can continue, will be better than provoking a crisis with Iran that can end in no agreement at all and alienate America's European allies in the process.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Denuclearization, and JCPOA
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America
116. American Sanctions and Military Action against Iran
- Author:
- Udi Levi
- Publication Date:
- 12-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- A critical point has been reached where sanctions and military conflict connect. Tehran needs and seeks a limited military confrontation with the West in order to shore-up its legitimacy at home.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Sanctions, Conflict, and Intervention
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
117. Meeting the China Challenge Responding to China’s Managed Economy
- Author:
- James Andrew Lewis and John J. Hamre
- Publication Date:
- 01-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- The U.S.-China relationship is one that neither country can escape. Both benefit from it in important ways. The question for quite some time, though, has been whether China’s economy, international presence, and participation in global institutions would come to look more like our own, or whether it would seek to challenge the order the United States has built and led over the past 70 years. While China’s economic size does not necessarily threaten the United States, China’s willingness to use its economic leverage to forge a global economy closer to its image raises complicated questions considering its lack of transparency. The essays in this volume, written by a diverse group of CSIS scholars, address some of the key issues that currently vex the U.S.-China economic relationship.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Global Political Economy, and Economic Cooperation
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, Asia, North America, and Asia-Pacific
118. Oversight and Accountability in U.S. Security Sector Assistance
- Author:
- Melissa Dalton and Hijab Shah
- Publication Date:
- 02-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- With the range of security challenges confronting the United States in the 21st century, characterized by competition by both state and nonstate actors, the importance of working with allies and partners to address common challenges is paramount. Deeper examination of the relative effectiveness of U.S. security sector assistance and how it must nest in a broader foreign policy strategy, including good governance, human rights, and rule of law principles, is required. Improving oversight and accountability in U.S. security sector assistance with partners are at the core of ongoing security assistance reform efforts to ensure that U.S. foreign policy objectives are met and in accordance with U.S. interests and values. This report examines key areas in security sector programming and oversight where the U.S. Departments of Defense and State employ accountability mechanisms, with the goal of identifying ways to sharpen and knit together mechanisms for improving accountability and professionalism into a coherent approach for partner countries.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, and Human Rights
- Political Geography:
- United States and North America
119. Rebooting U.S.-China Trade Ties: “Enter Ye Through the Narrow Gate”
- Author:
- Christopher K Johnson
- Publication Date:
- 05-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- Nearly two weeks after the U.S. “Trade Avengers” unleashed during their visit to Beijing what one reasonably could call “trade shock and awe” with a very aggressive—if thoroughly researched and well-crafted—set of demands targeting the yawning U.S. trade deficit with China and the core of that country’s throaty industrial policy, China this week is taking its turn with the visit of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Politburo member and Vice Premier Liu He, President Xi Jinping’s economic point man who is almost universally described as a thoughtful, pragmatic, and mild-mannered policy academic. In the interim, voices from a wide swath of official Washington have sounded the alarm about the dangers of Chinese influence operations and the presence of alleged subversives, while President Trump himself seemed to cast aside these growing concerns by suggesting via Twitter that he would ask the Commerce Department to overturn its action against the Chinese telecommunications firm ZTE—long a focus of the U.S. security community for suspected cyber espionage activity and irrefutable violations of U.S. law—in response to protests that reportedly emanated directly from President Xi. With such frenetically sustained action in such a short period of time, the fog of war seems particularly thick at the moment. As such, it seems like a good time to slow down and have a think about how we got here, what actually is going on, and, with a little bit of luck, perhaps think about some ways to craft a viable way forward. Just like milestone birthdays in one’s personal life, important political anniversaries also can incline the mind toward reflection. Next year, of course, marks the fortieth anniversary of the reestablishment of diplomatic ties between the United States and China. As such, much breath and a lot of ink have been devoted to analyzing the course of the bilateral relationship over that nearly half-century. Although certainly not a universal opinion, it seems fair, if perhaps overly reductionist, to suggest that the general conclusion among a substantial number of U.S. officials, policy analysts, and journalists has been that the consistent U.S. policy emphasis on engagement with China during those forty years was, at the end of the day, a sham. In this rendering, naïve groups of senior policymakers in succeeding U.S. administrations and in most of the U.S. China-watching community were hoodwinked by wily CCP leaders who talked the talk of integrating into the so-called U.S.-led rules-based international order, but all the while they had a secret master plan to instead subvert that order and challenge U.S. primacy throughout the globe. In a slightly less menacing (if no less absurd) version of this narrative, China was, indeed, headed generally toward this hoped for integration under the stewardship of deceased paramount leader Deng Xiaoping and his handpicked successors Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao until Xi Jinping arrived and, through a ruthless consolidation of power, decided instead to change course in what now regularly is referred to in shorthand as Xi’s “authoritarian turn.” But this conclusion seems utterly wrongheaded when examined in the light of hard facts. On the Chinese side of the equation, for example, Deng Xiaoping may have appeared warm and cuddly when donning his cowboy hat during his famous 1979 visit to the United States, but he could be just as ruthless and grasping as any other authoritarian leader. Deng’s exceptionally courageous and dogged pursuit of the policies of reform and opening certainly are worthy of praise, but they cannot, and therefore should not, be separated from the fact that he was content to sit idly by as Chairman Mao’s loyal lieutenant as Mao decimated his political rivals during the Anti-Rightist Campaign (1957-59) and the Great Leap Forward (1958-62). Nor should we forget that Deng used every ounce of his massive personal prestige with the People’s Liberation Army to, with steely determination, rally his many reluctant commanders to execute the brutal Tiananmen crackdown of June 4, 1989. Similarly, Xi Jinping is no Jack-in-the-Box-like figure who has pulled a fast one with a sharp directional turn in the last couple of years made all the more stark after his sweeping consolidation of power at last fall’s 19th Party Congress. In fact, it is this author’s contention, as supported by a large body of written work and public commentary, that everything Xi has done over the last five years was abundantly clear, whether explicitly or in embryonic form—from the moment he was introduced to the world as China’s new top leader in the fall of 2012, as encapsulated in his call for his country to pursue the “China Dream” set on a foundation of “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” This by no means suggests the United States should express support for, or even acquiescence in, Xi’s policies, but only that it should not be reacting with the borderline hysteria that now seems to be gripping Washington.
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, Global Political Economy, and Trade Wars
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, Asia, and North America
120. Are Iran’s ballistic missiles designed to be nuclear capable?
- Author:
- Michael Elleman and Mark T. Fitzpatrick
- Publication Date:
- 02-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- International Institute for Strategic Studies
- Abstract:
- Iran has the largest and most diverse ballistic-missile arsenal in the Middle East – could these systems one day be used to launch nuclear weapons? In a new report, IISS analysts Michael Elleman and Mark Fitzpatrick offer a detailed assessment of the design intentions behind each missile within Iran’s inventory. The result is a clear picture as to which platforms the United States and its allies should seek to remove, and which ones can be discounted. The common claim that Iran’s missile development must be stopped altogether because these systems could deliver nuclear weapons in the future rests on broad generalisations. While there is reason for concern, priority attention should be given to those missiles that might realistically be used for such a purpose, if Iran were to go down a perilous nuclear path. The international standard – but not treaty – for determining the inherent nuclear capability of missiles is the threshold developed in 1987 by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which seeks to forestall exports of missile systems able to deliver a 500kg payload a distance of 300km or more. Eight of Iran’s 13 current ballistic missile systems – the largest and most diverse arsenal in the Middle East – exceed this threshold and are thus deemed to be nuclear capable. The other five, all within the Fateh-110 family of missiles, are certainly lethal, especially when shipped to Hizbullah for use against Israel, but they are clearly not intended for nuclear use. Because capability does not equal intent, the MTCR guidelines should be just the first step in an assessment of Iran’s intentions for its missiles. When the United Nations Security Council drafted a new resolution in July 2015 to accompany the Iran nuclear agreement finalised that month, an element of intent was added to previous sanctions resolution language that prohibited launches of Iranian missiles that were ‘capable of delivering nuclear weapons’. The 2015 resolution calls upon Iran not to engage in activity concerning missiles ‘designed to be’ capable of delivering nuclear weapons. What it means ‘to be designed’ is undefined. Judging intent is partly subjective, but technical clues and intelligence information can guide analysis. The soundest approach is to disaggregate Iran’s various missile systems, and to assess design intentions on the basis of the technical capabilities and lineage of the different missiles.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- United States, Europe, Iran, Middle East, Israel, and North America
121. Challenges and potential for NATO-Egypt partnership
- Author:
- Adel El-Adawy
- Publication Date:
- 11-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- NATO Defense College
- Abstract:
- Today, Egypt’s relationship with NATO remains marginal with many challenges affecting the pros- pects of closer ties. In 2014, NATO and Egypt signed an Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme (IPCP), and NATO has since pro- vided some support in the field of demining and training. In this context, and at a time when the Alliance’s goal is to project stability in its southern neighbourhood, with efforts being undertaken to increase engagement with countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, there are areas where NATO and Egypt’s interests overlap offering the potential for closer cooperation.
- Topic:
- NATO, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Africa, Europe, North America, and Egypt
122. The Great War legacy for NATO
- Author:
- Ian Hope
- Publication Date:
- 11-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- NATO Defense College
- Abstract:
- On 11 November commemorations occurred throughout North West Europe and the British Commonwealth, marking the hundredth anniversary of the Armistice that ended the First World War. A significant commemoration was held in the city of Mons, Belgium, location of Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), and another in Brussels, location of NATO Headquarters. Many attending these commemorations will have had little knowledge of the direct link between the events of 11 November 1918 and the structure and workings of the Alliance today. This Policy Brief seeks to reveal this legacy by explaining the First World War origins of the North Atlantic Council, Military Committee, Alliance committee structure and the importance of the principles behind supreme command, summit consultations and consensus. These entities and practices, essential to the institutional design and culture of NATO, were established at the inception of the Alliance by civilian and military leaders who had participated in the Second World War and who knew their value to the maintenance of Alliance cohesion, and their importance to effective strategy formulation. These same leaders had derived their knowledge directly from the lessons learned during the final stages of what was supposed to be “the war to end all wars”.
- Topic:
- NATO, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North Atlantic, and North America
123. Will artificial intelligence challenge NATO interoperability?
- Author:
- Martin Dufour
- Publication Date:
- 12-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- NATO Defense College
- Abstract:
- NATO has arguably been the most successful alli- ance of its kind, and much of this success can be attributed to its cohesion in the face of various threats. At the heart of this cohesion lie two import- ant notions: burden sharing between members; and interoperability. The Alliance’s cohesion however has increasingly come under pressure over the last two decades, and there are growing challenges with the level of interoperability between member coun- tries. While numerous technical and political factors influence interoperability, the emergence of disrup- tive technologies such as genetic engineering, nano- technology, additive manufacturing and robotics, are likely to make this challenge more acute in the next two decades. Of the many technologies rapidly emerging, none is likely to have as significant an impact as that of artificial intelligence, which combines with other technologies and multiply their effect by allowing the development of advanced autonomous systems. And while the latter holds the promise of develop- ing new classes of weapons with great military po- tential, its asymmetrical adoption among the various NATO allies could also lead to significant interoper- ability problems.
