Publishing Institution: Center for Strategic and International Studies / Political Geography: North America / Publication Year: within 5 Years and within 10 Years / Topic:

1. Pariah or Partner? Clarifying the U.S. Approach to Cambodia

Author:: Gregory B. Poling, Charles Dunst, and Simon Tran Hudes
Publication Date:: 06-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: U.S. policy toward Cambodia is conflicted, contradictory, and unsustainable. Is Cambodia an authoritarian pariah to be punished until it undergoes systemic political change? Or is it a necessary partner on the front lines of great-power competition? The U.S. government has spent the last decade torn between righteous indignation over democratic backsliding and pragmatic engagement given U.S. interests in the region. For a while, muddling through was understandable, maybe even wise. The United States only recently cemented a bipartisan consensus on the importance of the wider Indo-Pacific in strategic competition with China. And without that consensus, it was unclear how much Cambodia really mattered to U.S. national interests. Plus, authoritarian shifts under Prime Minister Hun Sen were initially tempered by political compromises. But now it is time to stop muddling. Cambodia sits in a neighborhood too important to ignore. If political change comes to the country, it will be generational and have little or nothing to do with foreign pressure. In the meantime, Washington should not embrace Hun Sen’s regime but should be more strategic in working with it.
Topic:: International Relations, Foreign Policy, Hegemony, and Superpower
Political Geography:: Asia, Cambodia, North America, and United States of America

2. The Lessons of the Afghan War That No One Will Want to Learn

Author:: Anthony H. Cordesman
Publication Date:: 06-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: At the best of times, the U.S. tends to rush out heavily politicized studies of the lessons of war that are more political ammunition than serious analyses, and while these are followed by long formal studies that are often quite good, they then are often ignored as the flow of events moves on. These are scarcely the best of times. The collapse of the Afghan government and forces has occurred during one of the most partisan periods in American politics, followed by a totally different kind of conflict in Ukraine, all while the U.S. focus on terrorism and regional conflicts that began with 9/11 has been replaced by a focus on competition with nuclear superpowers like Russia and China. The very fact that the war stretched out over two decades has meant that much of the focus on lessons has ignored the first half or more of the war, and the almost inevitable chaos following the U.S. decision to withdraw has led to the focus on the collapse of the Afghan forces and the central government rather than on the actual conduct of the war – and few within the U.S. government now want to rake over the list of past mistakes that turned an initial tactical victory into a massive grand strategic defeat.
Topic:: Security, Military Strategy, Military Affairs, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:: Afghanistan, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

3. The Collapse of One China

Author:: Ivan Kanapathy
Publication Date:: 06-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: As the One China policy accommodation unravels and China’s military attains a credible capability to mount a cross-strait invasion, the United States and its allies should stop hedging and adopt enhanced measures to deter Beijing.
Topic:: Security, Military Strategy, Hegemony, and Rivalry
Political Geography:: China, Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

4. Resetting NATO’s Defense and Deterrence: The Sword and the Shield Redux

Author:: Sean Monaghan
Publication Date:: 06-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: There is a saying: “If you want a new idea, read an old book.” For the authors of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) new strategic concept looking for a new approach to its core task of defense and deterrence, the best “old books” to consult might be the seven strategic concepts NATO has published since 1949. The first four of these were classified and made public in 1997.1 Since 1991, three concepts have been published openly, the latest in 2010. This paper examines NATO’s first seven strategic concepts to chart the progress of the alliance’s approach to defense and deterrence. The main purpose of doing so is to give today’s leaders and planners a better understanding of their forebearers’ efforts, to learn their lessons, and avoid their mistakes. The analysis also reveals three broad insights that can be applied today: plan against Russia’s maximum intentions; revitalize the sword and the shield; and modernize the sword and the shield.
Topic:: Security, Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Deterrence
Political Geography:: Europe and North America

5. Genomes: The Era of Purposeful Manipulation Begins

Author:: Carol Kuntz
Publication Date:: 07-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The purposeful manipulation of genomes is now possible. Such manipulation has great promise and broad strategic implications; it is creating useful molecules of various sorts and, over time, it could eliminate genetic disease. Like many emerging technologies, genome manipulation could grow into an important economic sector, contributing to a replicating cycle of innovation and enabling the United States to favorably shape its strategic future at home and abroad. Advances in these technologies are fueled by a global commercial and academic community. The United States should ensure that it fully remains a member of that community, but also that key capabilities—such as large, well-curated databases and biofoundries—are created and sustained domestically. The United States needs to rationalize its policy on heritable human genome editing, allowing legitimate types of edits but contributing to international norms against illegitimate ones. A robust biotechnology sector at home would yield many benefits—economic, technological, medical—and provide the critical reservoir of expertise within which national security interests could be secured. The Department of Defense needs to make structural reforms in its approach to emerging technologies, particularly by creating career paths for uniformed practitioners. Otherwise, it will continue failing in its effort to incorporate emerging technologies into its operational concepts, budgets, and programs—leading to diminished capabilities in the United States, particularly as compared to China. In time, falling behind on these key areas of science could lead to many problems, including failures in deterrence and, ultimately, in war.
Topic:: Security, Science and Technology, and Medicine
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

6. The Need for a New NATO Force Planning Exercise

Author:: Anthony H. Cordesman and Grace Hwang
Publication Date:: 07-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: NATO countries have already provided massive amounts of military aid to Ukraine, deployed additional forces to support the NATO countries that share a border with Russia, improved the Alliance’s ability to rapidly deploy forces forward in a crisis, and worked with key powers like Poland to strengthen its capabilities. NATO has accepted Finland and Sweden as future members of the Alliance, and it has made numerous other short-term adjustments to its force posture that enhance its deterrence and defense capabilities. NATO faces a future, however, where it cannot predict how much territory Ukraine will lose and where it must now view Russia as an ongoing major threat at virtually every level from the limited conventional threats Russia poses to the NATO countries on its border to the major increases in its threat of strategic nuclear forces. NATO cannot continue to treat Russia as a potential partner, and that seems to be an unlikely path forward so long as Putin or anyone like him is in power. NATO also cannot ignore the rise in China’s military and economic power or the prospects of closer Russian and Chinese strategic cooperation. The challenge NATO faces goes far beyond Ukraine. The days in which NATO countries could keep taking peace dividends by cutting their forces, failing to modernize, and failing to adopt new forces of tactics and interoperability are over. NATO cannot deal with the Russian threat in terms of half-measures or by continuing to focus on empty and virtually meaningless force goals like spending 2% of national GDP on defense and 20% of defense expenditure on equipment. NATO needs to act now to look far beyond the short-term priorities of the Ukraine conflict. It needs to revitalize its entire force planning progress. It needs to create effective levels of deterrence and defense capability, while it modernizes its forces to deal with radically new requirements like joint all-domain operations (JADO), emerging and disruptive technologies (EDTs), new precision-strike capabilities, changes in air and missile warfare and defense, and the revival of Russian naval power and the growth of a Chinese blue-water navy. The Emeritus Chair in Strategy has prepared a report, entitled, The Need for a New NATO Force Planning Exercise, that examines how NATO must approach an effective force planning exercise that can give its new strategy real meaning. This report documents the pointless character of NATO’s present emphasis on burdensharing, and it examines the real-world shifts in spending and forces in NATO since 2014, as well as how these changes have affected the national forces in given sectors of Europe.
Topic:: Security, Defense Policy, NATO, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:: Europe and North America

7. North America Is a Region, Too: An Integrated, Phased, and Affordable Approach to Air and Missile Defense for the Homeland

Author:: Tom Karako, Matthew Strohmeyer, Wes Rumbaugh, and Ken Harmon
Publication Date:: 07-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: U.S. air and missile defense efforts have long been characterized by a striking dichotomy. Defenses for the homeland have largely focused on long-range ballistic threats, while cruise missile defense and other air defense efforts have focused on regional and force protection applications to the exclusion of the homeland. This compartmentalization assumes that battles in one place will only consist of certain parts of the threat spectrum, and battles elsewhere will consist only of others. That lingering dichotomy creates a vulnerability that near-peer adversaries now seek to exploit. In a sense, the homeland-regional dichotomy ignores the fact that North America is a region, too. As with any other region, attacks on assets in North America could be designed to shape the political and military calculus of U.S. policymakers. This report explores the strategic significance of air and missile defense for the homeland, considers principles informing defense design, and develops and costs an architecture based on those principles.
Topic:: Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Homeland Security, and Missile Defense
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

8. Securing Semiconductor Supply Chains: An Affirmative Agenda for International Cooperation

Author:: William Alan Reinsch, Emily Benson, and Aidan Arasasingham
Publication Date:: 08-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Technological innovation has been a driving force for U.S. global leadership and economic prosperity for over a century. This legacy of innovation largely stands on the foundation of a key component: semiconductor chips, found today in almost all electronic products. Semiconductors are an integral component of various consumer products across industries, including cars, smartphones, and household appliances. But semiconductors can also be used in dual-use goods—products that have both military and civilian applications—such as air guidance systems for both civilian and military aircraft. The tension between economic gain and security risk inherent within dual-use semiconductor goods is heightened in fields with national security implications, such as supercomputing and artificial intelligence (AI). How the government and private sector manage the global value chains (GVCs) of chips will directly affect U.S. global competitiveness and national security going forward. Given the evolving security relationship between the United States, the Quad, and the European Union, this paper focuses on both Quad and EU countries and the possibilities for friend-shoring in both. It assesses how the EU and U.S. governments can collaborate to avoid duplicative policies that fail to enhance the overall resiliency of transatlantic semiconductor supply chains.
Topic:: International Relations, Science and Technology, European Union, Transatlantic Relations, Supply Chains, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:: Europe and North America

