Search

Begin New Search Topic International Security Political Geography Europe Publishing Institution Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University

1. A Europe that Protects? U.S. Opportunities in EU Defense

Author:
Seth Johnston
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Europe is pursuing significant new defense initiatives that span capability development, policy, and institutional cooperation. Many of these efforts occur under the auspices of the European Union and are part of the EU’s longstanding aim to grow itself as a security and foreign policy actor. But real security challenges in Europe—from Russian aggression to terrorism and regional instability—have contributed to the importance and potential of European efforts. The political dynamics of the transatlantic relationship may also favor Europe’s initiatives: although the Trump administration’s calls for greater European defense spending have rankled European leaders and U.S. officials have legitimate concerns about the details of EU initiatives, the larger issue of strengthening European defense is consistent with U.S. goals. The EU’s security and defense efforts have implications for the transatlantic economy and defense industry, the NATO alliance, and U.S.-European relations generally. While the United States should work to ensure continued transatlantic defense policy coordination, secure and competitive markets for the defense industry, and preservation of the longstanding principle of ‘no duplication’ with NATO, it should also broadly support European efforts to invest more and more wisely on defense. Both the United States and Europe stand to benefit from greater European defense investment and capability. The history of intra-European and transatlantic differences over European defense cooperation endures in the EU’s current efforts. But today’s environment favors change and represents a rare opportunity for bold action.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, Diplomacy, International Security, Europe, and Transatlantic Relations
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America

2. Power and Profit at Sea: The Rise of the West in the Making of the International System

Author:
J.C. Sharman
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Security
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
The making of the international system from c. 1500 reflected distinctively maritime dynamics, especially “gunboat diplomacy,” or the use of naval force for commercial gain. Comparisons between civilizations and across time show, first, that gunboat diplomacy was peculiarly European and, second, that it evolved through stages. For the majority of the modern era, violence was central to the commercial strategies of European state, private, and hybrid actors alike in the wider world. In contrast, large and small non-Western polities almost never sought to advance mercantile aims through naval coercion. European exceptionalism reflected a structural trade deficit, regional systemic dynamics favoring armed trade, and mercantilist beliefs. Changes in international norms later restricted the practice of gunboat diplomacy to states, as private navies became illegitimate. More generally, a maritime perspective suggests the need for a reappraisal of fundamental conceptual divisions and shows how the capital- and technology-intensive nature of naval war allowed relatively small European powers to be global players. It also explains how European expansion and the creation of the first global international system was built on dominance at sea centuries before Europeans’ general military superiority on land.
Topic:
International Cooperation, International Security, Military Strategy, Military Affairs, Navy, Law of the Sea, and Maritime
Political Geography:
United States and Europe

3. On Political Forgiveness: Some Preliminary Reflections

Author:
Wendy Sherman
Publication Date:
06-2016
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
This policy brief examines political forgiveness, when countries or groups are able to reconcile or set aside historic enmities. The inability to overcome longstanding grievances—however justified and deeply rooted—often undermine a group’s or nation’s current core interests. This lack of forgiveness manifests throughout the world: tribal warfare in South Sudan, hostility between Saudi Arabia and Iran, seemingly irreconcilable differences within the European neighborhood, and the failure to reach a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians. Deep animus often seems to take precedence over interests. What conditions are necessary for political forgiveness, and through what process is it achieved? How is it that some countries, like Germany, have been able to find their way through this thicket, while others, such as Japan, have not—or at least not to a comparable extent? And, in cases of genocide, such as Rwanda, where political forgiveness may well be impossible, should the international community more purposefully examine the social license extended to victims? Ambassador Wendy Sherman makes the case that insights from frameworks of personal forgiveness can help nations seize the moment when their interests align and, accordingly, move to achieve political forgiveness. First, the process of forgiveness requires a sense of justice—victims must feel that perpetrators have been held accountable and will no longer be able to hurt them. It must also be a deep, extended undertaking: when perpetrators offer only superficial acknowledgments of the victims’ pain and attempt to move on quickly, victims perceive those efforts as perfunctory, even disingenuous. Additionally, countries must reestablish genuine, ongoing contact to overcome narratives of “the other” that inhibit forgiveness. They should not assume, however, that political forgiveness will proceed as a linear, three-part process in which the perpetrator issues an apology, the victim accepts the apology, and the two subsequently cultivate their ties on the basis of aligned national interests. This examination finds that the process works best in the reverse order: only upon discerning that their strategic interests happen to align do conflicting countries begin to move toward reconciliation and forgiveness.
Topic:
International Relations, Defense Policy, International Security, and Forgiveness
Political Geography:
Europe and Asia-Pacific