- Topic:
- NATO, Diplomacy, Science and Technology, and Artificial Intelligence
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North Atlantic, and North America
124. Projecting Stability: Elixir or Snake Oil?
- Author:
- Ian Hope
- Publication Date:
- 12-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- NATO Defense College
- Abstract:
- NATO’s internal security is intrinsically linked to external stability, and its quest for optimal security for its member states’ citizens therefore requires a presence at its periphery. This is what Projecting Stability is about. With this concept and activity, NATO takes stock of the indivisibility of security that is no longer composed of two distinct spaces. This is probably not new. After all, NATO’s crisis management and cooperative security efforts over the last 25 years have had a lot to do with handling the consequences of the internal-external security nexus. To a large extent therefore, NATO has been in the business of Projecting Stability since the end of the Cold War, just as Molière’s Mr Jourdain was speaking in prose without knowing it. Nonetheless, the Projecting Stability agenda was formalized at the 2016 Warsaw Summit, and is now being run in parallel with Deterrence and Defence as NATO’s main effort. This poses at least three sets of questions. First, beyond the above-mentioned internal-external security nexus, what is it that Projecting Stability is really about and aims to achieve? How does stability relate to security, and how can one “project” it? Does it contain a value-promotion agenda, or is the concept a retrenchment from the ambitious democratization goals of the past? Second, to what extent can Projecting Stability be prioritized, given the prominence of the Russian threat and therefore the necessity to “deter and defend”? Can NATO do both? And how much consensus is there among NATO member states on the need for Projecting Stability? Third, where is Projecting Stability supposed to happen, with what local buy-in and level of intrusiveness, and through what sets of instruments? Does the activity carry potential unintended consequences by which, in lieu of Projecting Stability, the Alliance’s presence would bring instability? Are there any past activities that attest to this risk, and about which lessons must be learned? Overall, is Projecting Stability an elixir, i.e. the appropriate response to a well- posed question, or is it rather some sort of snake oil, i.e. a false solution or a concept that is doomed to stumble against innumerable political and operational obstacles? These issues are what Ian Hope’s edited volume Projecting Stability – Elixir or XII Snake Oil? aims to explore. It does so through a collection of chapters, authored by a group of scholars and NATO officials, which offer an open analysis of the potential and challenges of Projecting Stability. This NDC Research Paper is the first issue of a new series created by the NATO Defense College. NDC Research Papers deal with NATO-related issues from a multiplicity of angles that can be historical, political, operational or prospective; they can have an obvious research – or, even more so, policy – angle; they are analytical in nature, and must be relevant to the understanding of NATO’s challenges and policy making. May this NDC Research Paper be the first of a long list of analytically sound, thought-provoking, and academically rigorous publications by the NDC Research Division.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, NATO, Diplomacy, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North Atlantic, and North America
125. NATO-EU maritime cooperation: for what strategic effect?
- Author:
- Stefano Marcuzzi
- Publication Date:
- 12-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- NATO Defense College
- Abstract:
- EU-NATO maritime cooperation is essential to a co- ordinated response to a variety of Mediterranean is- sues, including terrorist threats, the protracted conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and the refugee emergency. The EU’s Operation EUNAV- FOR Med Sophia is deployed in the Southern-Central Mediterranean, whilst NATO’s Operation Sea Guard- ian operates in the whole Mediterranean basin. NATO also launched a new activity in the Aegean in 2016. Although each operation has its own mandate, their coordination was defined as crucial in the 2016 Joint Declaration on EU-NATO cooperation. At a tactical level, these operations have by and large been successful in enhancing situational awareness in the Mediterranean; monitoring migration networks; constraining the activity of human and arms smug- glers on the high seas; and to a degree in providing as- sistance to migrants. However, they also face strategic challenges, including the failure to dismantle the smug- glers’ networks, their relatively low deterrent effect, and a limited degree of inter-institutional cooperation.
- Topic:
- NATO, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, European Union, and Maritime
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North Atlantic, and North America
126. A tale of Two Speeches
- Publication Date:
- 01-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Harper and Pence have offered moral and spiritual leadership for the world. Their momentous Knesset speeches were epoch-making events.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Leadership
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Canada, Israel, North America, and United States of America
127. ‘Fix it or Nix it’ is the Wrong Approach
- Author:
- Efraim Inbar
- Publication Date:
- 02-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- What needs “nixing” is not the JCPOA – a piece of paper – but the Iranian nuclear infrastructure.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Infrastructure, Nuclear Power, Denuclearization, and JCPOA
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
128. Moscow meetings on Avoiding Nuclear Destabilization
- Author:
- Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
- Publication Date:
- 12-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
- Abstract:
- On 6-7 December 2018, Pugwash organized a seminar, “Avoiding Nuclear Destabilization”, and other side meetings in Moscow in cooperation with the Russian Pugwash Committee and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. This was interconnected with the Russian Congress of Political Scientists organized by the Russian Political Science Association, MGIMO-University under the Russian Foreign Ministry, and the Financial University under the Government of Russia, which allowed some Congress participants to take part in the Pugwash debates. These consultations with Russian experts were designed to seek out reaction in Moscow and the Russian strategic community to the US Administration’s announcement to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and survey current opinion on the future of arms control.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Denuclearization, and INF Treaty
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America
129. 2018 Summit on the Future of Europe Back to Square One
- Author:
- Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies
- Publication Date:
- 01-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University
- Abstract:
- The Summit on the Future of Europe is an initiative of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies (CES) at Harvard University. Since 2014, this annual conference has convened scholars and public leaders to debate critical challenges facing Europe. The 2018 Summit convened at Harvard on November 7, 2018 and was a partnership of CES, the Harvard Kennedy School’s Project on Europe and the Transatlantic Relationship, the diaNEOsis Research and Policy Institute, the European Stability Initiative (ESI), Central European University (CEU), and Real Colegio Complutense (RCC) at.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Political stability, and Transatlantic Relations
- Political Geography:
- Europe and North America
130. When Parallel Red Lines Meet: Recent Events in Syria in Various Contexts
- Author:
- Assaf Orion and Amos Yadlin
- Publication Date:
- 04-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
- Abstract:
- At the strategic level, the convergence in time and space of the events following the chemical weapons attack in Duma by the Syrian regime portend a dramatic development with substantial potential impact for Israel’s security environment. The attack on the T4 airbase, attributed to Israel, falls within the context of the last red line that Israel drew, whereby it cannot accept Iran’s military entrenchment in Syria. The attack in Duma reflects the Syrian regime’s considerable self-confidence at this time. As for Trump, the attack provides him with another opportunity to demonstrate his insistence on the red lines that he drew and take a determined stance opposite Putin. Thus, Israel’s enforcement of its red line and the United States’ enforcement of its red line have met, while Russia finds itself exerting efforts to deter both countries from taking further action that could undermine its achievements in Syria and its positioning as the dominant world power in the theater. However, the strategic convergence does not stop at Syria’s borders, and is unfolding against the backdrop of the crisis emerging around the Trump administration’s demands to improve the JCPOA, or run the risk of the re-imposition of sanctions and the US exiting the agreement. Indeed, the context is even wider, with preparations for Trump’s meeting with North Korean President Kim on the nuclear issue in the far background. Therefore, the clash between Israel and Iran in Syria on the eve of deliberations on the nuclear deal could potentially lead to a change from separate approaches to distinct issues to a broader and more comprehensive framework with interfaces and linkages between the issues.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Hezbollah
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, Europe, Iran, Middle East, Israel, Asia, North Korea, Syria, and North America
131. Strengthening the JCPOA
- Author:
- Ephraim Asculai, Emily Landau, Daniel Shapiro, and Moshe Ya'alon
- Publication Date:
- 04-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
- Abstract:
- Against the backdrop of the visit to Washington by President Macron and the scheduled visit by Chancellor Merkel in an effort to persuade US President Trump not to leave the JCPOA, this article zeros in on the key issues that need to be addressed by the allies. Guided by what is not only necessary but feasible at this late stage, the topics addressed include missiles, inspections, lack of transparency, sanctions, and the sunset provisions. Everything turns on political will – if it exists, agreeing to the proposed steps should not entail a lengthy process, and implementation can realistically begin in relatively short order. Significant results will mean the international community emerges with reinforced solidarity and a strengthened JCPOA. If negotiations progress seriously on this basis, it would make sense for the Trump administration to allow additional time beyond May 12 to complete them.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iran, Middle East, Israel, and North America
132. Israel and United States Military Assistance to Egypt
- Author:
- Shimon Arad
- Publication Date:
- 04-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
- Abstract:
- In January 2018, the United States and Egypt signed a bilateral communications security agreement known as the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA), which protects and regulates the use of sensitive American avionics and communications systems. This development now allows, for the first time, the acquisition by Egypt of US-made high precision GPS-based air-to-ground weapon systems and components, as well as advanced air-to-air missiles. Over the years, Israel’s concerns over the sale of large quantities of US weapon systems to Egypt were moderated by the quality cap dictated by the absence of a CISMOA agreement. Israel thus needs to raise this issue with Washington, within the context of the Qualitative Military Edge (QME) discussions. Given the unreliability of enduring stability in the Middle East, as exemplified by the events in Egypt since 2011, Israel should not disregard possible future scenarios in which its QME versus Egypt may matter. Based on the current convergence of security interests between Israel and Egypt, raising this issue with the US, though likely to upset Cairo, is not expected to undermine the practical manifestations of this relationship.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Military Affairs
- Political Geography:
- United States, Middle East, Israel, North America, and Egypt
133. The Benefit of Exposing the Iranian Nuclear Archive
- Author:
- Shmuel Even
- Publication Date:
- 05-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
- Abstract:
- Israel’s exposure of the Iranian nuclear archive was an impressive and professional operation. It was meant to help prepare public opinion for President Trump’s statement and to make it more difficult for the other leaders who are party to the agreement and who are in no hurry to enter into a confrontation with Iran. In light of the importance of the great threat that Iran poses to Israel, the exposure operation was a vital step in a long struggle. The alternative of not exposing the material would have meant giving up the chance of using the information to create cognitive value and leaving it in the archives of the intelligence community.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Nuclear Power
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iran, Middle East, and North America
134. EU-NATO Cooperation and Strategic Autonomy - Logical Contradiction or Ariadne's Thread?
- Author:
- Jolyon Howorth
- Publication Date:
- 08-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The Kolleg-Forschergruppe (KFG)
- Abstract:
- The EU’s common security and defence policy (CSDP) was launched in the 1990s as a quest for “autonomy.” Fifteen years of efforts failed to deliver that objective. The coherence of the EU member states in their security dealings with the US was always vulnerable to the potentially incompatible objectives of the UK and France. But as EU leaders post-Brexit re-launch the CSDP, as the 2016 European Global Strategy rediscovers the virtues of “strategic autonomy,” and as the world juggles with a US president who appears to question the basis of the Atlantic Alliance, it is time to radically re-think the relations between the EU and NATO. This paper argues that, in the longer term, it is through the strengthening of the EU-NATO relationship that EU strategic autonomy will become possible, and that a consolidation of the transatlantic bond will emerge.