9. Looking beyond the Biden Visit to the Middle East and the “Fist Bump”

Author:: Anthony H. Cordesman
Publication Date:: 08-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: If one looks back on media coverage of Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia – and far too many of the analyses of the visit that have followed – it is amazing to see how much of that coverage focused on the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, the President’s “fist bump,” and on short term issues and trends. The key strategic challenges the U.S. faces in the Middle East are longer term and they go far beyond most of the reporting and discussion of the Biden visit.
Topic:: Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, and Leadership
Political Geography:: Middle East, North America, and United States of America

10. Decisionmaking at the Speed of the Digital Era

Author:: John Schaus and Laura Bocek
Publication Date:: 08-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The United States has stated it is in a strategic competition with China. Analysts and actors identify the need to rapidly iterate through concepts and capabilities to develop new, more effective means of engaging in that competition. At present, however, the Department of Defense underutilizes publicly available data and the software development community to build tools that enable faster modeling, hypothesis testing, and variability analysis than traditional wargaming or modeling alone. This brief describes the speed and utility of developing a simple software tool to stress test a hypothetical People’s Republic of China (PRC) surprise attack against U.S. facilities in the Indo-Pacific.
Topic:: Hegemony, Strategic Interests, Digitalization, and Competition
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

11. Software-Defined Warfare: Architecting the DOD's Transition to the Digital Age

Author:: Nand Mulchandani and John Shanahan
Publication Date:: 09-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD) massive bureaucracy struggles with the kind of periodic “tech refresh” that has been instrumental to commercial industry success. While it is insulated from market competition within the U.S. economy, the DOD is not immune from the kind of revolutionary, secular, and wide-ranging technological changes happening outside the government. Nor is it immune from the threat of competition with other militaries around the world. In the future, warfighting will only become more complex, even more chaotic, and even faster. The only way for the DOD to stay competitive in a new warfighting environment is to ensure that it uses the most potent weapon available: technology, and more specifically, software. For the United States to retain its dominant position in the future— which is not a guaranteed outcome—the DOD needs a new design and architecture that will allow it to be far more flexible, scale on demand, and adapt dynamically to changing conditions. And it must do so at a dramatically lower cost as it delivers its critical services. This paper provides a blueprint for the way forward.
Topic:: Security, Defense Policy, War, Military Strategy, Digitalization, and Software
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

12. The CNO’s Navigation Plan for 2022: A Critique

Author:: Anthony H. Cordesman
Publication Date:: 09-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: There should be a clear difference between efforts to provide unclassified documents that explain and justify U.S. military forces and issuing official reports that are little more than public relations exercises. The U.S. faces major security challenges and the annual cost of U.S. defense is over $760 billion, even if one ignores the cost of nuclear weapons, the Veterans Administration, related activities of the State Department and other agencies, and substantial additional intelligence activity. The effort to shape U.S. forces and strategy must deal with very real threats. They include a Russia that has invaded the Ukraine, a China that is actively seeking to challenge the U.S. in military and economic power, and regional threats like Iran and North Korea. The U.S. must cope with emerging and disruptive technologies that constantly alter the nature of military forces in unexpected ways, support America’s strategic partners on a global level, and deal with near collapse of many arms control efforts and major increases in Russian and Chinese nuclear and long-range strike programs. Far too often, however, the Department of Defense issues documents that are little more than sales pitches – filled with slogans, and that are an awkward cross between a shipping list that borders on being a child’s letter to Santa Claus and a used car commercial. The CNO’s Navigation Plan for 2022 is a case in point. In fairness, does highlight a long list of important points about the threat, and the need to reshape U.S. naval forces, but it comes far too close to burying them in overall and hype. It fails to meaningfully address and justify the cost of the U.S. Navy, to provide any clear picture of the threat, to address the need to cooperate with key U.S. allies, and to provide a clear program for shaping the Navy’s future. It is scarcely unique in failing to provide a clear and meaningful plan. The defense budget requests talk about being strategic documents, but almost all of their contents are shopping lists for individual military services. U.S. strategy documents have become little more than long lists of broad goals and wish lists with no actual plan, program, or budget.
Topic:: Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Public Relations
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

13. Renew SBIR, Just Defend the Recipients against China

Author:: Charles Wessner and Sujai Shivakumar
Publication Date:: 09-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: An April 2021 internal report by the Department of Defense (DOD) found that companies funded by the DOD’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program are being targeted by state-sponsored Chinese firms. Based on an examination of a sampling of SBIR award recipients, the Pentagon study concluded that “nearly all cases show that China, not the U.S., is the ultimate beneficiary of DoD and other U.S. government research investments, some of which are significant in size.” The study’s authors cautioned that the study sample was small and that their methodologies warrant review, but their findings are clearly a matter of concern for U.S. policymakers. This justified concern, however, seems to have morphed into quite a different approach. Citing the Pentagon study’s findings, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), the senior Republican on the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, said in June 2022 that he would not support reauthorizing the SBIR program “without reforms to strengthen research security and stop abusive behavior by bad actors lining their pockets with taxpayer dollars.” In a move unrelated to national security, Senator Paul and several other lawmakers are also seeking limits on the number of awards that can be made to individual SBIR companies. (There is no empirical basis for such a restriction, nor could it be effectively implemented, but the proposed measure emerges anew as SBIR comes up for reauthorization.) The risks, however, are real. The Wall Street Journal reported in July that SBIR and the related Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program face “an overhaul or outright extinction” if Congress does not renew their budgets and funding runs out at the end of September. The DOD has already canceled a round of SBIR award solicitations “because of uncertainty over the program’s future.”
Topic:: Security, Defense Policy, Intellectual Property/Copyright, Business, and Rivalry
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

14. Civics for Adults: A Guide for Civics Content Providers

Author:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Publication Date:: 09-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: This guide is focused on fostering greater understanding among adults of the nuts and bolts of our democratic republic and how individuals can and must hold institutions accountable and move us toward a more perfect union. Reinvigorating civics knowledge and civic skills has become a national and economic security imperative. The urgency requires reaching not just K-12 students but also adults. This guide is for civics experts and content providers developing or adapting civics resources to engage adults in their workplaces and their communities. The guide can also be used by businesses, government (including the military), and others seeking to provide civics knowledge and skills to employees, partners, and associates
Topic:: Education, Democracy, and Civic Engagement
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

15. The Importance of Democracy Promotion to Great Power Competition in Latin America and the Caribbean

Author:: Rebecca Aaberg
Publication Date:: 09-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: There are many reasons to believe democracy and democracy promotion are imperative in the great power competition with China, which is occurring with ever-greater intensity in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). LAC has played host to great power competition in previous eras, but in grand strategic terms, competition with China in the twenty-first century is fundamentally different than the rivalry of the Cold War against Soviet Russia. Whereas during the Cold War the United States supported friendly, anti-communist military regimes in LAC, success against China in the twenty-first century will necessitate robust support for democracy, liberal institutions, and democracy promotion. The Kirkpatrick Doctrine—which advocated for supporting “friendly authoritarian” regimes that went along with Washington’s aims—applied so deliberately to LAC during the Cold War, is outmoded and likely to be highly counterproductive today. On the contrary, there are many reasons to believe that successfully countering China in great power competition will be intimately linked to the democratic health of LAC as a region. This is the democracy imperative. This paper begins with background on U.S. policy toward LAC during the Cold War. Then, it places the question of a Kirkpatrick Doctrine for the twenty-first century within the context of great power competition with China and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has prompted the Biden administration to consider re-engaging pariah regimes such as the Maduro dictatorship in Venezuela. The paper will then adumbrate reasons why great power competition with China is fundamentally different than previous iterations of competition against Soviet Russia, which saw U.S. support for anti-communist military regimes.
Topic:: Security, Hegemony, Democracy, and Competition
Political Geography:: Latin America, Caribbean, North America, and United States of America

16. Of Ships and Cyber: Transposing the Incidents at Sea Agreement

Author:: Alexander Klimburg
Publication Date:: 09-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Amid the geopolitical crises caused by Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, it may seem wildly optimistic—or even bad diplomacy—to consider future arms-control scenarios for cyber operations. However, good policy needs to prepare for the day after tomorrow, and smart policy will look at what has gone wrong today and what can be learned from yesterday. Arguably, one element that may have contributed to rising geopolitical tensions over the past decade has been a lack of clear cyber signals among the main adversaries. This makes it even more urgent to consider what can be learned from past arms-control exercises such as the vaunted Incidents at Sea (INCSEA) Agreement—especially as this accord was conceived in the wake of several of its own perilous crises. In 1962, a lack of agreed signaling protocols nearly led to World War III. According to a riveting account in the 2020 book Nuclear Folly, 1 on October 27, 1962—at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis—the U.S. Navy cornered one of the few Soviet submarines unaccounted for off Cuba. In an effort to convince the Foxtrot-class B-59 submarine to surface, the destroyer USS Cony employed practice depth charges—which were not accurately identified as such by B-59’s beleaguered crew. When, in the middle of the night, the submarine did indeed surface, a low-flying anti-submarine aircraft dropped flares and pyrotechnics so it could take better photographs. This seemed like an attack to the submarine, and the exhausted captain of B-59 ordered a crash dive and speculated that perhaps the war had already broken out. He gave orders to prepare to launch a 10-kiloton nuclear torpedo at the U.S. Navy task force. It took a near-mutiny by senior officers to stop him. This close call remained unknown until fairly recently. But several more prominent naval incidents throughout 1960s convinced the Soviet Union and the United States that a basic common agreement was necessary, and the Cold War “thaw” of the early 1970s made this possible.
Topic:: Security, Defense Policy, Cybersecurity, and Conflict
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America

