Search

Begin New Search Political Geography United States of America Content Type Working Paper Publication Year within 1 Year

11. China Building Up BRICS as Important Foreign Policy Tool

Author:
Marcin Przychodniak
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
BRICS is useful for China in its rivalry with the U.S., mainly as a tool to influence developing countries. It is also an important element of strategic cooperation with Russia and a platform for dialogue with India. China does not care about BRICS integration, instead it wants to consolidate the group’s participants to further China’s goals.. The EU’s response to this should include effective support for developing countries and a subjective approach to their demands for global governance.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, European Union, BRICS, Rivalry, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

12. The U.S. Pursues Increasingly Aggressive Policy towards Latin America

Author:
Bartłomiej Znojek
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
Donald Trump’s administration is seeking to rebuild U.S. influence in Latin America. It is trying to convince the countries of the region that cooperation with the United States will bring development and increased security to the Americas. For the time being, however, this approach mainly serves U.S. security interests, in particular combating irregular migration, organised crime and drug trafficking, and reducing China’s influence. The current administration’s threats, inconsistent positions, and expansionist drive will deepen the distrust of the U.S. and antagonise important Latin American partners.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Migration, Donald Trump, Strategic Interests, and Drug Trafficking
Political Geography:
Latin America and United States of America

13. U.S. Interest in Greenland Reflects the Ongoing Competition in the Arctic

Author:
Kinga Dudzińska and Paweł Markiewicz
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
President Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested his intention to attach Greenland to the U.S., a move that has met with opposition from the Greenlandic and Danish governments. The pressure from the U.S. is one manifestation of its aspirations to strengthen its position in the North Atlantic, both because of the strategic importance of the island and the growing international rivalries in the Arctic. The situation will require greater EU and NATO involvement in the High North, as well as consideration of this perspective by countries outside the region, such as Poland.
Topic:
NATO, European Union, Donald Trump, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Greenland, Arctic, and United States of America

14. Trump’s assault on foreign aid: implications for international development cooperation

Author:
Sebastian Haug, Anna Novoselova, and Stephan Klingebiel
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The United States of America has long been a leading force in international development cooperation, both politically and financially. However, the first weeks of the second Trump administration have called the traditional role of US foreign aid fundamentally into question. From a 90-day funding freeze to the withdrawal from United Nations (UN) bodies and the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), measures taken by Trump and his team are not only having palpable repercussions on a wide range of humanitarian and development programmes, but they also point to more far-reaching implications. Against this backdrop, this paper presents the contours and discusses the global consequences of Trump’s assault on US foreign aid, as of late February 2025. We outline the extant role of the United States as a donor in Section 2 and review the changes announced – and/or implemented – by the current US government in Section 3. Section 4 discusses the implications of US funding cuts for bilateral cooperation, while Section 5 focuses on repercussions on multilateral development work. Section 6 outlines three scenarios on how the ongoing changes in the United States might affect the field of international development. We discuss the possible ramifications of (a) a revamped US approach to foreign aid centring on crude national interests, (b) a US retreat that is at least partially offset by other providers and (c) a US retreat without other providers stepping in. Section 7 concludes by discussing the implications for dealing with the second Trump administration. We outline four recommendations that address stakeholders across the – increasingly outdated – donor–recipient divide: (1) refining development cooperation approaches, (2) strengthening the multilateral development system, (3) promoting Southern self-reliance and (4) fostering alliances beyond a Trump-led US government.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Foreign Aid, International Development, Donald Trump, and USAID
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

15. Forecasting Nuclear Escalation Risks: Cloudy With a Chance of Fallout

Author:
Jamie Kwong, Anna Bartoux, and James M. Acton
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Forecasting—that is, estimating the probability of specified events’ occurring—can contribute to efforts to better understand and address the challenge of managing escalation.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Forecast, Escalation, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North Korea, and United States of America

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

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

17. Geothermal Energy and U.S. Competitive Advantage: Drill, Baby, Drill

Author:
Robert W. Sweeney and Noah Gordon
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The United States and the rest of the world sit at the intersection of potentially destabilizing trends. Great power competition, climate change, intensifying geopolitical uncertainty, the economy’s potential deglobalization, and the potential massive increase in energy demands arising from artificial intelligence (AI) are creating challenges for U.S. national energy policy. A foremost concern is the vulnerability of energy supply chains to interference from or control by a hostile power. In this dynamic context, U.S. energy policy has evolved significantly in terms of markets, supplies, regulation, and legislation. The country’s success in using fracking technology and exploiting abundant shale reserves have made it the world’s largest producer of hydrocarbons and a major exporter, especially of natural gas.1 Further, as national and international concerns about climate change have grown, U.S. energy policy has become more aligned with transitioning to renewable sources. So far, the focus of clean energy additions has been on wind, solar, and nuclear power. Beginning in the mid-2000s, the United States issued legislation and policies raising renewable energy to the level of industrial policy. Among those were the Energy Policy Act (2005), the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (2021), the CHIPS and Science Act (2022), and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (2022). However, geothermal energy—which uses the heat of the earth’s crust for power—has been largely left out of U.S. industrial policy. This is despite the facts that utilizing this source of renewable energy requires some of the same technologies that have made the United States the world’s top oil and gas producer and that geothermal has the potential to provide clean, dispatchable power that does not rely on weather conditions. With U.S. clean firm power demand expected to increase by approximately 700–900 gigawatts by 2050,2 the United States needs to dramatically increase capacity while reducing or eliminating net carbon output and insulating its energy supply from dependence on international supply chains. The question for the country now is: how should public and private resources be directed to provide the United States with an energy system optimized for the current national and international environment? This paper argues that recent advances in geothermal power have made it the technology with superior characteristics for future U.S. energy system development. With its comparative advantages, geothermal power merits an urgent, intense, and dedicated reorientation of U.S. industrial policy, legislation, and resources.
Topic:
Development, Energy Policy, Science and Technology, and Geothermal Power
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