- Topic:
- NATO, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, European Union, and Regional Integration
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North Atlantic, and North America
135. Strategic deterrence redux: Nuclear weapons and European security
- Author:
- Leo Michel and Matti Pesu
- Publication Date:
- 09-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Finnish Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- One of the most notable consequences of the end of the Cold War was the diminished role of nuclear weapons in international relations. The world’s primary nuclear weapon powers, the United States and the Russian Federation, made considerable reductions in their nuclear forces. The climax of the process was the New START Treaty signed in 2010. Now, the optimism that characterized the first decades of the post-Cold War era is rapidly evaporating. Geopolitical competition again dominates global and regional security dynamics. Nuclear powers are modernizing their forces and introducing novel systems that may affect strategic stability. At the same time, existing arms control regimes are crumbling. This report takes stock of recent developments in deterrence in general, and nuclear deterrence in particular. Its main ambition is to understand how deterrence has changed in light of certain post-Cold War trends. To this end, the report introduces the basic principles of deterrence. It also explores the nuclear-related policies and capabilities of the four nuclear weapon states most directly involved in European security affairs – Russia, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. Importantly, the report also analyses the implications of the recent trends in strategic deterrence for Northern Europe. This report is part of a research project conducted by the FIIA entitled ‘New Challenges for Strategic Deterrence in the 21st Century’. The project is part of the implementation of the Government Plan for Analysis, Assessment and Research 2018.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Deterrence
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, United Kingdom, Europe, France, and North America
136. Toward a New Model for the U.S.-Israel Relationship
- Author:
- Eran Lerman
- Publication Date:
- 02-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- By leveraging its remarkable achievements in the fields most relevant to future conflicts, Israel can transition from dependence on the U.S. to partnership.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
137. Trump Changes the Discourse
- Author:
- David M. Weinberg
- Publication Date:
- 05-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- The broader context to US President Trump’s recent decisions to nix the nuclear deal with Iran and to move the US embassy to Jerusalem is restoration of America’s credibility as a world power after eight years of diffident presidential leadership.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Leadership
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
138. Game On: The new strategy of the US and its allies in the Middle East
- Author:
- Jonathan Spyer
- Publication Date:
- 06-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Bad management, corruption and a failure of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to generate expected levels of foreign investment compound the problem.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Nuclear Weapons
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
139. Moving the Markers
- Author:
- David M. Weinberg
- Publication Date:
- 07-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- The Clinton-Obama parameters haven’t worked – not for 25 years of peacemaking efforts since Oslo. They have lead to deadlock and much suffering. Let’s give the Trump team credit for taking a fresh look at what is safe, wise, fair and realistic in today’s Israeli-Palestinian reality.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Territorial Disputes, Leadership, Borders, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America
140. US-Saudi Agreement to Increase Oil Production – Another Step towards Toppling the Iranian Regime
- Author:
- Omer Dostri
- Publication Date:
- 08-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- The recent agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia to increase oil production is a significant blow to Iran. America seeks either regime change or a new nuclear deal on better terms.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Energy Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Oil
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, North America, and United States of America
141. Is Khamenei Ruling out Dialogue with Trump?
- Author:
- Yossi Mansharof
- Publication Date:
- 09-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- On restoring relations between Tehran and Washington. If the protests in Iran expand, Trump will be able to exert greater pressure on Tehran.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
142. China-Israel Relations: Growing Cooperation Amidst Conflicting Interests
- Author:
- Omer Dostri
- Publication Date:
- 10-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- In the past decade, relations between Israel and China have become closer, following a decision in Jerusalem to diversify and expand Israel’s ties with emerging powers and countries that do not belong to the European Union and are less identified with the American coalition. The visit to Israel by China’s vice president is evidence of the warming of relations between the two countries.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Hegemony, and Emerging Powers
- Political Geography:
- China, Europe, Middle East, Israel, Asia, North America, and United States of America
143. Trump’s Withdrawal from Syria: Not Unexpected and a Victory for the “Astana Three”
- Author:
- Joshua Krasna
- Publication Date:
- 12-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- The possibility that Iran and Turkey will be emboldened by the American decision, is worrisome. The main counter to that will be robust deterrence from Israel, whose maintenance may increase the likeliness of escalation in Syria and Lebanon, and even more resort to the restraining hand of Russia.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Hegemony, and JCPOA
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Russia, Europe, Iran, Turkey, Middle East, Israel, Syria, North America, and United States of America
144. After the Killing of Jamal Khashoggi: Muhammad bin Salman and the Future of Saudi-U.S. Relations
- Author:
- F. Gregory Gause III
- Publication Date:
- 12-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- On October 24, 2017, Muhammad bin Salman (MBS), the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, welcomed over 3,500 of the world’s financial elites to a conference center adjoining the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Riyadh for an “economic coming-out party.”1 The crown prince was selling investors and government officials on his plans for the transformation of the country, not just its economy but also its society. His Vision 2030 plan to lessen the economy’s dependence on oil and increase the role of the private sector required investment, both from at home and abroad.2 It was a glittering show, featuring plans for a new city on the Red Sea coast, Neom, which would be staffed at least in part by robots. Within a few weeks of this impressive gathering, hundreds of the Kingdom’s economic and political elites were prisoners in that same Ritz Carlton. One year after the conference, self-exiled Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed by agents of the Saudi government in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. When the crown prince convened a second investment conference in Riyadh, a “Davos in the desert” as some billed it, in October 2018, the guest list was much reduced. A number of high-profile political leaders and CEO’s backed out, including the U.S. treasury secretary, the president of the World Bank, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the CEOs of JPMorgan Chase, HSBC, Credit Suisse, BNP Paribas, and the London Stock Exchange.3 While $50 billion in investment deals were announced, over $30 billion were with Saudi Aramco, the state oil company.4 In the year between the two conferences, the crown prince suffered a number of setbacks that called into question both his judgment and his political capacity. The killing of Jamal Khashoggi was simply the most recent in that line. Whether the killing was directly ordered by the crown prince or the work of close aides who believed they were carrying out his wishes, the ultimate responsibility rests with him. Some of those setbacks can be attributed to MBS’s own decisions; others simply reinforced the fact that there are considerable obstacles confronting his ambitious plans. His regional foreign policy initiatives, in particular, have not worked out as he had hoped. But these setbacks do not mean that the crown prince’s days are numbered in the Saudi leadership. He has successfully consolidated power in his own hands in a way that is unprecedented in recent Saudi history. The Trump administration, which hitched its wagon to MBS in an imprudent and counter-productive way, now has to decide how to use the fallout from this crisis to change MBS’s behavior, avoiding the extremes of a purely symbolic reaction that has no effect on Saudi policy and the unrealistic goal of declaring, as Trump ally Senator Lindsey Graham did, that the crown prince “has got to go.”5
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Authoritarianism, and Assassination
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Saudi Arabia, North America, United States of America, and Gulf Nations
145. 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
146. Crowdsourcing Systems and Potential Applications in Nonproliferation
- Author:
- Bryan Lee
- Publication Date:
- 08-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
- Abstract:
- This report provides an overview of crowdsourcing systems and identifies the key elements in their successful operation. It also offers an examination of best practices for US government implementation of crowdsourcing projects. Finally, it describes four instances of crowdsourcing projects with applicability to arms control and nonproliferation. Crowdsourcing systems have been used to address a variety of problems, but government applications are typically restricted to one of four types
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Governance, and Nonproliferation
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
147. Use of Force: The Only Way to Stop Iran
- Author:
- Efraim Inbar
- Publication Date:
- 05-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Western hopes that Iran will moderate and “engage” with the international community following the faulty 2015 nuclear agreement (JCPOA) have been gradually replaced with apprehension. More voices in the international community are joining Israel in expressing growing concern about Iran’s policies. While Iran seems to be abide by the JCPOA, it resists expanding the scope of inspections, continues its nuclear research and development (for example upgrading centrifuges) and continues to make progress on its long-range missile program. Recently it conducted a test of a missile designed to carry nuclear warheads. Moreover, Iran’s involvement in the region attests to its hegemonic plans, defying the notion, propagated by its propagandists, that it is a status quo power acting defensively. Rather, Iran is following its Persian imperial instincts that are reinforced by Muslim jihadist impulses. It already controls four Arab capitals: Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus and Sanaa; its Shi’ite militias and proxies are fighting in Iraq, Syria and Yemen and engaging in ethnic cleansing; and it is on the verge of solidifying the Shi’ite corridor from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. Israel tries to capitalize on the new widespread global apprehension about Iran and a new American president who is not committed to the JCPOA to bring about the cancellation of the 2015 nuclear accord or its renegotiation, and the reinstating of the sanctions regime. Yet, these goals are difficult to attain and not useful in preventing a nuclear Iran.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Denuclearization, and JCPOA
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
148. Between Pyongyang and Tehran: The Need for Urgent Action against Iran
- Author:
- Eran Lerman
- Publication Date:
- 10-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- The Iranian situation is both more urgent and more malleable than the almost hopeless situation with North Korea.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- China, Iran, Middle East, Israel, Asia, North Korea, North America, and United States of America
149. Confronting the Con Artists of Iran
- Author:
- David M. Weinberg
- Publication Date:
- 11-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- No duplicitous decrees by supreme or smiling ayatollahs should deflect our attention from Tehran’s dangerous moves.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Hegemony, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
150. Greeting Vice President Pence
- Author:
- David M. Weinberg
- Publication Date:
- 12-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- After recognizing Jerusalem, America’s next move should be banishing the EU from regional diplomacy.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Territorial Disputes, European Union, and Leadership
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Jerusalem, North America, and United States of America
151. In Middle East, Pence must address realities of Iranian encroachment
- Author:
- Efraim Inbar
- Publication Date:
- 12-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- If the United States wants to disengage from the Middle East it should do so with a bang. The address for such a forceful demonstration is clear: the Iranian nuclear program.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Power, Leadership, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
152. Hard Times for Soft Power: A Q&A with Joseph Nye
- Author:
- Michelle Nicholasen
- Publication Date:
- 05-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University
- Abstract:
- Last December, the Weatherhead Center recognized the upcoming retirement of University Distinguished Service Professor Joseph S. Nye, Jr. by dedicating the 2016 Manshel Lecture on American Foreign Policy to him. One of the most influential foreign affairs scholars of our time, Nye served as Center director from 1989 to 1992—though his roots at the Center trace back to its infancy in 1961, when he was a research assistant to Director Robert Bowie. Nye's accomplishments run deep. He began his distinguished career as a Harvard faculty member at the Kennedy School of Government in 1964, and became the school's dean in 1995. He held security appointments in both the Carter and Clinton administrations, and his thought leadership has influenced heads of state and policy makers around the world. He is perhaps best known for coining the term “soft power,” which describes the ability of states or institutions to attract and persuade others through noncoercive means. The Weatherhead Center sat down with Nye to discuss the fate of soft power in the context of current US foreign affairs—and also asked him to share his memories of early days at the CFIA.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Science and Technology, and Soft Power
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, China, Europe, Asia, and North America
153. Managing Global Disorder: Prospects for U.S.-Russian Cooperation
- Author:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Publication Date:
- 08-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- While relations between the United States and Russia have deteriorated in recent years, making it exceedingly difficult for both countries to collaborate in managing a variety of common concerns, emerging challenges to global order make such cooperation increasingly imperative. To explore where U.S.-Russia cooperation is desirable and, in some places, even necessary, the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations convened an international group of twenty-three experts at the Tufts University European Center in Talloires, France, on June 9 and 10, 2017, for the workshop “Managing Global Disorder: Prospects for U.S.-Russian Cooperation.”