17. It's Moving Time: Taiwanese Business Responds to Growing U.S.-China Tensions

Author:: Scott Kennedy
Publication Date:: 10-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: A new report by the CSIS Trustee Chair in Chinese Business and Economics interprets a formal survey of over 500 Taiwanese business executives, documenting their views about the evolving environment on the island and beyond. The Washington policy community is quite familiar with the views that U.S. and European companies hold toward China, but less clear are the views of Taiwanese companies that are central to the story of the world’s interaction with China. Their opinions have implications for Taiwan’s economic trajectory, cross-strait relations, global supply chains, and the effectiveness of U.S. policy in the region. The report documents that Taiwanese companies are highly concerned about their potential overdependence on the Chinese economy and the possibility of a military conflict. As a result, there is significant support for expanding trade and investment ties via regional arrangements and bilaterally with the United States, as well as for maintaining Taiwan’s technological edge through more spending on research and development and broadening restrictions for technology transfer to China. But perhaps the most noteworthy finding is that Taiwanese companies appear to be moving their businesses at record levels from Mainland China, but also from Taiwan. This report, by Trustee Chair Scott Kennedy, explains how the survey was carried out, then analyzes the sources of Taiwanese companies’ anxieties and the ways they are responding, and concludes by considering the policy implications for all parties involved. The report’s appendix provides a full summary of the original survey results.
Topic:: Security, Defense Policy, Territorial Disputes, Business, Conflict, and Rivalry
Political Geography:: China, Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

18. Reshoring Semiconductor Manufacturing: Addressing the Workforce Challenge

Author:: Sujai Shivakumar, Charles Wessner, and Thomas Howell
Publication Date:: 10-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: On August 9, 2022, President Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act, sweeping legislation that seeks to strengthen the U.S. semiconductor supply chain, encourage investments in semiconductor manufacturing facilities in the United States, stimulate semiconductor research and development (R&D), and disincentivize U.S. investments in chip-making plants in China. Among other things, the legislation will provide $52.7 billion in federal outlays over five years for loans, loan guarantees, grants, and other financial support for domestic chip-making investments, as well as a 25 percent tax credit for semiconductor investments in the United States. Bolstered by this unprecedented level of federal support, six major chip makers are investing in new wafer fabrication facilities (“fabs”) in the United States: Intel, Samsung, TSMC, GlobalFoundries, Texas Instruments, and Micron Technology.
Topic:: Science and Technology, Manufacturing, Industrialization, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

19. Choking off China’s Access to the Future of AI

Author:: Gregory Allen
Publication Date:: 10-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: On October 7, 2022, the Biden administration announced a new export controls policy on artificial intelligence (AI) and semiconductor technologies to China. These new controls—a genuine landmark in U.S.-China relations—provide the complete picture after a partial disclosure in early September generated confusion. For weeks the Biden administration has been receiving criticism in many quarters for a new round of semiconductor export control restrictions, first disclosed on September 1. The restrictions block leading U.S. AI computer chip designers, such as Nvidia and AMD, from selling their high-end chips for AI and supercomputing to China. The criticism typically goes like this: China’s domestic AI chip design companies could not win customers in China because their chip designs could not compete with Nvidia and AMD on performance. Chinese firms could not catch up to Nvidia and AMD on performance because they did not have enough customers to benefit from economies of scale and network effects. Because of the new export controls, revenues that formerly flowed to U.S. chip companies will now go to Chinese chip companies, offering a viable path to economies of scale and competitive performance. In the short term, this policy will significantly harm Chinese AI data center companies. However, blocking U.S. AI chip designers from selling their world-leading chips is actually good for China in the longer term because it will strengthen China’s domestic chip design ecosystem. While the reasoning in this criticism is sound, it does not imply that the Biden administration’s actions are self-defeating. Rather, it shows how the policy as disclosed in September was incomplete. A policy like this would not make sense if that is the only step the administration planned to take. Clearly something was missing, and industry experts have been waiting for the other shoe to drop ever since. On October 7, the other shoe dropped. The Biden administration announced a massive policy shift on semiconductor exports to China as well as revised rules for how the lists of restricted parties are managed. In recent decades, U.S. semiconductor policy has been primarily market driven and laissez faire. With the new policy, which comes on the heels of the CHIPS Act’s passage, the United States is firmly focused on retaining control over so-called “chokepoint” (or as it is sometimes translated from Chinese “stranglehold”) technologies in the global semiconductor technology supply chain. The most important chokepoints in the context of this discussion are AI chip designs, electronic design automation software, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and equipment components. The Biden administration’s latest actions simultaneously exploit U.S. dominance across all four of these chokepoints. In doing so, these actions demonstrate an unprecedented degree of U.S. government intervention to not only preserve chokepoint control but also begin a new U.S. policy of actively strangling large segments of the Chinese technology industry—strangling with an intent to kill.
Topic:: Science and Technology, Hegemony, Artificial Intelligence, Rivalry, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

20. Engines of Prosperity: The Promise of the Zones for Employment and Economic Development (ZEDEs) in Honduras Image

Author:: Ryan C. Berg and Matthew Carusi
Publication Date:: 10-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Special economic zones (SEZs) are autonomous zones designed to facilitate free-trade operations. SEZs can be broken down into the following types of zones: free-trade zones, which are duty-free areas to warehouse and transit goods; enterprise zones, which provide tax benefits to underperforming industries; specialized zones, which include technology parks; and freeports—the largest type of economic zones, combining work and residential spaces. A 2008 World Bank report defined SEZs as having the following characteristics: a geographically secured area, a single management system, eligibility for benefits based on the location within the zone, and a separate customs area. Advocates of SEZs argue that they can improve a country’s economic standing by making it more competitive on the global stage. One way to achieve this goal is by improving a country’s infrastructure. Building out more extensive road networks or port systems is beneficial not only for businesses operating inside the SEZ, but also for the entire country’s future economic trajectory. Another argument in favor of SEZs is that they strengthen a country’s institutional framework. In developing countries, this narrative can be particularly relevant because weak institutions often constrain foreign investors from making large-scale commitments. SEZs attempt to fill this gap by increasing the efficiency of the regulatory frameworks, property rights, and investment flows. Since a wealth of SEZs are awarded a certain level of legal autonomy, establishing these unique governance structures can be arranged. SEZs offer similar advantages for streamlining efficiency in the labor market. Wages can be more flexible and the process of hiring and firing employees can become easier. Workers can further be attracted by the availability of better healthcare and education systems, as well as by the availability of internet or phone services. All these factors are crucial in attracting the best possible talent, both domestically and internationally, giving them reasons to set up operations inside an SEZ. The intended results of these characteristics are that GDP per capita within the SEZ would increase substantially and that surrounding areas would be able to reap these rewards. These are known as spillover effects, wherein new influxes of foreign and intellectual capital would spill over into the surrounding communities. However, the verdict on this subject is less clear. According to a 2017 World Bank study, the literature on SEZs does not confirm a clear link between achieving widespread spillovers and increasing regional employment levels. There is more evidence to support the claim that limited spillover effects exist in surrounding areas up to 50 kilometers outside the SEZ.
Topic:: Development, Economics, Employment, and Special Economic Zones
Political Geography:: Central America, North America, and Honduras

21. The Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. Initiative: An Interim Assessment and Policy Recommendations

Author:: Jeffrey L. Sturchio, Mackenzie Burke, and Maclane Speer
Publication Date:: 10-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. (EHE) initiative is a promising federal program launched by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in February 2019 with the aim of reducing new HIV infections by 75 percent by 2025 and 90 percent by 2030 (from a baseline of more than 38,000 new diagnoses in 2017). While the EHE initiative set ambitious targets for ending the HIV epidemic in the United States in the context of a sound and sensible plan, it is at present off track. Now, three years in—at the midpoint of the first EHE phase, which has a target of reducing new HIV infections to 9,250 people or fewer by 2025—is an opportune moment to assess its status and the challenges it faces. After a review of progress to date, this report examines the collision between the logical plan behind the EHE initiative and the complicated patchwork of programs that provide HIV prevention, care, and treatment to the diverse communities affected across all EHE jurisdictions. The analysis is informed by several roundtable discussions convened by CSIS with the participation of a representative group of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), community advocates, physicians, service providers, researchers, and policymakers who are implementing the EHE initiative around the country. The report concludes with policy recommendations in four areas: (1) meet people where they are by building programs that are centered on the needs of populations directly affected by the HIV epidemic; (2) address flexibility in design and implementation; (3) improve data, metrics, and accountability; and (4) heighten political advocacy to ensure future funding of the EHE initiative. A strong theme that runs throughout the report is that lessons from the global HIV response—the importance of building interventions from the ground up, of engaging with affected communities, and of taking an integrated approach across a spectrum of biomedical, clinical, social, behavioral, economic, and political dimensions—can inform and strengthen the U.S. domestic response to HIV/AIDS.
Topic:: HIV/AIDS, Health, Medicine, and Epidemic
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

22. Keeping the U.S. Military Engine Edge: Budget and Contract Trends

Author:: Gregory Sanders and Nicholas Velazquez
Publication Date:: 10-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Military aircraft engine technology is a qualitative edge for the United States, one enabled by a world-leading industrial base. However, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) faces critical decisions regarding the future of engine investments and the industrial base of the F-35. This platform dominates present U.S. tactical aircraft purchases and faces a growing engine modernization imperative. The following questions help inform key debates: How does the DOD prioritize investments in engines compared to other systems? Where is investment targeted? And how can competition best be fostered? Recent years have shown a spike in the purchase of products for military engines amid a decline in research and development (R&D) spending relative to the early 2000s. Military engine R&D is now largely dependent on the Air Force, as the Navy has taken a step back to focus funding on other service priorities. Finally, competition for military engine contract spending has been on the decline as the F-35, with its single-engine option, dominates the procurement landscape. The future of the military engine industrial base will be shaped by the DOD’s choice between spending more up front to introduce competition into the fifth-generation fighter fleet or waiting until the end of this decade as the first sixth-generation fighter is expected to enter production.
Topic:: Security, Defense Policy, Science and Technology, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