18. China Decoupling Beyond the United States: Comparing Germany, Japan, and India

Author:
Joshua Sullivan and Jon Bateman
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Key U.S. partners are moving toward less technological integration with China. But their specific paths diverge significantly based on domestic circumstances and varied relationships with Beijing.
Topic:
International Relations, Science and Technology, Economy, Regional Integration, and Decoupling
Political Geography:
Japan, China, India, Asia, Germany, and United States of America

19. How to Spend It: European defence for the age of mass precision

Author:
Chris Kremidas-Courtney
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Abstract:
Europe urgently needs to redefine its defence strategy in response to the United States’ growing disengagement from its transatlantic allies. The suspension of US military assistance to Ukraine and calls for increased European self-reliance have forced policymakers to rapidly reassess how to sustain collective security. The European Union’s ReArm EU plan seeks to mobilise €800 billion in national defence spending to meet these challenges, but investments must be made wisely to prepare for future warfare. Modern warfare has entered into an era of mass precision, where forces can achieve the effects of massed firepower through distributed, AI-enabled, and highly accurate weapons systems. Ukraine’s innovative use of drone swarms and precision strikes against Russian forces has demonstrated this shift. China and the US are also leveraging mass precision to reshape the battlefield, making traditional mass-based warfare increasingly obsolete. However, while armoured vehicles, fighter jets, and ships require new protections, they remain essential when integrated into networked, distributed operations. To prepare for this new strategic reality, Europe must: Invest in mass precision and distributed operations – Prioritise drone warfare, deep-strike capabilities, and networked operations. Accelerate investment in the European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA) programme to develop long-range cruise missiles. Build a European command-and-control (C2) system – Reduce reliance on NATO’s US-centric C2 infrastructure. Strengthen Europe’s intelligence capabilities and decision support – Expand European satellite and cyber capabilities and expand analytical capacities. Strengthen air and missile defence – Accelerate the European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI) and deploy cost effective countermeasures such as more cost effective laser-based systems. Build a European military logistics system – Ensure the ability to sustain forces and ensure rapid troop and equipment mobility within Europe. Train and exercise European forces at scale – Conduct large-scale joint exercises to build readiness. Buy Ukrainian – Integrate Ukrainian defence firms into EU supply chains. Buy European – Reduce dependence on US arms while leveraging UK, Norwegian, Canadian and Turkish defence industries. Build a European nuclear umbrella – France and the UK should explore extended deterrence options to protect all European allies in case of further US withdrawal. Build a European blue-water navy – Strengthen and expand European naval capabilities to protect vital sea lanes in addition to supporting territorial defence. Winning the next war, not the last one Europe can no longer afford slow, bureaucratic and fragmented defence spending—it must accelerate, integrate and innovate in order to defend itself in the event that the United States is unable or unwilling to do so. We don’t just need bigger budgets—we need a better strategy. The future of warfare is mass precision and distributed operations, enabled by AI, and supported by capabilities that enable decision, cyber and information dominance. If Europe invests wisely, it can be a technologically advanced, resilient and autonomous military power while remaining a robust pillar of NATO’s collective security. The hour of Europe is now.
Topic:
Defense Policy, European Union, Weapons, Disengagement, and Defense Spending
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America

20. The e-commerce challenge: Is importing low-value consignments going to become more cumbersome in the EU and the US?

Author:
Anna Jerzewska
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Abstract:
In the last few months, terms such as e-commerce and de minimis (threshold below which imported goods are not subject to tariffs) have made headlines both in the EU and in the US. The rapid growth of e-commerce exacerbated problems with this exemption both in the US and in the EU. The first problem is lack of control. Only a percentage of commercial goods are subject to physical border checks, and for e-commerce goods this number is even smaller. Then there is the issue of endangering the level-playing field. De minimis benefits consumers and businesses that rely on it, but harms domestic manufacturers and retail outlets that import in bulk (and thus are subject to full customs and product standards and safety requirements). But can the challenges around the rapid growth of e-commerce be solved by the removal of de minimis? And what would be the consequences of removing the exemption? The paper summarises recent attempts and proposals of removing de minimis in the EU and the US and the challenges faced by both administrations. In both cases, e-commerce is still under discussion and it’s not clear what the final solution will look like. However, there are already noticeable differences in approach.
Topic:
European Union, Trade, Imports, and E-Commerce
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America