- Topic:
- NATO, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, Europe, and North America
154. Writing New Rules for the U.S.-China Investment Relationship
- Author:
- Jennifer M. Harris
- Publication Date:
- 12-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- Chinese outbound investment is on the rise, and much of it is finding its way into the United States. Be- tween 2010 and 2015, China’s foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows to the United States grew by an average of 32 percent annually.1 Within the past two years alone, Chinese foreign investment inflows to the United States increased four-fold, and available data suggests 2017 will see the second highest annual investment on record, after 2016.2 This is not a two-way street: the United States and other foreign investors do not enjoy similar open market access in China. China maintains a dizzying assortment of formal and informal barriers to for- eign investment—from outright restrictions and quotas to mandatory joint ventures, forced localization measures, and domestic licensing regimes. Despite years of negotiations, these barriers are, if anything, growing more cumbersome in many sectors. U.S. firms paint a darkening picture of the business climate they face in China. U.S. FDI in China has slowed considerably in recent years: after growing roughly 180 percent from 2002 to 2007 (albeit from a low baseline), U.S. FDI flows into China have declined since 2012.3 The one-way surge of Chinese investment into the United States comes against a backdrop of strategic mistrust between Washington and Beijing. Ongoing accusations of state-sponsored cyber predation of U.S. firms, Beijing’s increasing aggressiveness over territorial disputes, its systematic efforts to under- mine the U.S. alliance system in Asia, and mounting tensions over North Korea all contribute to a dark- ening mood in the U.S.-China relationship. And, like so much involving China, this investment is simply different. Rarely, if ever, has the United States seen an increase in investment of this magnitude—espe- cially from a non-ally and especially from one where the lines between state ownership and private own- ership are so inherently blurred. For all the concern surrounding Japanese investment in the United States in the 1980s—coming as it did amid fierce economic competition—those debates ultimately re- mained under the umbrella of the U.S.-Japan military alliance. All of this raises questions about whether the United States needs to tighten its stance on Chinese in- bound investment; proposals to that effect have bipartisan support in the Congress. The Donald J. Trump administration has signaled its desire for a tougher approach in its economic dealings with China, which U.S. businesses seem to welcome. One foundation for such an approach is the principle of reciprocity. Roughly two dozen sectors in China—construction, mining, banking, insurance, and so on—remain effectively off-limits to American investment, because the Chinese government protects its domestic companies through regulations and financial subsidies. Even in sectors that technically allow foreign investment, discriminatory industrial policies tilt the playing field in favor of Chinese firms. Until this changes, Washington would be justi- fied—even obligated—to limit Chinese investment in the U.S. market. However, U.S. policymakers do not have a consensus on what a policy of reciprocity would entail, and different policy interpretations could spell quite different economic and foreign policy consequences for the United States. The United States should aim for a version of reciprocity that allows it the flexibility to maximize pressure on the broad range of Chinese industrial policy concerns while leaving a clear route to negotiations. The United States should also encourage European and other Western countries, many of which are seeing similar increases in Chinese investment, to adopt this new approach.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, and Foreign Direct Investment
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, Asia, and North America
155. Can We Make UN Peacekeeping Great Again
- Author:
- Alexandra Novosseloff
- Publication Date:
- 05-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Global Peace Operations Review
- Abstract:
- If UN peacekeeping operations are “at a crossroads” as the Secretary-General told the Security Council on 6 April, then it is a policy and linguistic roundabout. This is the same phrase that a senior official used to describe the Brahimi report in 2000 and others used to characterize the work of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) in 2015. Does this mean that the policy debate that surrounds UN peacekeeping has just been going around in circles for the past twenty years? The recent declarations made by the US administration on possible cuts of its share of the peacekeeping budget and its push to cut individual missions at the time of mandate renewal (as observed in the case of MONUSCO already) has created uneasiness and has given new life to the old debate about the relevance of UN peacekeeping. But this in itself is not a new position. The HIPPO report has also argued for such a review of existing operations. Whether peacekeeping missions are “fit for purpose”, and what this actually means in practice, are questions numerous governments, delegations in New York, departments of the UN Secretariat, experts on the matter, non-governmental organizations and at times, international public opinion, have kept asking for years and even decades. The question was put on the table of the Security Council again by the new US administration during its presidency in April 2017. The goal, as outlined in its concept paper, was to review every single peacekeeping operation to “identify areas where mandates no longer match political realities.” The objective was to “propose alternatives or paths towards restructuring to bring missions more in line with achievable outcomes.”
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, United Nations, and Peacekeeping
- Political Geography:
- North America, Global Focus, and United States of America
156. The Culture of Political Instability and the Rapprochement of South America and United States
- Author:
- Henrique Carlos de Oliveira De Castro
- Publication Date:
- 06-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
- Abstract:
- The article deals with the recent foreign policy of the Andean countries, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, considering the relationship with the United States and the situation of political crises in these countries. We discuss the national context of each country and the consequences for external relations and international politics of each and of the region. We address United States interests in the effects of the current crisis in the three countries and highlight the importance of political culture for understanding reality.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Crisis Management
- Political Geography:
- United States, South America, Venezuela, North America, Ecuador, and Bolivia
157. Strengthening the ROK-US Nuclear Partnership
- Author:
- Miles A. Pomper, Toby Dalton, Scott Snyder, and Ferenc Dalnkoki-Veress
- Publication Date:
- 02-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
- Abstract:
- Over the last forty years, South Korea (or the Republic of Korea, or ROK) and the United States have become essential partners on nuclear matters. The United States provided the technology and knowhow necessary for Korea to establish a nuclear sector. Koreans mastered that technology and have worked to improve on it, with the twin goals of expanding their country’s energy independence and becoming a leading exporter of nuclear power production facilities. The two states’ nuclear energy industries have become intertwined. They cooperate on multiple initiatives to strengthen international nuclear security and nonproliferation measures. Collaborative research ties amongst nuclear scientists from both countries run deep. Arguably, each state is the other’s most important nuclear partner. As with all maturing relationships, there remain differences of view and priority that must be managed. Though unlikely, a disruption in ROK-US nuclear relations would have wide-ranging, deleterious effects on both states. For this reason, the conclusion in June 2015 of a new bilateral treaty, the Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (hereafter referred to as the 123 agreement after section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, the relevant US statute) is a critical milestone. The new agreement establishes the terms for nuclear cooperation for the next twenty years. It is expansive and forward-looking, providing the basis for unusually broad and deep nuclear ties. The 123 agreement will bring predictability to the relationship at a time when the global nuclear energy outlook remains in flux. However, the new nuclear agreement only managed to partially resolve several deep-seated differences between the two sides that were illustrated by the fact that negotiations on a new agreement lasted more than four years and required an extension to complete. The agreement creates a new political framework for managing divergent views over how to cooperate most effectively, but differences may yet re-emerge and frustrate cooperation. The challenge before the two governments now is to implement the new agreement in ways that can either resolve or remove these differences and solidify existing ties. In other words, the two countries should seek to build a nuclear partnership in deed, not just in word. This report articulates a vision for ROK-US nuclear partnership for the next two decades, a period which aligns with the duration of the new agreement for cooperation. It highlights challenges and opportunities and provides recommendations intended to deepen and expand the range of existing cooperation in ways that will support a stable and sustainable nuclear partnership. The objective of the report is to describe a desirable and stable end-state for the relationship—an enduring partnership—and to identify steps along the path to achieve it. It discusses multiple areas of cooperation, assesses strengths and weaknesses of existing ties, and identifies practical activities both parties can pursue toward building the partnership.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Energy Policy, International Cooperation, and Nuclear Power
- Political Geography:
- Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America
158. A Non-Ideological Reframing of the US-Russian Arms-Control Agenda
- Author:
- Nikolai Sokov
- Publication Date:
- 12-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
- Abstract:
- US-Russian nuclear arms control has remained deadlocked since the conclusion of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in 2010. The absence of progress hasn’t, however, been a major concern in either country. Although the United States could benefit from additional reductions as it considers the wholesale replacement of its strategic delivery vehicles, that interest appears rather marginal. Russia, already in the midst of its own delivery-vehicle replacement program, seems even less interested.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Nonproliferation
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America
159. he World That Awaits President-Elect Trump
- Author:
- Michelle Nicholasen
- Publication Date:
- 11-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University
- Abstract:
- During the 2016 primaries, Donald Trump claimed he had more foreign policy experience than any of the GOP contenders. In fact, he has traveled widely to meet with presidents, prime ministers, financiers, and developers over the past decade as part of his highly profitable business of licensing the Trump name to large real estate developments around the world. On the campaign trail, Trump’s provocative statements about foreign policy have become part of the public record. From pressuring NAFTA members to bombing ISIS, his pledges have caused a stir in the arena of foreign relations. Publicly, candidate Trump threatened to close borders to Mexicans, slap tariffs on Chinese goods, restrict Muslims in the United States, among other vows. Without a record of public service to draw on, it is difficult to know how these declarations might translate into a Trump foreign policy. To understand what lies ahead for the new president, the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs asked its Faculty Associates in international relations to comment on the challenges and opportunities that await in five regions of the world: Africa, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Latin America, Europe, and China.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Elections, ISIS, and NAFTA
- Political Geography:
- Africa, United States, China, Europe, Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and North America
160. The United States and Colombia: From Security Partners to Global Partners in Peace
- Author:
- Dan Restrepo, Frank O. Mora, Brian Fonseca, and Jonathan D. Rosen
- Publication Date:
- 02-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- As Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos visits the United States this week, Colombia stands on the brink of a historic peace agreement that, if successfully reached and implemented, will bring an end to the longest-running internal armed conflict in the Western hemisphere. This reality is a far cry from where the country stood just 15 years ago, when it was on the edge of total state collapse. Although Colombia’s ability to overcome what many believed was a hopeless situation rests squarely upon the sacrifice of blood and treasure made by the Colombian people and its public forces, this promising new chapter in Colombia’s history also stems in part from the most successful, bipartisan U.S. foreign policy effort undertaken to date in the 21st century—Plan Colombia. As the United States encounters growing instability in other regions of the world, it is instructive to look back at the U.S. role in fostering the most successful counterinsurgency effort in recent history to understand what worked and what remains unfinished. President Santos’ visit also provides an important opportunity to look forward to how the United States and Colombia can solidify Colombia’s remarkable gains while becoming true strategic partners.
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Colombia, South America, North America, and United States of America
161. Setting Priorities for Nuclear Modernization
- Author:
- Lawrence Korb and Adam Mount
- Publication Date:
- 02-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- n the next decade, the United States will have to make decisions that will shape its nuclear arsenal for much of the next century. Nearly every missile, submarine, aircraft, and warhead in the U.S. arsenal is nearing the end of its service life and must be replaced. As Congress and the Obama administration continue to wrestle with the effects of sequestration on projected levels of defense spending, the U.S. Department of Defense has begun a series of procurement programs that will nearly double the amount the country spends on its nuclear deterrent in the next decade compared to what it spent in the past decade. Over the next 30 years, the cost of the nuclear deterrent could pass $1 trillion and crowd out defense and domestic investments needed to keep the United States strong and competitive. In addition, it could undermine U.S. credibility on the issue of nuclear proliferation—especially when it comes to dealing with regimes such as Russia, China, and North Korea.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Denuclearization
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Japan, China, Europe, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America
162. Updating U.S.-Saudi Ties to Reflect the New Realities of Today’s Middle East
- Author:
- Brian Katulis, Rudy deLeon, Peter Juul, Mokhtar Awad, and John Craig
- Publication Date:
- 04-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- When President Barack Obama arrived in Saudi Arabia last week to participate in the U.S. summit with the Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC, he landed in the midst of regional turbulence and major economic and foreign policy changes by the Kingdom. Today, the Middle East remains caught up in a period of fragmentation and competition for influence among the leading powers in the region. In the aftermath of last year’s nuclear deal between Iran and other global powers, President Obama has yet to achieve the new equilibrium in the Middle East that he envisioned. His recent suggestion that GCC countries “share” the region with Iran received a cool reception in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the GCC. Saudi Arabia—along with other GCC countries—remains deeply concerned about Iran’s subversive activities in the region, including its support for terrorist groups and ongoing conventional military efforts, such as its ballistic missile program. This current period of insecurity following the Iran nuclear deal is the latest episode in a U.S.-Saudi relationship roiled by tension for more than a decade. Since 2000, the decades-long foundation of close relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia—namely, regional stability, energy security, and military cooperation—has come under considerable stress. The 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 and the 2003 Iraq war ushered in a rocky phase in bilateral U.S.-Saudi relations. These two incidents—along with the end of the U.S. policy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq—led to a decline in mutual trust between the United States and Saudi Arabia that’s now reaching critical mass.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Economic Cooperation
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Saudi Arabia, North America, and United States of America
163. Charting a New Course for the U.S.-China Relationship
- Author:
- Melanie Hart
- Publication Date:
- 08-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- The relationship between the United States and China is at a critical juncture. On the Chinese side, Beijing is shifting toward a more proactive foreign policy stance that aims to expand China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region and around the world. This proactive approach is opening up new opportunities for U.S.-China cooperation in some areas but creating new tension in others. On the U.S. side, Washington is trying to figure out how to deal with a new, more confident and engaged China at a time when U.S. leaders are also realizing that some of the assumptions that guided U.S. policy toward China for decades may no longer apply. It is increasingly unclear whether past U.S.-China interactions can be used as a blueprint for the future, and that is creating a new nervousness. At a time of rising uncertainty, one resource both nations can draw on is a strong cohort of U.S. and Chinese foreign policy experts who have dedicated their careers to understanding and guiding this critical bilateral relationship. Exchanges at the mid-career level are becoming particularly interesting. Today’s mid-career U.S.-China experts have had more opportunities to travel between the United States and China to live, work, and study than any generation before them. Many of these experts are bilingual: The Americans speak Mandarin, the Chinese speak English, and they can communicate in a mix of the two languages to get their points across as clearly as possible. Because they began their careers in an era of unprecedented openness on both sides, many have known one another for years and can debate sensitive issues with a frankness that can be harder to achieve at senior leadership levels.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Energy Policy, and International Cooperation
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
164. The Future of NATO in the New Security Environment. A Former Newcomer’s View
- Author:
- Marek Madej and Robert Czulda
- Publication Date:
- 01-2015
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
- Abstract:
- The article ‘The Future of NATO in the New Security Environment. A Former Newcomer’s View’, analyses the role of NATO alliance in the contemporary security environment within the context of its priorities defined by new Strategic Concept 2010, having special attention on potential role of former newcomers and potential new members.