23. A Seismic Shift: The New U.S. Semiconductor Export Controls and the Implications for U.S. Firms, Allies, and the Innovation Ecosystem

Author:: Sujai Shivakumar, Charles Wessner, and Thomas Howell
Publication Date:: 11-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: On October 7, 2022, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced sweeping revisions to its export controls, which are aimed at restricting China’s ability to obtain certain high-end semiconductor devices with potential military applications, develop and maintain supercomputers, and manufacture advanced semiconductor devices. This announcement, the most expansive export control action in decades, represents a fundamental shift in the traditional strategy underlying the U.S. and allied export control regime. As National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan put it , until now, “we previously maintained a ‘sliding scale’ approach that said we need to stay only a couple of generations ahead. That is not the strategic environment we are in today. Given the foundational nature of certain technologies, such as advanced logic and memory chips, we must maintain as large of a lead as possible.” In effect, the new measures are intended to dramatically slow, if not freeze Chinese developmental capability.
Topic:: Science and Technology, Innovation, Rivalry, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

24. Baltic Conflict: Russia’s Goal to Distract NATO?

Author:: Courtney Stiles Herdt and Matthew "BINCS" Zublic
Publication Date:: 11-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The Baltics are a key strategic region where the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russian military and economic interests overlap. Sabotage of the Nordstream 2 pipeline, regardless of who executed the attack, has signaled that conflict in the region is no longer left of bang. Gray zone operations are underway, and the United States, NATO, and their partners need to be ready to act in unity against an increasingly hostile Russia that is now trying to distract attention from its military shortcomings in Ukraine. In this effort, Russia’s playbook will test the limits and try to exploit the seams of the alliance. An exacting response is needed to deny Russia control and ensure full conflict is avoided. The NATO summit in Vilnius will be critical to strengthening resolve and a path forward to a combined strategy to deter further Russian aggression.
Topic:: Security, Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, North America, and Baltic States

25. A World in Crisis: The “Winter Wars” of 2022–2023

Author:: Anthony H. Cordesman and Paul Cormarie
Publication Date:: 11-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: t is obvious that the world now faces a wide range of potential wars and crises. What is far less obvious is the level of confrontation between the U.S. and its strategic partners with both Russia and China, the rising levels of other types of violence that are emerging on a global level, how serious these wars and crises can become, and what kind of future could eventually emerge out of so many different crises, confrontations and conflicts, and trends. These issues are addressed in depth in a new analysis by the Emeritus Chair in Strategy at the CSIS entitled A World in Crisis: The “Winter Wars” of 2022–2023. This analysis explores the risk on the basis that war does not have to mean actual military conflict. Here, it is important to note that avoiding or minimizing combat is scarcely peace. As Sun Tzu pointed out in the Art of War well over 2,000 years ago, “war” does not have to involve the use of military force or any form of actual combat. His statement that “the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting” applies to every form of major military confrontation and gray area warfare between opposing powers. It recognizes that it is all too easy to predict dire outcomes from the War in Ukraine, the current arms races with Russia and China, and growing levels of violence and confrontation between other states. There is still a case, however, for examining the broader impact of the war, the growing intensity of the arms races with Russia and China, and the current overall patterns of global conflict as the world enters the winter of 2022-2023. It is already clear that this will be a deeply troubled winter in many areas of the globe, that the level of confrontation between major powers has risen sharply, that they do seek to subdue the enemy without fighting, and their rivalry has become the equivalent of political and economic warfare. It is equally clear that the wide range of lower-level conflicts between other powers, their civil wars, and the abuses many governments commit against their own citizens are also intensifying, although many of these conflicts have been going on in some form for years or even decades. In far too many cases, the world is not moving toward peace. It is moving towards repression and war. Accordingly, this analysis argues that the world already faces a series of possible and ongoing “Winter Wars” in 2022-2023 that may not escalate to open military conflict but that are wars at the political and economic level and in competition to build-up more lethal military forces both for deterrence and to exert political leverage. It also shows that these “Wars” already pose serious risks and could escalate sharply and in unpredictable ways for at least the next five to ten years.
Topic:: Security, Military Strategy, Rivalry, and Competition
Political Geography:: Russia, China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America

26. U.S.–China Relations in the Tank: A Handbook for an Era of Persistent Confrontation

Author:: Michael J. Mazarr
Publication Date:: 11-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Edited by Jude Blanchette of CSIS and Hal Brands of SAIS, the Marshall Papers is a series of essays that probes and challenges the assessments underpinning the U.S. approach to great power rivalry. The Papers will be rigorous yet provocative, continually pushing the boundaries of intellectual and policy debates. In this Marshall Paper, Michael J. Mazarr argues that amid escalating U.S.-China tensions, American policymakers are gravely underprepared to manage the episodic crises that form an inevitable part of great power rivalry. Effective crisis response can not only prevent escalation, but also strengthen U.S. strategic advantage within the larger rivalry. Drawing lessons from the Cold War, Mazarr distills six principles to guide crisis management among U.S. policymakers navigating an increasingly crisis-prone U.S.-China relationship.
Topic:: Security, Rivalry, Strategic Interests, and Competition
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

27. Implications of the European Union’s Digital Regulations on U.S. and EU Economic and Strategic Interests

Author:: Kati Suominen
Publication Date:: 11-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: In recent months, the European Union has adopted several sweeping digital regulations, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), while proposing a number of new measures—including the Data Act, the Artificial Intelligence Act, and the Media Freedom Act. These regulations will shape, likely quite dramatically, the environment for doing digital business in Europe and beyond. They will have profound implications on the leading U.S. digital service providers designated by the European Union as “gatekeepers”—large digital services providers that are expected to adhere to regulatory requirements—as well as these companies’ hundreds of millions of transatlantic European business and individual customers. By impacting primarily U.S. companies instead of Asian or European ones, Europe’s digital policies will also shape U.S. and European global strategic and national security interests. This study will assess the potential implications of new and proposed EU digital acts on U.S. digital service providers, on their customers in Europe and the United States, and on the EU and U.S. economies and exports.
Topic:: European Union, Regulation, Regionalism, Strategic Interests, and Digitalization
Political Geography:: Europe, North America, and United States of America

28. Growing Challenges, Rising Ambitions: AUSMIN 2022 and Expanding U.S.-Australia Cooperation

Author:: Charles Edel and Lam Tran
Publication Date:: 12-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: On December 6, 2022, the U.S. secretaries of state and defense, Antony Blinken and Lloyd Austin, will host their Australian counterparts, Penny Wong and Richard Marles, at the 32nd iteration of AUSMIN—the annual Australian-U.S. Ministerial Consultations. Taking place against a backdrop of increasing geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges, AUSMIN 2022 not only is a platform to facilitate dialogue among top leaders from the United States but also can serve as an enabling mechanism—harnessing shared values to propel a vision for the region forward. This CSIS report, Growing Challenges, Rising Ambitions: AUSMIN 2022 and Expanding U.S.-Australia Cooperation, examines a range of pathways for U.S.-Australia cooperation to evolve and deepen. Covering economic, technological, diplomatic, development, and defense topics, the 18 essays in this report outline the state of play on each topic, frame the most salient questions and challenges, and offer concrete recommendations for advancing the alliance.
Topic:: Security, International Cooperation, Leadership, and Alliance
Political Geography:: Australia, North America, and United States of America

29. NATO and the South after Ukraine

Author:: Pierre Morcos
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The war in Ukraine will have a pervasive impact on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which is set to adopt a new strategic concept at the upcoming Madrid summit in June 2022. There is little doubt that adapting the alliance’s deterrence and defense posture in Eastern Europe will be a strategic priority on the road to Madrid. However, the alliance should not neglect other challenges and priorities, including preserving stability in its southern neighborhood. Spanning from North Africa and the Sahel to the Balkans and the Middle East, NATO’s “South” remains fraught with growing vulnerabilities—and is not impervious to the broader strategic competition with Russia and China. Rather than transforming NATO into a unidirectional entity, the future strategic concept offers the alliance an opportunity to reimagine its approach toward the South.
Topic:: Defense Policy, NATO, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Alliance
Political Geography:: Europe, Ukraine, North America, and Global South

30. The Department of Defense Contributions to Pandemic Response

Author:: Tom Cullison and J. Stephen Morrison
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The Department of Defense (DOD) should be systematically incorporated into any evolving U.S. government vision on international health security. A process of strategic planning that encompasses a spectrum of valuable DOD contributions to contain the global Covid-19 pandemic should begin right away. DOD has broad capabilities that have consistently proven their high value in addressing the current Covid-19 pandemic and other historical disease outbreaks, in support of the U.S. civilian-led response. The knowledge and experience gained in crisis response at home and overseas contribute to military readiness and improved coordination of all actors involved in preventing, detecting, and responding to infectious disease events. This report draws from months of deliberations organized by the CSIS Commission on Strengthening America’s Health Security’s DOD Working Group. It lays out four concrete and pragmatic recommendations to strengthen DOD’s contributions overseas in advancing U.S. global health security interests
Topic:: Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

31. Securing Medical Supply Chains with Trusted Trade Partners

Author:: Meredith Broadbent
Publication Date:: 04-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: There is bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill and in the Biden administration regarding excessive dependence on Chinese manufacturing and production. An extension of this is that diversification of supply chains for certain medical products will make U.S. citizens more secure in fighting future infectious diseases. The highly disrupted international economic environment, reeling from supply and demand dislocations unleashed by the pandemic, U.S.-China trade conflicts, and war in Eastern Europe, is prompting certain countries in the Western Hemisphere to seize the occasion to aggressively market themselves as attractive hosts for foreign direct investment looking to move closer to the U.S. market. It is an opportune time for the United States to shape some of the larger forces of global economic disruption, including the movement of investment and production capital. It is time to forge enhanced trade links and diversified supply chains with friends and allies to promote health security, stronger economic and diplomatic engagement, commitments to exchange of data on production, and best practices in fighting disease. This paper breaks down CSIS’s analyses on the capacity for nearshoring in Canada, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico.
Topic:: International Trade and Finance, Manufacturing, Medicine, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

32. The Caribbean in the Crossfire Between Covid-19, Narcotics, China, and Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

Author:: R. Evan Ellis
Publication Date:: 04-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The Caribbean is strategically vital as the southeast maritime approach to the United States. It is a key hub and transit area for commercial logistics serving the eastern coast of the United States as well as the Atlantic side of Central and South America. The region is connected to the United States through ties of commerce, geography, and family. Not only is the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico situated centrally in the Caribbean between the Dominican Republic and the Leeward Antilles islands, but significant diasporas of Cubans, Jamaicans, Dominicans, Haitians, and others are found in U.S. communities, from South Florida to New York and New Jersey and beyond. The United States relies on good governance in the Caribbean and partnership on a range of national security issues, including the entry of illegal narcotics (principally moving north from Colombia and Venezuela) and other contraband goods. Even more importantly, the Caribbean touches—or is proximate to—a substantial number of important U.S. ports and military facilities, such as Jacksonville, Florida; Savannah and Kings Bay, Georgia; Charleston, South Carolina; and Norfolk, Virginia. Not only are these facilities critical to U.S. international maritime commerce, but military facilities in some of those areas play important roles in the deployment and sustainment of forces in a range of potential conflicts, be they in Africa, Europe, or Asia. Indeed, during the wars of the previous century, German submarines sought to operate in or near the Caribbean in order to put U.S. facilities and ship convoys at risk.
Topic:: Security, Narcotics Trafficking, Military Intervention, Drugs, and COVID-19
Political Geography:: Latin America, Caribbean, and North America

33. Strategic Competition in the Financial Gray Zone

Author:: Heather A Conley, James Andrew Lewis, Eugenia Lostri, and Donatienne Ruy
Publication Date:: 04-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Over the past 10 years, the U.S. government has slowly reoriented its foreign and security policy from the fight against global terrorism toward strategic competition with Russia and China. This reorientation has been accompanied by a new examination of how strategic competition will impact the integrity and future stability of the U.S. economy and financial system. One of the most important elements of strategic competition is sub-threshold warfare (also called asymmetric, hybrid, or gray zone warfare), wherein strategic competitors seek to shape the geostrategic environment in their favor, from information operations to economic warfare—which includes such tools as illicit finance and strategic corruption. Strategic competitors present a clear economic and financial threat to the United States when they operate in the emerging financial gray zone, in which malign actors can take advantage of the U.S. financial system to further their aims and disarm the country internally. The U.S. government, along with its allies, has only begun to acknowledge the sweeping nature of the financial gray zone and to reposition itself to compete within it. Because adversaries exploit the seams between the internal and external policies and authorities, Washington must have greater insights into a complex operating system and better integrate data across the many relevant agencies—in a way, connecting the financial dots. As it develops this comprehensive picture, the U.S. government should develop stronger defensive and offensive policy tools to counter this emerging threat.
Topic:: Economics, Finance, Strategic Competition, and Rivalry
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

34. Regional Perspectives on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework

Author:: Matthew Goodman and Aidan Arasasingham
Publication Date:: 04-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) is the Biden administration’s answer to questions about the United States’ economic commitment to the vital Indo-Pacific region. For this initiative to succeed, it must address concerns among regional partners about the framework’s form, function, benefits, inclusivity, and durability. Based on conversations with representatives from over a dozen regional governments, this brief summarizes Indo-Pacific perspectives on the IPEF.
Topic:: Economics, International Trade and Finance, Regional Cooperation, and Regionalism
Political Geography:: North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

35. Equity and Diversity in the Nation's Cyber Workforce: Policy Recommendations for Addressing Data Gaps

Author:: Irving Lachow
Publication Date:: 04-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: U.S.-based businesses and government agencies face a shortage of between 350,000 and 600,000 cybersecurity professionals, and 56 percent of companies believe that their staffing shortfalls put them at moderate or extreme risk. Focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) can help organizations address that shortage by increasing the pool of available talent. Beyond the social good that comes with successful implementation of DEI policies, a 2018 McKinsey & Company report notes that organizations can also realize a positive impact on growth and performance. This is due to improved problem solving and idea generation: “Diverse teams have been shown to be more likely to radically innovate and anticipate shifts in consumer needs and consumption patterns—helping their companies to gain a competitive edge.” These benefits carry over to the cybersecurity realm. A diverse workforce can contribute to a better understanding of user behavior and the ever-evolving threat landscape. Additionally, diverse representation can help organizations identify and address implicit biases that may be impacting their ability to hire and retain talent, develop new products and services, and understand market demand across a broader demographic base. MITRE recently conducted a study, funded by the Hewlett Foundation, that examined the current state of data on the diversity of the nation’s cyber workforce. The results of that study point to a data gap that needs to be addressed
Topic:: Labor Issues, Diversity, Labor Market, Cyberspace, and Equity
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

36. Space Threat Assessment 2022

Author:: Todd Harrison, Kaitlyn Johnson, Makena Young, Nicholas Wood, and Alyssa Goessler
Publication Date:: 04-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Welcome to the fifth edition of Space Threat Assessment by the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Over the past five years, this assessment has used open-source information to track the developments of counterspace weapons that threaten U.S. national security interests in space. The United States has relied heavily on its space infrastructure since the first satellites were launched to track and monitor nuclear missile launches during the Cold War. Over the past six decades, the United States has grown more reliant on the information, situational awareness, and connectivity provided by military, civil, and commercial space systems. It should be no surprise that these assets are a target for adversaries attempting to gain asymmetric military advantage. The Space Threat Assessment is critical to understanding the changing nature of the space domain and monitoring trends in space and counterspace weapons.
Topic:: Security, Military Strategy, Governance, and Space
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

37. Defense Acquisition Trends 2021

Author:: Gregory Sanders, Won Joon Jang, and Alexander Holderness
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Defense Acquisition Trends 2021 is the latest in an annual series of reports examining trends in what the DoD is buying, how the DoD is buying it, and from whom the DoD is buying using data from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). This report analyzes the current state of affairs in defense acquisition by combining detailed policy and data analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of the current and future outlook for defense acquisition. It provides critical insights into understanding the current trends in the defense-industrial base and the implications of those trends on acquisition policy.
Topic:: Defense Policy, Industrial Policy, Military Strategy, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

38. The Two Technospheres Western-Chinese Technology Decoupling: Implications for Cybersecurity

Author:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Decoupling of digital innovation, systems, and data flows between Western nations and China is a growing global issue with high potential to destabilize the digital world. Through a series of workshops and an analysis of existing efforts, the Multilateral Cyber Action Committee (MCAC) has provided an assessment on the current status of technology decoupling and the growing divergence of the Western and Chinese technospheres. The report provides a set of recommendations for action to mitigate the growing cybersecurity risks posed by technology decoupling.
Topic:: Security, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, and Rivalry
Political Geography:: China, Europe, Asia, and North America

39. Beyond Foreign Military Sales: Opportunities to Enhance Japan-U.S. Defense Industrial Cooperation

Author:: Takashi Kodaira
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The security environment in the Indo-Pacific region is becoming increasingly severe due to China’s growing military power. Further cooperation between the Japanese and U.S. defense industries will strengthen deterrence, although Japan’s defense industry is currently in a difficult situation, with domestic procurement stagnating. For Japan to fully take advantage of its role in the U.S.-Japan alliance, it must maintain and strengthen the defense industry through defense industrial cooperation with the United States. This report examines trend lines in Japan’s defense industrial strategy and potential avenues for bilateral cooperation to enhance capabilities critical to managing complex security challenges facing the U.S.-Japan alliance.
Topic:: Defense Policy, Industrial Policy, Military Strategy, Defense Industry, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

40. A Shared Responsibility: Public-Private Cooperation for Cybersecurity

Author:: Eugenia Lostri, James Andrew Lewis, and Georgia Wood
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Cybersecurity is a priority for Congress and for the Biden administration as online crime and espionage reach unparalleled heights. To improve cybersecurity in federal agencies and in critical infrastructure, the administration has built a strong team, elevated the positions of White House officials dealing with the issue, and released a series of policy directives. In Congress, 157 pieces of legislation addressing cybersecurity were introduced during 2021, with proposals ranging from capacity building and workforce development to updating federal policy. Crime and espionage have made cybersecurity a national priority, and action on cybersecurity is more likely than ever in 2022. CSIS convened two private roundtables with senior government officials and senior information security executives from major enterprises in a range of U.S. industry sectors. The goals of the roundtables were to identify common challenges, discuss best practices, and outline avenues for cooperation.
Topic:: Security, Infrastructure, Governance, Cybersecurity, and Public-Private Partnership
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