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Deterrence
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, North Atlantic, North America, and United States of America
165. Science and diplomacy after Canada’s lost decade: Counting the costs, looking beyond
- Author:
- Daryl Copeland
- Publication Date:
- 11-2015
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
- Abstract:
- In the twenty-first century, Canada’s security and prosperity - and the shared prospects for peace and development globally - depend increasingly on diplomacy rather than defence. In that regard, not least because there are no military solutions for the most pressing problems facing the planet, science diplomacy, and international science and technology more generally, have never mattered more. Yet rather than building a capability to join in collaborative efforts to find and deliver effective responses to complex global issues, under the Conservative Government key Canadian policy instruments were run down. Preoccupied with foreign wars, Islamist terrorism and related fear-inducing threats, Canada’s political decision-makers shunned science, disdained diplomacy and dismissed multilateralism. That record has diminished this country’s international reputation and influence while leaving the population vulnerable and exposed to a wide range of S&T-based threats. If Canada is to face the future with confidence, the new government must reallocate priorities and resources in support of science and diplomacy, and move immediately to address performance issues. Specific policy recommendations conclude this analysis.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Science and Technology, International Affairs, and Multilateralism
- Political Geography:
- Canada and North America
166. An Independent Review of Foreign National Access Management for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Author:
- Dick Thornburgh
- Publication Date:
- 01-2014
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The National Academy of Public Administration
- Abstract:
- Over the last year, security incidents involving foreign nationals at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) research Centers have drawn the attention of the NASA Administrator and other agency leaders, Congress, and the media. Recognizing the growing threat of cyber-attacks and espionage aimed at government agencies by hostile nation-states and foreign adversaries, NASA asked the National Academy of Public Administration (the Academy) to conduct this review of its foreign national management processes. Having a well-run Foreign National Access Management (FNAM) program is in the best interests of NASA, both in terms of protecting vital U.S. security and proprietary information, as well as capitalizing on the talents of foreign nationals. This Academy review examined the Agency’s entire FNAM process from the initial request from a requestor or sponsor through foreign national vetting, credentialing, information technology security, counterintelligence, hosting and escort procedures, and export controls.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Cybersecurity, and Space
- Political Geography:
- United States and North America
167. U.S.-Russia Health Engagement
- Author:
- Judyth L. Twigg
- Publication Date:
- 03-2014
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- Over the last few years, Russia's relationship with the United States has traveled a swift and seemingly deliberate arc from partner to pariah. The current turmoil in Ukraine and near-certain resulting isolation of Russia culminate several years' worth of deteriorating ties. The Edward Snowden mess, disagreements over Syria and Iran, dismay over the eroding human rights environment in Russia, and now Russian annexation of Crimea have led the previously heralded "reset" to an unceremonious end. What are the implications of these and related developments for U.S.-Russia collaboration in medicine and public health? Should avenues of partnership remain open, even in such a frosty political context? Should the international community support Russia's health sector when ample resources exist within Russia itself? Is it even possible anymore?
- Topic:
- Development, Diplomacy, Economics, Health, Human Rights, Human Welfare, and Bilateral Relations
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, and North America
168. Palestinian Public Opinion Offers Abbas Much Room for Maneuver
- Author:
- David Pollock
- Publication Date:
- 04-2014
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- A closer look at Palestinian views on prisoner releases, the Jewish state question, economic needs, and other issues suggests diplomatic openings are far from exhausted. As the United States works to salvage the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, the Palestinian public in the West Bank and Gaza is more prepared to accept various diplomatic compromises than official positions or elite attitudes would suggest. A number of new polls by different Palestinian pollsters, and in-depth discussions with Palestinian scholars and others in late March, indicate that Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas has greater latitude to make a deal than is often supposed. The polls cited here are from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) and Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD), both based in Ramallah, and the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO), based in Bethlehem.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Treaties and Agreements
- Political Geography:
- United States, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and North America
169. U.S. Policy and the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse, Part II: Assessment and Prospects
- Author:
- Robert Satloff
- Publication Date:
- 04-2014
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- The current impasse in Israeli-Palestinian talks is buffeted by a series of profound global and regional challenges, including Ukraine, Iran, and Syria, among others. In the immediate arena, while Israel and the Palestinian Authority may have dysfunctional political and diplomatic relations, they also have reasonably effective security cooperation and economic coordination. Therefore, a principal challenge for U.S. policy and for local leaders is to find ways to preserve, even enhance, the latter even as disagreement over the former worsens.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Treaties and Agreements
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iran, Ukraine, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Syria, and North America
170. US and Russia Can End Use of Weapons-Usable Uranium for Medical Uses
- Author:
- Miles A. Pomper
- Publication Date:
- 02-2014
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
- Abstract:
- A new report co-authored by CNS Senior Research Associate Miles Pomper recommends steps for the United States and Russia to cooperate in ending Russian use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) in medical isotope production, an important step in keeping this nuclear weapons material from terrorists. Great progress has been achieved in recent years in minimizing civilian use of HEU as part of the international efforts to reduce the nuclear terrorism threat. In particular, the leading global suppliers of the molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) isotope, which is widely used in medical diagnostics, are taking steps to reduce and, in the medium time frame, completely eliminate the use of HEU in the production of medical isotopes. Major new steps towards phasing out HEU use in medical isotopes production could be announced at the Nuclear Security Summit that will take place in The Hague on March 24-25, 2014. The Russian nuclear industry has set for itself an ambitious goal of becoming one of the three top global suppliers of Mo-99, used in 80 per cent of the medical procedures involving isotopes particularly as a diagnostic tool. Growing Russian production could help stabilize the global Mo-99 market, which faced severe shortages on several occasions in 2005-2013. According to some estimates, in 2010 during a six month period medical facilities around the world were unable to perform diagnostic procedures for several million people due to the shortage of Mo-99; the shortfall was estimated at 7 million doses. However, until recently, Russia had been bucking global trends by planning to use HEU fuels and targets rather than safer low enriched uranium (LEU) for much of this production. The ‘Ending HEU Use in Medical Isotope Production: Options for Russian-US Cooperation’ report co-authored by the Moscow-based Center for Energy for Energy and Security Studies (CENESS) analyses what can be done by Moscow and Washington to harmonize the Russian producers’ plans to win a share of the global market, while at the same time facilitating the Russian nuclear industry’s transition to new market requirements for producing Mo-99 without HEU.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Power, Nonproliferation, and Medicine
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America
171. A Gilded Alliance: Global Korea’s G-20/Yeonpyeong Moment Revisited
- Author:
- Haejong Lee
- Publication Date:
- 09-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- Alliance is an instrument for national interest, which is dependent upon the international environment and defined by domestic, democratic political processes. This commonsense notion of alliance was not fully embraced by the incoming South Korean administration of Lee Myung Bak in 2008. For the Lee administration, South Korea’s alliance with the United States was much more than an instrument of foreign policy. The alliance embodied South Korea’s political identity and was severely damaged by the preceding Roh Moo Hyun administration’s anti-American, pro–North Korean policies. The restoration of the Republic of Korea (ROK)–US alliance was both the goal and key to its national security strategy of Global Korea to enhance South Korean’s influence, contribution, and stature on a global scale. Thereafter, in a circle of the alliance’s cheerleaders in both Seoul and Washington, the alliance has almost taken its own life: the alliance should be protected from disruptive political forces and modernized/adjusted/expanded into new dimensions for the preservation of the alliance itself. In the post–Cold War years, the United States has tried to modernize its military alliances in order to preserve its influence at reduced costs. The Barack Obama administration had to mend US alliances strained during the George W. Bush administration’s war on terror. In 2009, Presidents Lee and Obama agreed on “a comprehensive strategic alliance of bilateral, regional, and global scope, based on common values and mutual trust.” The so-called Great Recession, triggered by the fall of Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008, has both brought to power and bedeviled the Obama administration; 9/15 has become a new historical marker, replacing 9/11. The very “common values” of the ROK-US strategic alliance—democracy and market economy—have been put to the test; the worries and cries over the decline of the US have arisen once again. In May 2010, the Obama administration published its national security strategy of national renewal and global leadership. Nation-building at home was the primary goal of and imperative to national security. Along with moral leadership to “live” American values, global architecture to embed both allies and challengers in US-centered institutional networks became a new feature of American global leadership. “The United States can, must, and will lead in this new century,” asserted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in September 2010 at the Council of Foreign Relations, the oldest bastion of American global leadership. She went on to declare that “the complexity and connection of today’s world have yielded a new American moment, a moment when our global leadership is essential, even if we must often lead in new ways.” Confirming that “the 21st century will be another great American century,” President Obama argued at this year’s Air Force Academy graduation ceremony that “we have laid the foundation for a new era of American leadership.” Global Korea, with a comprehensive strategic alliance and a free trade agreement with the United States and hosting of a G-20 meeting and nuclear security summit, has been an integral part and a success story of American global architecture. The Lee administration was awarded with the first two-plus-two (foreign and defense ministers) meeting in 2010, which had been previously held only with Japan, and a state visit to Washington in 2011. “The relation between our two countries has never been stronger,” commended Secretary of State Clinton in this year’s second two-plus-two meeting. Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-Jin confirmed the 2015 operation control plan and expressed commitment to make “the alliance the best alliance in the world.” American Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta lauded an ongoing trilateral collaboration, including Korea and Japan, to deter North Korea as “another way to strengthen and modernize our alliance.” It is widely disputed that the Obama administration has seized a new American moment and laid the foundation for a new American century. The Obama administration has been beset with rampant unemployment and snowballing deficits. “The Moment of Truth,” a bipartisan commission’s report on the financial crisis, issued a warning in 2010 that it is imperative to raise revenues and to cut both defense and nondefense spending—in short, a complete overhaul of the existing American national security state and social welfare system. However, the political polarization of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street and resultant partisan gridlock have foiled nation-building at home and led to the first downgrading of the US credit rating and a self-made financial cliff of sequester—mandatory across-the-board budget cuts in the next ten years beginning January 2013. Against its lean and mean years, the Obama administration’s rhetoric of a new American moment or century rings hollow. In contrast, the positive—it couldn’t be better—evaluation on the state of the ROK-US alliance is widely held. Nevertheless, the alliance’s success does not resonate with a (far from positive) strategic reality facing South Korea; nor does the alliance translate into a smooth-working component of American global architecture. The Lee administration has doubled down on its alliance with the US. With the Obama administration’s “strategic patience” or no policy toward North Korea, the Lee administration has succeeded in punishing/isolating North Korea but failed to prevent the latter’s development of nuclear capacity, not to mention the latter’s denuclearization. Or, to put it differently, when it comes to nuclear issues or power transition, North Korea has been on its own, with no South Korean leverage over the latter. Most critically and tragically, Global Korea’s prime moment of hosting a G-20 meeting in November 2010 (in the midst of the final renegotiation of a Korea-US free trade agreement) was followed by North Korea’s shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, which in turn led to a joint Korean-US military exercise including the USS George Washington aircraft carrier and which was opposed by China. In the G-20/Yeonpyeong moment, the Lee administration succeeded in synchronizing its strategic and comprehensive alliance with the US and global contribution but rather miserably failed to maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula and manage its relationship with China. On the other hand, the ROK-US comprehensive and strategic alliance does not dispense with politics among allies; nor does it develop into a trilateral cooperation of the United States, South Korea, and Japan. The Lee administration has been at odds with the United States on the issues of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and missile development, albeit much out of public scrutiny. In addition, the Lee administration has recently confronted Japan with the territorial issue of Dokdo and Japanese colonialism, along with a public relations campaign, including President Lee’s visit to Dokdo in August 2012. This was an abrupt turnabout from its attempt to share information with Japan on North Korea through a military accord—a trilateral collaboration that Panetta mentioned as a way to modernize the ROK-US alliance. Faced with a public uproar against the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), the Lee administration canceled the latter’s signing ceremony at the last minute and turned to confront Japan, which reciprocated with its territorial claim and disavowal of historical responsibilities for colonialism, and even a threat to halt financial cooperation. In sum, despite of (or because of, if you will) the much touted success of the ROK-US alliance, South Korea is now in a diplomatic wilderness, isolated from all of its neighbors—North Korea, China, and Japan. Why? It is, I argue, because President Lee’s Global Korea was a vision for a bygone, pre–Great Recession, and pre-G-2 world. As long as the United States confronted an assertive China with allies and new partners, South Korea’s strategic alliance with the United States could serve both the former’s security interests and the latter’s regional architect. The sinking of the Cheonan happened in the context of such confrontations of the United States and China over the South China Seas, which led to the rescheduling of transfer of operational control (from the United States to South Korea) from 2012 to 2015 that had been requested by the Lee administration. However, as the United States began to embrace China and both deemed it necessary to contain security tensions on the Korean Peninsula, an assertive South Korea against North Korea and China became a liability to the United States, and South Korea’s strategic, global, comprehensive alliance with the United States became superfluous, if not necessarily inimical, to South Korea’s local and regional interests. Such was the case after the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island. Following is a reconstruction of an anticlimax of Global Korea in the historical contexts of the Obama administration’s struggles to forge a new American global leadership.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, G20, and Alliance
- Political Geography:
- Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America
172. Public Diplomacy: A Remedy for NATO's Image Problem
- Author:
- Emine Akçadağ Alagöz
- Publication Date:
- 03-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- BILGESAM (Wise Men Center for Strategic Studies)
- Abstract:
- The new security threats that have appeared after the Cold War have showed that NATO still matters in helping to ensure global security. However, NATO‟s image has recently been deteriorating and its credibility has been damaged. That is why an effective public diplomacy seems indispensable to overcome this problem. Even though NATO has tried to implement an active public diplomacy since 2004 through its Public Diplomacy Division, the efforts seem to not yet be fulfilling. Thus, it is crucial for the Alliance to reshape its public diplomacy strategy.
- Topic:
- NATO, Diplomacy, Public Opinion, Alliance, and Soft Power
- Political Geography:
- Europe and North America
173. Missile Defense System Negotiations: Washington-Warsaw-Moscow Triangle
- Author:
- Richard Rousseau
- Publication Date:
- 06-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Abstract:
- When in March 1983 Ronald Reagan announced the initial plans to build a missile defense system purported to be able to “intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our [U.S.] own soil or that of our allies,” he in reality proclaimed the end of the deterrence and so called “balance of terror” doctrines which had formed the basis of the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union during what is known as the Cold War. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), more commonly known at the time as "Star Wars," reformulated the power equation that had underpinned the “détente" period (1971-80). This project was abandoned with the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in1991, which marked the end of the Cold War. However, more than ten years later, President George W. Bush reactivated it, signing bilateral agreements with the Czech Republic and Poland for the deployment of a radar system and advanced land based missile interceptors. With the election of President Barack Obama, the missile defense system was transformed from a bilateral project to a multilateral one, directly involving European allies and the very structure of the NATO alliance. The Kremlin strongly opposed the Euro-American missile deployment project, first in the 1980s and again into the 21th Century. Today as in the past, Russia’s complaints and rhetoric remain basically unchanged. It claims that the shield would compromise the effectiveness of the Russian long-range nuclear arsenal, thus drastically alter the balance of power with the West. A turning point seemed to have taken place at the NATO summit in Lisbon in November 2010. Following a lively debate among diplomats, the European allies unanimously signed an agreement for the deployment of a missile defense system, which would provide “full coverage” of the Alliance area by 2020. More importantly, the final declaration of the summit heralded the birth of “cooperation with Russia in a spirit of reciprocity, maximum transparency and mutual confidence.” However, such good intentions and noble sentiments are regarded as mere words by some, as there is no serious likelihood that both sides will cooperate on a joint defense project of this nature.
- Topic:
- NATO, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Missile Defense
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Poland, North America, and United States of America
174. The Foreign Policy Case For Senate Reform
- Author:
- Paul Nadeau
- Publication Date:
- 06-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Abstract:
- In a famous story about the creation of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were debating a possible upper legislative chamber over tea, and Jefferson wanted to know why it was necessary to create an undemocratic body like the Senate. In response, Washington asked Jefferson why he had poured some of his tea into a saucer. “To cool it,” Jefferson answered, to which Washington replied “Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.” The story (even if it might be apocryphal) illustrates that the slowness and deliberation of the Senate were intentional and designed to offset the popular passions that might govern the House of Representatives. The Senate’s rules were designed to emulate a gentleman’s club (such as the filibuster, which originated from the idea that gentlemen would have the good sense to limit the length of their speeches and that it would be rude to cut them off) but have become archaic as the body changed from a club to a typical legislative chamber. The rules of the Senate as they are currently designed have resulted in giving the opposition a trump card that is usually disproportionate to their legislative power. While its original structure incentivized moderation and compromise, the electoral system that populates its membership has incentivized partisanship. As a result the Senate has changed its form but not its function. The Senate can be deferential and deliberate or it can be factional and partisan, but it can’t be both.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Domestic Policy
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
175. What a Tangled Web: India Caught Between U.S. and Iranian Interests
- Author:
- Felix Imonti
- Publication Date:
- 06-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Abstract:
- India is caught between the consequences of provoking a United States driven by its fixation upon the Iranian nuclear program and by an Iran that is a major supplier of oil, providing India with access to its vital interests in Afghanistan. The best that the Ind
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Energy Policy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Nuclear Power
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, India, Asia, North America, and United States of America
176. The Arctic policies of Canada and the United States: domestic motives and international context
- Author:
- Kristofer Bergh
- Publication Date:
- 07-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
- Abstract:
- The Arctic ice is melting. If current trends continue, there will be dramatic changes in the region, with far-reaching implications. At the same time, the receding ice opens the region to economic development, including through the exploitation of previously inaccessible hydrocarbons and minerals. In September 2011, both the Northern Sea Route (along Russia's north coast, formerly known as the Northeast Passage) and the Northwest Passage (along the northern coasts of Alaska and Canada) were open for some time, potentially creating shorter shipping routes between Asia, Europe and North America. Increased human activity in the sparsely populated and in hospitable Arctic requires new initiatives to achieve safety and security for the region's environment and its inhabitants and visitors.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Diplomacy, Political Economy, and Bilateral Relations
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Canada, Asia, and North America
177. Stuck in the Middle? U.S.-China Relations and the Korean Peninsula
- Author:
- EAI Security Net
- Publication Date:
- 02-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- Not since the visit of Deng Xiapoing in 1979 has a Chinese state visit attracted so much attention as President Hu Jintao’s visit to the United States on January 19, 2011. After a rocky year in U.S.-China relations following President Barack Obama’s visit to Beijing in November 2009, attention naturally focused on the future direction of the relationship between the two countries. Further attention imbued with curiosity also centered on how a relatively declining United States and a rapidly rising China would shape the world order in the long-run. Also following North Korea’s provocations in 2010, the world carefully looked for any strong emphasis on the issue of the Korean Peninsula as a regional challenge. There have been two different interpretations in regards to the results of the U.S.-China summit: an optimistic outlook that the two countries will become cooperative partners and move forward as underscored in the Joint Statement, and pessimistic views that the two powers will merely continue the repeated pattern of conflict and check that they have been doing since November 2009. A similar mix of opinions prevails in regards to the Korean Peninsula. Some expect immediate improvement in inter-Korean relations and the resumption of the Six-Party Talks, while others criticize the U.S.-China summit for barely papering over the cracks. However, neither hasty optimism nor gloomy pessimism is appropriate at this time. There is a need to utilize a comprehensive response strategy, which goes beyond narrow political understandings, based on a precise analysis of the results of the summit.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Regional Cooperation, Hegemony, and Summit
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America
178. Coping with the North Korean Survival Game: The Cheonan Incident and Its Aftermath
- Author:
- Seong-Ho Sheen
- Publication Date:
- 07-2010
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- While on a routine patrol along the Northern Limit Line (NLL), a South Korean Navy corvette, Cheonan was hit by an external explosion and rapidly sunk at 9:22pm on March 26, 2010. Of the one hundred and four South Korean crew members on board, forty six were found dead or remain missing (Cha 2010). After weeks of a scientific investigation supported by an international team of twenty four American, British, Australian, and Swedish experts, the South Korean government announced on May 20, that the ship was sunk by a torpedo launched from a North Korean midget submarine. The South Korean government and the public are now weighing the various measures in how to respond to this major North Korean provocation. Experts, on the other hand, are trying to understand what might have been the cause of such a bold aggression by the North Korean regime. While some have suggested a combination of various reasons for the alleged attack, a prominent North Korean insider has argued that the Cheonan incident may have to do with the North Korean leadership succession issue. Cho Myung-chul, a former professor at Kim Il-sung University, has suggested that the Cheonan incident was the work of the emerging leadership surrounding the young and unknown Kim Jong-eun, the son of Kim Jong-il and possible future successor. The motivation then would be for Kim Jong-eun and his supporters to prove themselves to Kim Jong-il and North Korean people. Leadership succession in a dictatorship tends to create a lot of uncertainty, anxiety, and confusion for its governance and the state apparatus. There will be competition and rivalry among different groups and factions for survival and to take a lead in the power transition. In that process, hard liners tend to command a stronger voice. Given the mounting pressures of a deteriorating economic situation and diplomatic isolation since the famine of 1995-98, sinking a South Korean warship could score an important political victory domestically, inducing the North Korean people to be proud of its regime and new leadership. At the same time, it could teach a lesson to the Lee Myung-bak government which has insisted on linking the nuclear issue with North-South exchanges. Indeed, North Korea issued a series of warnings to South Korea after criticizing the Lee administration for refusing to restart the Mount Kumkang Tours that had been canceled after a South Korean tourist had been shot by a North Korean guard on July 11, 2008. Pyongyang was further upset by alleged contingency planning for a sudden collapse of the regime and the hosting of military exercises with the United States. In particular, just a couple of weeks before the Cheonan incident, the Korean People’s Army issued a statement that it would no longer remain bound by the Korean War Armistice or the 1992 North-South Non-Aggression Agreement, therefore it “will legitimately exercise their force for self defense, unhindered, just as they had determined to do.” The worry now is that such provocations may eventually be aimed at the Obama administration which has hardened its position toward North Korea since the second nuclear test on May 25, 2009. While not completely excluding the possibility for bilateral dialogue, the United States has insisted that Pyongyang must return to the multilateral Six-Party Talks by implementing its obligations under previous agreements. North Korean demands for nuclear arms control and a peace treaty in exchange for denuclearization has only strengthened Washington’s deep mistrust of Pyongyang’s true intentions. Considering that the Obama administration has adopted a policy of wait and see, or what it calls “strategic patience,” the North Korean leadership might have concluded that there is not much to gain from making a deal with Washington for now. Furthermore, President Obama’s designation of North Korea along with Iran as an outlier in his drive for a “World Without Nuclear Weapons” and a possible target of U.S. nuclear weapons in the recently published 2010 Nuclear Posture Review can only have made Pyongyang’s conviction even more pessimistic. The problem is that the sinking of the Cheonan may not be an isolated incident. North Korea may become more desperate and brazen as they face increasingly harsher measures from South Korea and the international community, particularly the United States. The race for completing succession by 2012 may further strengthen the voice of hardliners who wish to heighten tensions with South Korea and the United States. More importantly, the Cheonan incident could be a sign of increasing instability in North Korea. The regime there faces the critical question of Kim Jong-il’s health and the issue of succession amidst a deepening economic crisis and international isolation. The Cheonan incident not only presents the immediate challenge of crisis management but also poses a medium to long-term question about the regime’s future.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Conflict, Missile Defense, and Denuclearization