41. The Case for Cooperation: The Future of the U.S.-UK Intelligence Alliance

Author:: Jake Harrington and Riley McCabe
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Over the past 75 years, the United States and the United Kingdom have built the deepest intelligence alliance in the world. Despite decades of cooperation, however, there exists today a significant misalignment between the strategic prioritization of this “special relationship” and the regulations, policies, organizational cultures, and technologies that facilitate its day-to-day activities. This report’s recommendations are designed to encourage the adoption of policies, procedures, and tools that will enable the United States and the United Kingdom to achieve the deep level of collaboration they have repeatedly committed to in bilateral agreements, national security strategies, and intelligence guidance. If allies and partners are an indispensable pillar of both nations’ strategies to challenge rising and revanchist authoritarianism and other threats, then the U.S. and UK intelligence communities should jointly pursue robust interoperability that appropriately balances risk with opportunity.
Topic:: Intelligence, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Alliance
Political Geography:: United Kingdom, Europe, North America, and United States of America

42. Measuring Congressional Impact on Defense Acquisition Funding

Author:: Seamus P. Daniels and Todd Harrison
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Congress exercises its oversight authority on the executive branch’s defense policy via the appropriations process and can choose to match, modify, or eliminate the Department of Defense’s (DoD) requested funding levels for acquisition programs primarily funded by the procurement and research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) accounts. Congress’s decisions in this process can have a significant impact on the executive branch’s defense plans by making adjustments to acquisition projects’ program of record. This in turn can force DoD program management teams to alter schedules and contracting actions, causing second-order effects on private sector partners in the acquisition process. To measure Congress’s impact on defense acquisition funding, this study compares the actual funding level for procurement and RDT&E accounts with the original level proposed in the administration’s budget request and identifies patterns in which accounts are regularly adjusted by Congress. It assesses procurement and RDT&E accounts between fiscal year (FY) 2001 and FY 2020 and conducts data cuts of acquisition funding at the account, category, military department, and budget activity levels. This analysis ultimately aims to inform defense planners, acquisition officials and program managers, and industry partners of trends in congressional appropriations for defense so they can better anticipate Congress’s impact on defense acquisition funding.
Topic:: Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Legislation, Defense Industry, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

43. U.S. Military Forces in FY 2022: Peering into the Abyss

Author:: Mark F. Cancian
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: CSIS senior adviser Mark Cancian annually produces a series of white papers on U.S. military forces, including their composition, new initiatives, long-term trends, and challenges. This report is a compilation of these papers. It takes a deep look at each military service, as well as special operations forces, DOD civilians, and contractors in the FY 2022 budget. This report also discusses the debate about legacy equipment, the interaction of the budget and force size, and the decline in force size that the services face with retiring older systems without adequate replacements.
Topic:: Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Defense Industry, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

44. Securing Intellectual Property for Innovation and National Security

Author:: Sujai Shivakumar
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The United States is engaged in a global competition for innovation, with critical implications for the nation’s continued technological leadership, competitiveness, and security. To win, the United States will need to leverage its advantages at home, including its robust intellectual property (IP) rights system and the innovative zeal of its entrepreneurs. It should also look abroad—setting the pace for scientific cooperation with allies and strategic partners, as well as developing shared international technical standards through the contributions of experts from around the globe. Most pressingly, the United States should not adopt policies that weaken protection of U.S.-owned patents—which would both disincentivize innovation in the United States and support Chinese efforts to dominate critical standards and other advanced technologies. Yet a recent proposal of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) does just that. Launched as a consultation, its Draft Policy Statement on Licensing Negotiations and Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to F/RAND Commitments is promoted as an effort to encourage good-faith licensing negotiations and to address the scope of remedies available to patent owners who have agreed to license their essential technologies on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (F/RAND) terms. While this draft policy seems like an innocuous administrative change, it has the potential to do significant damage to the United States’ innovation engine and, by extension, to its national security.
Topic:: Security, Intellectual Property/Copyright, Innovation, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

45. Data Protection or Data Utility?

Author:: Alexander Kersten and Issac A. Robinson
Publication Date:: 02-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Despite the economic upheaval wrought by the Covid-19 pandemic, the United States is now poised to enter a new period of productivity growth with the widespread deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. And just as past eras’ technologies have been driven entirely by the consumption of resources such as steam, coal, oil, and natural gas, this AI-driven period will rely on data. Yet, while this data-driven economic growth model has proven benefits to both individuals and firms, it also raises serious concerns over individuals’ data privacy. A key challenge in this regard is to ensure that data is handled securely and that the privacy of American citizens is protected. Because of the regard paid to data protection and privacy over the past decade, the proliferation of digitization has made privacy policy a part of innovation policy. However, until now, policymakers have viewed data use and data protection as trade-offs, with some nations adopting strict control of data flows. These measures have not been effective in practice; strict curbs have stifled innovation while doing relatively little to protect privacy. An alternative is to deploy promising cryptographic software solutions that can enhance privacy while still allowing access to data. This solution not only unlocks the commercial potential of data for use by firms, law enforcement, nonprofits, and researchers but also protects individuals’ privacy. Realizing the benefits of this win-win solution will require further development and widespread adoption of emerging cryptographic software solutions.
Topic:: Science and Technology, Innovation, Cyberspace, and Encryption
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

46. Breaking Down the Arguments for and against U.S. Antitrust Legislation

Author:: Caitlin Chin
Publication Date:: 04-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: In many areas of the world, including the European Union, United Kingdom, South Korea, and Australia, governments are considering new legislation to check the market power of a few dominant technology platforms. Yet some of the most sweeping proposals are taking place within the U.S. Congress. In October 2020, the majority staff of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law published a set of recommendations to promote competition in technology markets, the result of a 16-month investigation that directed attention to the actions of Alphabet (the parent company of Google), Amazon, Apple, and Facebook (now Meta). The House Judiciary Committee advanced six bills in June 2021 that paralleled many of these recommendations, focusing on the anticompetitive impacts of self- preferencing, mergers and acquisitions, data accumulation, and network effects related to digital platforms. Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance the American Innovation and Online Choice Act and Open App Markets Act in early 2022. While antitrust reform has seen broad bipartisan support in Congress, members of both parties have also expressed concerns that these bills might have unintended consequences. For example, many of the newly proposed restrictions would only apply to “covered platforms” that meet certain size or categorical criteria—which, under current market conditions, would primarily include Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, and Meta. In turn, some critics have asserted that unequal rules could create arbitrary winners or losers in the marketplace and even benefit foreign competitors or bad actors at the expense of U.S. technological innovation. To put these issues into context, below is an overview of seven major bills under consideration in the U.S. House and Senate as well as the related challenges, commentary, and controversies that surround them.
Topic:: Science and Technology, Legislation, Antitrust Law, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

47. Untapped Innovation? The Racial and Gender Divides That Hinder the U.S. Knowledge Economy

Author:: Alexander Kersten and Gabrielle Athanasia
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The United States’ innovative spirit rests on a complex network of economic rules favoring market-based competition, predictable legal arrangements for patenting and securing intellectual property, and incentives for investors. It also relies on a robust university system that provides the requisite educational training and facilities to carry out research and development (R&D). Maintaining this network fundamentally requires a focus on early education, especially in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). A more inclusive innovation economy also demands greater attention to communities of color, who are often poorly connected to the innovation economy; women, who are underrepresented in the innovation economy; and those in regions that do not yet share in the prosperity of the United States’ innovation clusters. To build a more inclusive innovation-based economy, policymakers should foster equitable access to early childhood STEM education. They should encourage the expansion of technology transfer programs across universities and colleges, including historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), and connect them to their regions’ economic growth. Policymakers, academia, and industry leaders should also encourage minorities and women to participate in the patenting and venture systems that support the innovation economy. Renewing American innovation means making opportunity as universal as the talent that seeks it.
Topic:: Economics, Gender Issues, Race, Labor Issues, Discrimination, and Innovation
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

48. Counterterrorism from the Sky? How to Think Over the Horizon about Drones

Author:: Erol Yayboke and Christopher Reid
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: August 31, 2021, marked the end of the United States’ two-decade military presence in Afghanistan. It also marked the end of U.S. military and intelligence eyes and ears on the ground in a place known to be a safe haven for violent extremist groups. In Afghanistan and other areas where the United States lacks a persistent, physical presence, the Biden administration announced a pivot to “over-the-horizon” counterterrorism operations (OTH- CT) that rely heavily on stand-off assets, such as overhead satellite technology and airpower, in the absence of eyes and ears. While the use of drones—or “remotely piloted aircraft” (RPAs)—to target potential terrorist threats seems to be a cost-effective approach from a military perspective, their use has come under increasing pressure from Capitol Hill, human rights and humanitarian organizations, and others for their effects on civilian populations. Military action almost always carries risk of collateral damage, but the disproportionate civilian impact associated with RPAs is not only troubling from rights and humanitarian perspectives, but it also calls into question the strategic, longer-term rationale of using them for counterterrorism purposes in the first place. Congressional leaders sent a letter to the president on January 20, 2022, about the ongoing OTH-CT strategy review. In it, they point out that “while the intent of U.S. counterterrorism policy may be to target terrorism suspects who threaten U.S. national security, in too many instances, U.S. drone strikes have instead led to unintended and deadly consequences—killing civilians and increasing anger towards the United States.” They, therefore, call on the administration to “review and overhaul U.S. counterterrorism policy to center human rights and the protection of civilians, align with U.S. and international law, prioritize non-lethal tools to address conflict and fragility, and only use force when it is lawful and as a last resort.” Reconciling the risks and implications of RPA strikes is necessary for genuinely implementing President Biden’s calls for a “targeted, precise strategy that goes after terror.” In doing so, the administration also needs to address concerns over civilian casualties alongside meaningful and justifiable military utilization of RPAs. Using RPAs against those who pose an imminent threat to the United States or its allies and partners is sometimes necessary and appropriate, especially in scenarios that are high-risk for crewed aircraft or ground forces. So why wouldn’t the United States use RPAs more broadly at low risk to blood and treasure? Why put soldiers in danger when we can extensively monitor threats and eventually address them from a remotely piloted aircraft high above? The answers are at once simple (e.g., impact on civilians) and complicated (e.g., limited military alternatives), exposing a gulf in understanding and approach to RPA utilization between the advocacy community (and some congressional leaders) and military and intelligence planners. This CSIS brief explores the challenge ahead for the Biden administration. It starts with a contextualization of the OTH-CT strategy review, followed by assessments of the short- and longer-term risks associated with RPA utilization and how to think about risk itself. Offering evidence and framing throughout, the brief ends by detailing two sets of recommendations
Topic:: Defense Policy, Terrorism, Military Strategy, Counter-terrorism, and Drones
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