- Political Geography:
- Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America
179. Economic Interdependence, Alliance Cooperation, and Sino-U.S. Complex Interdependence
- Author:
- Scott Snyder
- Publication Date:
- 12-2010
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- China’s rising economic strength has highlighted a need to understand in greater detail the impact of complex economic interdependence on prospects for alliance cohesion, especially when an ally comes to depend on a potential adversary as its leading trading partner and engine for economic growth. This is an issue that did not come into play to any significant degree in analyzing alliance dynamics during the cold war era precisely because the development of security and economic relationships during that period were aligned with and served to reinforce each other, and the level of economic ties among potential cold-war adversaries was minimal. Analysis of trade relationships among security allies from that period shows a clear correlation of preferences for trading relationships with security partners versus adversaries, but it is not clear based on that data alone that there was necessarily causality between economic trade patterns and security alliances. In fact, structural differences between market economies (that tended to be allied with each other) and non-market economies were a significant deterrent to the development of economic relations with non-security partners during the cold war. In the post-cold war era, economically interdependent trade and investment relationships have been relatively unconstrained by political and security considerations, resulting in a situation where non-security partners such as China, a potential challenger to U.S. power, have become actively integrated in global supply chains as a leading manufacturer of goods for the global market. In considering this question, Dong Sun Lee and Sung Eun Kim have attempted to provide an empirical analysis of the influence of bilateral economic relations as a factor in shaping America’s Asian alliances, concluding that “economic ties do not markedly reinforce the security alliances of East Asia, because they have an asymmetrical structure”(Lee and Kim 2010, 4). But in making the argument that asymmetry matters, Lee and Kim assume that the economic consequences of interdependence are negative for dynamics within the alliance and that these negative consequences may cancel out positive effects of economic interdependence, even though the main argument of that the paper proves is that economic ties do not necessarily reinforce security alliances. The authors’ assertions regarding asymmetrical economic relations as having an impact on alliance dynamics are unproven and not dealt with to any significant degree by the evidence presented in the paper.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Alliance, and Economic Cooperation
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
180. A Complex Strategy to Overcome the Yeonpyeong Incident
- Author:
- Young-Sun Ha
- Publication Date:
- 12-2010
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- Since North Korea’s deadly artillery barrage on Yeonpyeong Island, South Korea has been stepping up efforts in its defense posture and international cooperation. In preparing against any further provocation from the North, Seoul has been reinforcing forces on the island, strengthening defense and deterrence capabilities, and drastically increasing its defense budget. Somewhat belatedly, it has also been taking up actions to reexamine the strategies of the ROK-U.S. military alliance, demanding cooperation from China and Russia while maintaining the traditional trilateral cooperation with the United States and Japan. Of course, analyzing the causes of the weak response to the shelling and preparing to prevent further provocations are undoubtedly important. However, reading the bigger picture and formulating key strategies for the future is a far more critical task. The Kim Jong-il/Kim Jong-un leadership in November 2010 conducted two consecutive moves—revealing its uranium enrichment facilities and launching an artillery strike on Yeonpyeong Island. Understanding the situation of the whole East Asian region, while at the same time anticipating Pyongyang’s strategies and taking preemptive actions will be the main challenges ahead for Seoul. Firstly, it is important to understand the range of North Korea’s strategic options from aggressive diplomacy to peaceful diplomacy. The Korean Peninsula went through the Korean War in 1950 and following of the ceasefire, both Koreas were stuck between ‘hot war’ and ‘cold war.’ Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has passed the stage of ‘cold peace’ and moved towards a ‘hot peace.’ In spite of this global shift, North Korea has been frequently using combinations of ‘cold war,’ ‘hot war,’ ‘cold peace,’ and ‘hot peace’ on the international strategic chessboard. For example, during the Cold War period North Korea provoked the South in a number of cases: Rangoon bombing (1983), bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 (1987), attempted Blue House raid (1968), North Korean infiltration in the Uljin and Samcheok areas (1968). Even in the post-Cold War period, nuclear tests, naval battles in the Yellow Sea, the sinking of Cheonan naval ship and the shelling on Yeonpyeong Island ensued. At the same time, Pyongyang has been aggressively demanding for a peace agreement to this day. The possibility for limited warfare on the Korean Peninsula came dangerously close with the recent Yeonpyeong shelling, more so than the last North Korean provocation, the sinking of the Cheonan. As the pendulum of war and peace on the Korean Peninsula swung from the ‘cold war’ to ‘hot war,’ greater chaos arise. It is expected that the Kim Jong-il/Kim Jong-un regime will try to maximize the use of this pendulum of peace and war in order to strengthen Kim Jong-un’s weak power base. In spite of the dangers, merely worrying about the possibility of war is not going to help. Rather, we have to understand precisely why the North has raised the bar of aggression from acts of terrorism to that of a direct artillery attack on South Korean territory. It is likely that the North would pursue a ‘cold peace’ offensive to utilize the amplitude of the pendulum. A complex picture emerges when looking back on the recent comments made by top officials from North Korea, the United States, and China. Seoul and Washington have called for Pyongyang to engage in measures for active denuclearization and reengagement in inter-Korean relations as preconditions for resuming the Six-Party Talks. North Korea on the other hand has taken precisely the opposite measures. To read what the North Korean regime has in mind we have to think of the situation not as a motionless snapshot but as a moving footage. Furthermore, South Korea must do more than just respond to North Korea’s actions. Instead it should focus on making strategically preemptive moves. For this, it is necessary to examine why the North Korean regime expanded the pendulum’s amplitude and find measures to make the leadership pursue a survival strategy that does not include huddling around nuclear weapons.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Alliance, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America
181. A Smart Alliance in the Age of Complexity
- Author:
- Seongho Sheen
- Publication Date:
- 06-2009
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- The alliance between the Republic of Korea and the United States today faces a complex security environment, in which the threats it confronts are more diverse, more complicated, and require a more delicately balanced approach than ever before. In particular, expectations—even demands—are growing for South Korea to contribute to world peace and stability as a global partner for the United States in pursuing their mutual security interests (Campbell et al. 2009). Do the ROK and the United States share enough strategic interests to sustain such an alliance in the twenty-first century? And should South Korea assume an increasing role in maintaining regional and global peace? During the Cold War, the two countries' alliance was a military one, focused on the clear and direct threat from North Korea. Now, in the twenty-first century, the two security partners must transform their hard alliance into a "smart" alliance to meet more diverse security challenges together. A different set of hard and soft approaches are required, and a smart alliance will call for a more flexible combination of roles played by each partner, depending on the circumstances.
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America
182. Assessment and Future Challenges of the U.S.-ROK Summit: From a Policy of Sanctions to a Policy of `Coevolution`
- Author:
- EAI Security Net
- Publication Date:
- 06-2009
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S.-ROK alliance has gone through the greatest and most rapid changes in its fifty-six-year history. Yet the United States and South Korea have both failed to establish any strategic "Joint Vision" for the alliance in this new era. The Roh Moo-hyun administration dealt with many issues of alliance transformation. These included the relocation of U.S. military bases, the transfer of Wartime Operational Control (WOC) from the United States to South Korea, and efforts to facilitate the strategic flexibility of U.S. forces in Korea. None of these changes, however, were fully based on any shared strategic vision between the two countries; rather, the alterations were limited bottom-up approaches. The Lee Myung-bak administration has managed to restore the previously damaged U.S.-ROK relations with the Bush administration in 2008. It also dealt with many issues affecting the future of the alliance. But an overall reenvisioning of the alliance only came about under the current Lee-Obama partnership. The culmination of the June 2009 U.S.-ROK Summit was the joint statement released by the two presidents entitled "Joint Vision for the Alliance of the U.S. and the ROK." This statement has been long overdue. It set out clearly the security problem confronting the two countries, and established their shared strategic interests. In a simple and concise way, the "Joint Vision" laid out the future direction of the alliance in a wide range of areas, including not only military issues but also international values, the economy, the environment, and human rights. Fundamentally, the document recognized that the geographic range of the alliance has expanded globally, beyond both the Korean Peninsula and the Asia-Pacific region. The future of the alliance is significant not just for the United States but also for South Korea. Korea’s diplomatic outlook can no longer be limited to the Peninsula, because its national power has matured enough to warrant a new diplomatic strategy in its approach to its region and the world. As part of this vision, the Lee administration has issued a new strategic motto, "Global Korea." But the government still has a long way to go. It needs a more complete set of specific policies supported by a strong domestic consensus. The new vision for the U.S.-ROK alliance will help facilitate South Korea’s diplomatic leap forward. At this critical time, the United States needs assistance from its allies, including South Korea. Currently, global leadership faces numerous transnational problems such as the unprecedented global economic crisis, an insurgency in Afghanistan that is at its highest levels since the U.S. invasion in 2001, and a weakened U.S. global leadership in need of revitalization. If these major challenges are to be met, the "Joint Vision" needs to be converted into specific policies. The recent summit allowed a comprehensive discussion of both the new vision’s principles and the issues related to those principles, including the North Korean nuclear crisis, provisions for the global role of the alliance, and nonmilitary issues like the KORUS FTA (Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement). Naturally, given today’s circumstances, the North Korean nuclear program dominated the meetings. President Obama and President Lee have found considerable common ground in setting the strategic goals and policy direction that will be required to resolve the nuclear issue.