49. Creating an Enabling Environment for Sustainable Water Infrastructure Financing

Author:: Conor M. Savoy and Janina Staguhn
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Water presents a significant global development challenge as crises over resources and access to clean water are becoming more extreme due to climate change. To reach the most disadvantaged communities in rural areas, adequate infrastructure is going to be integral. It is estimated that water infrastructure will require an additional $22.5 trillion by 2050, and to achieve Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6, financing would need to triple to $114 billion per year. As with other forms of infrastructure, water requires more than simply building reservoirs, pipes, and holding tanks. For true sustainable infrastructure, donors and local governments should also invest in support to maintain infrastructure and create a regulatory environment that enables continued improvement. To successfully finance water infrastructure, there must be an understanding of what the current financing landscape looks like and how the United States, its Group of Seven (G7) allies, and multilateral partners should prioritize financing, especially on a local level.
Topic:: Environment, International Cooperation, Water, Infrastructure, and Sustainability
Political Geography:: North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

50. What Does $40 Billion in Aid to Ukraine Buy?

Author:: Mark F. Cancian
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Congress has approved $40 billion in aid for Ukraine and other countries affected by the conflict―the sixth aid package since the war began. A major change is that this package looks ahead months rather than weeks. The aid package provides $19 billion for immediate military support to Ukraine, continuing the effort that has been vital to sustaining Ukrainian resistance, and $3.9 billion to sustain U.S. forces deployed to Europe. The package also contains about $16 billion for economic support to Ukraine, global humanitarian relief, and a wide variety of international programs as well as $2 billion for long-term support to NATO allies and DOD modernization programs. Although some elements of the aid package will be available quickly, many will take years to fully implement. This raises questions about why long-term elements could not have gone through the regular congressional authorization and budget processes.
Topic:: International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Military Spending, and Military Intervention
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, Ukraine, North America, and United States of America

51. The Pillars Necessary for a Strong Domestic Semiconductor Industry

Author:: Sujai Shivakumar, Charles Wessner, and Thomas Howell
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: All major U.S. defense systems and platforms rely on semiconductors for their performance, and the erosion of U.S. capabilities in microelectronics is a direct threat to the United States’ ability to defend itself and its allies. The COMPETES and USICA legislation, currently being reconciled in Congress, represents a national strategy to secure U.S. competitiveness and national security in the twenty-first century. Both the House and Senate legislation call for $52 billion to support U.S.-based semiconductor research and production. They also authorize several programs to both expand U.S. semiconductor fabrication capacity and support the continued research and development (R&D) of advanced chips. The key question is how these intentions can best be turned into reality. There are several challenges that the domestic semiconductor industry confronts, such as international competition, capital investment requirements, workforce needs, gaps in the supply chain, and the shortfall in venture capital funding and technical support needed to enable commercialization of promising technologies.
Topic:: Security, Military Strategy, Innovation, Industrialization, and Defense Industry
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

52. U.S. Defense Posture in the Middle East

Author:: Seth G. Jones and Seamus P. Daniels
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: There are growing calls for a decrease in the U.S. military presence in the Middle East. Proponents of a major reduction of forces argue that it is necessary because of growing competition with China in the Indo-Pacific and Russia in Europe, a declining U.S. reliance on Gulf oil and gas, a reduced threat from terrorist groups, and a need to focus on diplomacy rather than military force. To inform the debate over the United States’ military presence in the Middle East, this report assesses three posture options for U.S. forces in the region. This report finds that the United States should keep a notable but tailored presence in the Middle East to contain the further expansion of Chinese and Russian military power and to check the actions of Iran and terrorist organizations that threaten the United States and its allies and partners.
Topic:: Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Hegemony, and Rivalry
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

53. Pushed to Extremes: Domestic Terrorism amid Polarization and Protest

Author:: Catrina Doxsee, Seth G. Jones, Jared Thompson, Grace Hwang, and Kateryna Halstead
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: There has been a significant rise in the number of domestic terrorist attacks and plots at demonstrations in the United States, according to new CSIS data. The result is escalating violence in U.S. cities between extremists from opposing sides, a major break from historical trends. In 2021, over half of all domestic terrorist incidents occurred in the context of metropolitan demonstrations. In addition, the most frequent targets of attacks were government, military, and law enforcement agencies, who are increasingly at the center of domestic terrorism by extremists of all ideologies.
Topic:: Terrorism, Violent Extremism, Polarization, and Domestic Terrorism
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

54. U.S. Strategy: Rebalancing Global Energy between Europe, Russia, and Asia and U.S. Security Policy in the Middle East and the Gulf

Author:: Anthony H. Cordesman
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The war in Ukraine has already shown how dangerous it is for the U.S. to assume that it can rebalance its forces to one region and count on a lasting peace or detente in others. It now is all too clear that U.S. strategy must continue to focus on Europe as well as China. What is less clear is the extent to which the Ukraine War is an equal warning that the U.S. must have a truly global strategy – and one that continues to focus on other critical regions like the Middle East. The sudden escalation of the Ukraine crisis into a major regional conflict and the need for political and diplomatic support in the UN as well as for sanctions are warnings that much of the U.S. success in deterrence and defense lies in creating long-term global diplomatic and political support as well as true and lasting strategic partnerships.
Topic:: Security, Energy Policy, International Trade and Finance, Hegemony, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, Middle East, Asia, North America, and United States of America

55. Bridging U.S.-Led Alliances in the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific: An Inter-theater Perspective

Author:: Luis Simon
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Although U.S. strategic competition with China and Russia is often presented as a challenge with two separate fronts, this brief argues that the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific theaters are increasingly linked. Insofar as preserving a favorable balance of power in these two regions hinges largely on U.S. power, and as long as they both continue to exercise a significant pressure on U.S. defense resources, their alliance and deterrence architectures should be looked at from an inter-theater perspective. Thus, optimally managing atwo-front challenge would require a serious effort to bridge U.S.-led alliances in both regions.
Topic:: International Cooperation, Hegemony, Alliance, Strategic Competition, Rivalry, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:: Russia, China, Europe, Asia, North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

56. A New Social Contract for the Northern Triangle

Author:: Daniel F. Runde and Mark L Schneider
Publication Date:: 05-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The Northern Triangle of Central America (NTCA), made up of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, has experienced overwhelming economic, political, and security challenges in recent years. A combination of domestic challenges, including anemic economic growth, high rates of violence, and few jobs in the formal economy, have had international repercussions, such as an influx of unaccompanied minors (UACs) entering the United States in the summer of 2014 and the ongoing migration crisis at the U.S.-Mexican border.1 The United States remains a major partner for these three countries, disbursing over $401 million in foreign aid in FY2018, with strong bipartisan support for approving appropriations of $1.8 billion for FY17-19.2The NTCA countries also attract considerable foreign direct investment (FDI), surpassing $3.1 billion in 2017.3 While the United States has always played a powerful role in the NTCA region, the coverage in Washington tends to be erratic in its grasp of Northern Triangle issues. The region is portrayed as having insoluble problems with little in the way of progress. There is neither a “magic bullet” nor an “out of the box” solution to the problems of the Northern Triangle. Most of the solutions are relatively straightforward but politically hard and involve a mixture of economic, development, political, and security reforms. The problems of the region are, in fact, solvable, but they require sustained attention from the United States, political will in the NCTA countries, including cooperation rather than obstruction from elites in these societies, and ultimately strong and inclusive economic growth to go with strengthened governance.
Topic:: Regional Cooperation, Foreign Aid, Regionalism, and Social Contract
Political Geography:: Latin America, North America, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and United States of America