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Sanctions
- Political Geography:
- Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America
183. Toward a Smart Alliance: The ROK-U.S. Relationship after President Obama’s Asia Trip
- Author:
- EAI Security Net
- Publication Date:
- 11-2009
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- Asia is the region where a quarter of the total of American products is consumed, major bilateral allies exist, various networks of mul-tilateral institutions operate, and new powers are rising. President Obama, during his first Asia trip, tried to emphasize that America is an Asia-Pacific power that will continue its commitment through a renewed East Asia strategy of “power of balance.” Now at the crossroads of China’s foreign policy of “har-mony,” Japan’s new concept of “fraternity,” and South Korea’s catchphrase of “pragmatic for-eign policy,” the United States needs to refresh its role which has been defined as a “regional stabilizer.” People in Asia are eager to see Pres-ident Obama’s new approach to his East Asia strategy, because he inherited from his prede-cessor a triple crisis in the areas of security, soft power, and economy. President Obama’s recent Asia trip has certainly attracted the minds of many people in Asia with his concepts of strong “partnership,” and a positive-sum Asian future, as expressed in his address at the Suntory Hall, Japan. As the communication power of a network becomes more important in 21st century international politics, President Obama’s Asia trip means a lot with his efforts for public diplomacy. Putting aside images and metaphors, the strategic orientation of the United States’ East Asia strategy still needs to be more specified. People in Asia are concerned about four areas: 1) how the United States will cooperate with a rising China in producing a consensus in many sensitive and difficult areas such as mili-tary competition, economic interdependence, climate change, and ideational orientation; 2) how the United States will redefine the role of bilateral alliances which should go beyond the task of military cooperation, stretching to re-gional security and non-traditional security issues; 3) how the United States will facilitate the creation and the development of multila-teral cooperative institutions by actively par-ticipating in them; 4) and how the US will deal with security threats such as the North Korean nuclear crisis, cross-Strait relations, East Asian nationalism, and, most of all, regional power transition. So far, the United States seems to be more focused upon recovery from the economic crisis and getting help from various Asian partners in this effort. That leaves open the question of how to redefine the United States’ role in the rapidly changing environment of Asian international relations. Despite a relatively short stay in Seoul for about 20 hours, President Obama confirmed his commitment to South Korea with renewed words and statements: he underscored the importance of the KORUS FTA not just from an economic perspective, but also from a stra-tegic standpoint; he promised to provide con-tinued extended nuclear deterrence; he basi-cally agreed with South Korea’s approach to resolving the North Korean nuclear problem through a more comprehensive deal; and he highlighted new areas of cooperation at the global level such as climate change, Afghanis-tan, economic recovery, and the development of the G-20. South Koreans expect that the KORUS FTA will be the stepping stone for strengthening bilateral economic and strategic relations, recovery of both countries’ econo-mies, and improving interdependent regional economic relations. Regarding the North Ko-rean nuclear crisis, it seems that there is still a lot more to be done in making North Korea give up completely its nuclear program. This will require more intense and creative dialo-gue between Seoul and Washington. As North Korea has not made any strategic decision regarding its nuclear program and any future national strategic orientation, its return to the Six-Party Talks will only just be the beginning in yet another difficult series of negotiations. South Korea, as a strong American ally and a potential global middle power, will continue to work closely with the United States. The two countries need to search for new tasks and functions for bilateral cooperation in a world of rapidly changing international relations, where “smart” alliance and “21st century international statecraft” are required.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America
184. The U.S.-Japan Alliance: President Obama’s First 100 Days
- Author:
- Randall Schriver and Mark Stokes
- Publication Date:
- 01-2009
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Project 2049 Institute
- Abstract:
- Befitting for a prominent ally, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton waited only a day to establish communication with her counterpart in Japan. While the gesture is surely appreciated in Tokyo, and the symbolism was not lost in Washington, the messages revealed little about the Administration’s intentions (if any) to take concrete steps to enhance the alliance.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and Barack Obama
- Political Geography:
- Japan, Asia, North America, and United States of America
185. A Solution for the US–Iran Nuclear Standoff
- Author:
- William Luers, Thomas R. Pickering, and Jim Walsh
- Publication Date:
- 03-2008
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- The recent National Intelligence Estimate’s conclusion that Tehran stopped its efforts to develop nuclear weap- ons in 2003, together with the significant drop in Iranian activity in Iraq, has created favorable conditions for the US to hold direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program. The Bush administration should act on this opportunity, if for no other reason than that its current position is growing weaker, and without such an initiative, Iran will continue its efforts to produce nuclear fuel that might, in the future, be used to build nuclear weapons. Currently, Iran has approximately three thousand centrifuges, which it has used to produce small test batches of uranium that has been enriched to a low level (which cannot be used for nuclear weapons). Until now, Iranian engineers have not successfully operated a centrifuge cas- cade (a collection of centrifuges working together) at full capacity—which, as a practical matter, would be needed to enrich nuclear fuel to the level necessary either to establish an effective nuclear energy program or to manufacture nuclear weapons. But the Iranian government has declared its ambition to build more than 50,000 centrifuges, and recent reports also suggest that Tehran is testing a modified “P-2” centrifuge, a more advanced version of its existing centrifuge technology, which can produce a larger volume of enriched uranium. We propose that Iran’s efforts to produce enriched uranium and other related nuclear activities be conducted on a multilateral basis, that is to say jointly managed and operated on Iranian soil by a consortium including Iran and other governments. This proposal provides a realistic, work- able solution to the US–Iranian nuclear standoff. Turning Iran’s sensitive nuclear activities into a multinational program will reduce the risk of proliferation and create the basis for a broader discussion not only of our disagreements but of our common interests as well.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
186. Iran-U.S.: The Case for Transformation
- Author:
- Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini and John Tirman
- Publication Date:
- 09-2008
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- Thirty years of enmity, disruption, and brinksmanship have yielded very little worthwhile in the relationship between Iran and the United States. The policies in both capitals toward the other are essentially bankrupt and dysfunctional. Each clings to their quiver of grievances against the other, letting the past dictate the future to the detriment of both countries. It may be time to turn this animus on its head—seeking a broad accommodation— and an opportunity for transformational diplomacy. While ample sources of suspicion and distrust have fed this simmering hostility, these sources do not warrant the war footing, attempts at isolation, political violence, and rhetoric of a looming Armageddon that mark the U.S.-Iran tangle. Both countries suf- fer high costs stemming from the confrontation. These two major states, one far more powerful than the other, are bound to compete and test each other, but in a region rife with instability, they also need each other. Iranians are weary of the cacophony of hatred. In America, the Iraq war is still a nightmare and the public is in no mood for more. A comprehensive concordat instead would serve the U.S. and Iran and help steady a very rickety part of the world. What the change is and how it is engineered are crucial, however. There is an appli- cable lesson from diplomatic history: bold and sweeping transformation may be prefera- ble—more successful and, paradoxically, easier to engineer—to small, incremental steps. Whether there is the political acumen in the leadership of either country to initiate such transformative diplomacy is arguable. But the logic of a new concordat is powerful, especially if seen through an unemotional lens of national interests and the security of the United States and Iran.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Conflict, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
187. China’s Premature Rise to Great Power
- Author:
- Liselotte Odgaard
- Publication Date:
- 04-2007
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- China's so-called rise to great power status is usually taken for granted. Still, a convicning argument can be made that Beijing's post-Cold War grand strategy is based on fear of failure rather than management of success. China only qualifies as a great power by the skin of its teeth, if the lower limit of such status is defined as the ability to decide how to do things in either the economic, military or political sectors of the international system.1 China’s position as a political great power is largely determined by the implosion of the Soviet Union. Its ascendancy to this rank has been based on psychology in that a successor challenging U.S. pre-eminence was expected and pronounced before the fact. While Beijing has convinced the surroundings that China is a great power, it is struggling to catch up both economically and militarily with the United States. Contemporary China faces three major challenges: economically and militarily it con- tinues to lag far behind the United States, U.S. grand strategy threatens its rise, and a Chinese alternative to the liberal model of state-society relations has not been developed. Beijing’s foreign policy is therefore based on the premise of how to avoid China’s descent into the ranks of secondary powers.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Power Politics, Military Affairs, and Economic Growth
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, Asia, and North America
188. Russia and America: Is Another Arms Race Afoot?
- Author:
- Jane M.O. Sharp
- Publication Date:
- 11-2007
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- During the Cold War years we learned that successful arms con- trol agreements with the Soviet Union were those that codified parity, or at least a mutually acceptable status quo. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) in 1991, a much diminished Russia saw all its WTO allies and three former Soviet republics join NATO, making parity harder to achieve. But there are still compelling reasons to shape agreements that satisfy all parties. During the 1990s, under Boris Yeltsin, Russia strove to be represented as an equal to the United States in arms control diplomacy and in negotiations concerning the future of former Yugoslavia. President Bill Clinton tried to meet Yeltsin’s concerns, but there has been little constructive cooperation on arms control between George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin. Indeed, since 2000, Bush has been hostile to any kind of multilateral diplomacy. He began his presidency with a new generation of ballistic missile defenses (BMD) and withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, an agreement that had stabilized U.S.-Soviet relations for two decades. In Russia, an increasingly belligerent Putin, flush with oil money, is now determined to be accorded great power status in his dealings with the West. He is asserting himself in many areas: trying to block independence for Kosovo; countering U.S. sanctions against Iran; and renegotiating arms control agreements concluded when Russia was weak. While Putin is viewed with increasing wariness in the West, on arms control he has some points that need to be taken seriously.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Arms Race
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America
189. Generating Momentum for a New Era in U.S.-Turkey Relations
- Author:
- Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall and Stephen Cook
- Publication Date:
- 06-2006
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- The growing schism between the West and the Islamic world is one of the primary challenges confronting American foreign and defense policymakers. As a consequence, the relationship between the United States and Turkey—a Western-oriented, democratizing Muslim country—is strategically more important than ever. Turkey has the potential to be an invaluable partner as Washington endeavors to chart an effective course in its relations with the Muslim world. However, to achieve this level of cooperation, U.S.-Turkey relations must be repaired and modernized.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Foreign Policy, and Diplomacy
- Political Geography:
- United States, America, Washington, Turkey, and North America
190. U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation
- Author:
- Michael Levi and Charles Ferguson
- Publication Date:
- 06-2006
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- The United States has long sought to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to build a relationship with India, a rising power but a nuclear pariah since it first exploded an atomic bomb in 1974. In announcing a sweeping negotiated framework for nuclear cooperation with India on July 18, 2005, followed by an agreement on details on March 2, 2006, the Bush administration has stirred deep passions and put Congress in the seemingly impossible bind of choosing between approving the deal and damaging nuclear nonproliferation, or rejecting the deal and thereby setting back an important strategic relationship. Yet patience and a few simple fixes would address major proliferation concerns while ultimately strengthening the strategic partnership—provided Congress and the administration work together.
- Topic:
- International Relations and Diplomacy
- Political Geography:
- United States, India, Asia, and North America
191. The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal: Triumph of the Business Lobby
- Author:
- Subrata Ghoshroy
- Publication Date:
- 09-2006
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- South Asia has come a long way since the days of SEATO and CENTO1 —the U.S.- sponsored pacts to contain China and keep India under check. Gone are the days when the Seventh Fleet flexed its muscle on the Bay of Bengal in support of a beleaguered Pakistan in its military campaign against the “mukti bahini”—the freedom fighters in erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. Once the leader of the non-aligned, the Indian government has not expressed even a whimper of protest about what has been happening to Iraq, Lebanon, or Gaza. India and the United States now are “natural allies,” apparently forged primarily by mutual economic interests. But there was the China factor as well. Although left unsaid, China entered in to the calculation of both India and the United States. The Bush administration is careful not to revive the notion of the Cold War policy of containing China, but many in the Congress are not so reticent. At the same time, the Indian government is equally careful to highlight the growing normalization of relations and the growing trade ties with Beijing. But the clamor in the security community in New Delhi is all about countering China—a topic I heard repeatedly during my recent visit to the region. So its importance cannot be discounted. But the economic incentives of the deal have not earned as much scrutiny, a major oversight in the public discourse.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Deterrence, and Denuclearization
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, India, Asia, and North America
192. Regionalizing the Iraq Conflict?
- Author:
- John Tirman
- Publication Date:
- 12-2006
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- In one way or another, we are headed for a new engagement with the regional players to in an effort end the Iraq war. The idea of bringing in the neighbors to help stabilize and reduce the violence in Iraq is very attractive, and could contribute to a plausible exit strat- egy for the United States. The likelihood of “regionalization” being a success, however, depends on which version. And even with the more cooperative schemes being suggested, the closer one looks, the less promise it seems to hold.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Regionalism, and Iraq War
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iraq, Iran, Middle East, Syria, and North America
193. Deterring Cyber War: A U.S.-Led Cybersecurity Summit
- Author:
- Andy Johnson and Kyle Spector
- Publication Date:
- 10-2006
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- Every day, U.S. military and civilian networks are probed thousands of times for cyber weaknesses. As a result of the mounting threat, there is a growing consensus that international action is required to reduce the threat of cyber war. The U.S. should take the lead in deterring cyber war by hosting a cybersecurity summit—a key first step to building an international cyber accord
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Cybersecurity
- Political Geography:
- United States, North America, and Global Focus