57. Great Expectations and Grim Realities in AMLO's Mexico

Author:: Mary Speck
Publication Date:: 05-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, commonly known as AMLO, assumed office in December 2018 with a robust electoral mandate having trounced traditional parties and secured a clear majority in the Mexican Congress. With approval ratings at about 80 percent, López Obrador seems so far to be satisfying his supporters’ expectations.1 To the delight of those disgusted with elite privileges, AMLO flies commercial (in coach), plans to sell the presidential plane, and slashed the salaries of top officials (including his own), putting their government vehicles up for auction.2 He has acted quickly to redistribute wealth by increasing pensions for the elderly, offering scholarships or apprenticeships to millions of young people, and providing additional subsidies to marginalized small farmers.3 López Obrador has also solidified labor union support by reversing some of his predecessor’s most controversial “neo-liberal” measures. He suspended an education reform enacted to improve the country’s underperforming public schools.4 And he has started to undo an energy overhaul designed to modernize the state-dominated oil industry, promising workers that he will rescue the heavily indebted government company, Petróleos Mexicanos or Pemex, by investing billions in a new refinery to make the country self- sufficient in gasoline.5 But the new president still faces his toughest challenge: reducing violence in a country plagued by some of the world’s most vicious criminal gangs. About 230,000 people were murdered between 2008 and 2017, more than double the number killed in the previous decade.6 This tsunami of violence continues to crest: during the first quarter of 2019 homicides have risen nearly 10 percent from the same period in 2018.7 On security, Mexico’s radical new president has thus far offered more continuity than change. He favors the same top-down, militarized approach that failed to curb violence over the past decade. The government’s marquee security reform is the creation of a national guard with at least 50,000 members recruited largely from the armed forces. Under fire from human rights defenders, López Obrado agreed to place the force under the Secretariat of Security and Civilian Protection, though its commander will be General Luis Rodriguez Bucio, an active duty officer who is in the process of retiring.8 López Obrador has taken steps to address past atrocities (appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the 2014 killing of 43 students) and to prevent future abuses (signing an agreement with the UN to oversee the guard’s human rights training).9 But critics worry that a force led by and recruited from the military will simply reproduce past patterns of repression, gang fragmentation, and dispersion, followed by violent escalation. An iron-fist approach to crime, moreover, fails to address Mexico’s fundamental problem: rampant impunity. Government victimization surveys suggest that authorities fail to investigate more than 90 percent of the crimes committed, often because citizens don’t bother to report crimes to state or municipal police regarded as incompetent, impotent, or corrupt.10 More than a decade of federal military intervention has undermined, not strengthened, the country’s approximately 345,000 state and local police.11 Poorly trained, under-resourced, and often under threat themselves, municipal and state authorities have little incentive to combat Mexico’s increasingly diverse and localized criminal gangs. López Obrador must grapple with the reality that federal power alone is unlikely to bring violence under control. There is no populist playbook for building effective police and an efficient, fair judicial system. The criminal groups operating in Mexico have proven remarkably resilient, surviving the killing or arrest of cartel leaders by morphing into smaller factions that not only produce and transport illegal drugs for sale in the US market but also steal gasoline, derail and rob rail cars, run illegal mining and logging operations, and hold entire communities hostage to extortion and kidnapping rings. The United States has a huge stake in Mexico’s success: the criminal organizations responsible for rising violence in Mexico have also fueled a U.S. drug epidemic resulting in 72,000 fatal overdoses during 2017 alone. U.S. agencies have worked closely with Mexican police and military forces to capture drug kingpins; Congress has also appropriated nearly $3 billion in equipment, training, and capacity building assistance.12 This is only a fraction of the approximately $14 billion Mexico spends each year. But by accepting shared responsibility for the illegal drug trade—long a Mexican demand—the United States has secured cooperation on security issues that would have been unthinkable less than a generation ago. This article examines the evolution of security policy under Presidents Felipe Calderón, 2006-2012, and Enrique Peña Nieto, 2012-2018. López Obrador could learn much from his predecessors’ failures. Calderón began his term with a frontal attack on drug cartels, though he came to understand that Mexico could not control organized crime without social programs and institutional reforms. Peña Nieto initially promised demilitarization and violence prevention, but soon abandoned these efforts, reverting again to military intervention. Neither president strengthened the country’s embattled state and local police who are responsible for enforcing the law after federal troops depart.
Topic:: Labor Issues, Elections, Unions, and Liberalism
Political Geography:: North America and Mexico

58. Russian Malign Influence in Montenegro: The Weaponization and Exploitation of History, Religion, and Economics

Author:: Heather A Conley and Matthew Melino
Publication Date:: 05-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Russian malign influence seeks to exploit every weakness and societal division within in a respective country. An adviser to Russian president Vladimir Putin, Vladislav Surkov, recently stated that “Foreign politicians talk about Russia’s interference in elections and referendums around the world. In fact, the matter is even more serious: Russia interferes in your brains, we change your conscience, and there is nothing you can do about it.” It must be understood that everything from religion, history, facts, information, racial and ethnic tensions, illicit financing, and institutional and economic weakness, can be weaponized. The mobilization of the Orthodox Church (in Montenegro through the Serbian Orthodox Church) is one such weapon in the Kremlin’s effort to resuscitate pan-Slavism and unite the Slavic world under Russian patronage. Doing so supports the Kremlin’s narrative that only Russian president Vladimir Putin is the true “defender of the faith,” and all that is culturally traditional and conservative. In effect, the Russian and Serbian Orthodox churches “interfere in [one’s] brain and alter an individual’s conscience” because the church touches many aspects of daily life, from the blessing of cars and homes to encouraging followers to fight against the decadence and liberalism of the West. The intermingling of financial support and the creation of outlets for the church’s charitable works can often be traced back to Russian ultra-nationalist oligarchs with close political and financial ties to the Kremlin. One particularly active figure in this space is Konstantin Malofeev who created the Charitable Foundation of St. Basil the Great, which is in part charged with spreading the Russian Orthodox faith. Mr. Malofeev’s spiritual adviser, Orthodox priest Bishop Tikhon, is also President Putin’s spiritual adviser. It is reported that Mr. Malofeev and Mr. Surkov also closely coordinate their activities. The Kremlin is also weaponizing history as it attempts to revitalize the historical role of the Russian Empire as the true defender and “protector” of its Slavic brethren in Montenegro from its clashes with the Ottoman Empire. Today, Russia defends its Slavic brethren from the West and makes powerful appeals to a common Slavic identity and Orthodox culture to wield greater influence in Montenegro.
Topic:: NATO, International Cooperation, Hegemony, and Foreign Interference
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, North America, and Montenegro

59. Strengthening the U.S.-Pacific Islands Partnership

Author:: Amy Searight, Brian Harding, and Kim Mai Tran
Publication Date:: 05-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The United States has long historic ties to the Pacific Islands, but for many decades this region has taken a back seat to other areas viewed by U.S. policymakers as holding greater strategic and economic weight. This has begun to change as Washington has started shifting its focus back to the Pacific Islands, reaching levels of political attention in recent months not seen since the end of the Pacific War in 1945. While the Pacific Islands are important for a range of reasons, not least their extreme vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, it has been China’s recent diplomatic and economic push into the region that has caused growing concern and renewed diplomatic attention in many capitals. The United States has long enjoyed strong ties and warm relationships with countries in the region, but the calls for significantly boosting levels of engagement, dialogue, and cooperation commensurate with the region’s strategic significance are new.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Alliance
Political Geography:: North America, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

60. The United States’ Soft War with Iran

Author:: Seth G. Jones
Publication Date:: 06-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Iran is engaged in a soft war, or jang-e narm, with the United States. Iran uses formal and informal means to influence populations across the globe and has expanded its information campaign utilizing the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, cultural centers, universities, and charitable foundations. But Iran’s authoritarian political system and attempts to control access to information make it vulnerable to a U.S. and Western information campaign. Iran’s weaknesses suggest that a major component of U.S. competition with Tehran should be ideological.
Topic:: Military Strategy, Conflict, Ideology, and Disinformation
Political Geography:: Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

61. Energy as a Source of Economic Growth and Social Mobility

Author:: Sarah Ladislaw and Jesse Barnett
Publication Date:: 06-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The CSIS Energy Program assessed the existing academic literature, commissioned new research papers, convened an expert summit, and compiled the findings to produce Energy in America: Energy as a Source of Economic Growth and Social Mobility. This report analyzes the ways energy contributes to the challenges and opportunities facing ordinary Americans, covering the impacts of production, distribution, and consumption of energy products in the United States. The report highlights the new, extra-energy objectives that energy policy is increasingly expected to advance and evaluates their historical efficacy. We conclude that while deliberate U.S. energy policy interventions have hitherto achieved mixed results, there are promising developments and best practices that decisionmakers ought to consider.
Topic:: Development, Energy Policy, Economic Growth, and Mobility
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

62. Trade Policy on the 2020 Trail: The First Debate

Author:: William Alan Reinsch, Jack Caporal, Beverly Lobo, and Catherine Tassin de Montaigu
Publication Date:: 06-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Trade policy is a signature issue for the Trump administration. With the 2020 election campaign shifting into high gear, candidates are being forced to talk about trade whether they want to or not. The president’s frequent comments about trade, along with his imposition of tariffs, are driving the American public to think more deeply about trade and raise their level of understanding of trade policy. For trade wonks, this is a good thing—more people talking and thinking about their favorite subject. For presidential candidates, however, it creates a dilemma: how to criticize the president without alienating the voters who seem to like his trade policy.
Topic:: International Trade and Finance, Elections, Trade Policy, and Domestic Policy
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

63. NATO: Going From the 2% Non-Solution to Meaningful Planning

Author:: Anthony H. Cordesman
Publication Date:: 06-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: As the Secretary General’s Annual Report for 2018 makes clear, NATO has many productive initiatives underway that focus on its real security needs, and that will help deter Russia and deal with the key issues in its military readiness and force planning. In fact, some 90% of the Secretary General’s report focuses on such issues. At the same time, NATO does not issue any net assessments of the balance between NATO and Russia and its capability to deter and fight. It does not openly address any of the many national problems and issues in current force structure nation-by-nation strength and readiness, and it has no coherent force and modernization plans for the future.
Topic:: NATO, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Military Spending, and Alliance
Political Geography:: Europe, North Atlantic, and North America

64. U.S.–Southeast Asia Trade Relations in an Age of Disruption

Author:: Brian Harding and Kim Mai Tran
Publication Date:: 06-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The post-World-War II era has seen extraordinary growth in international trade and the creation of regional and global trading frameworks spearheaded by the United States and anchored in the General Agreement on Tariffs (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). In recent years, frustration with the WTO’s stalled process had pushed U.S. policymakers to pursue regional and bilateral trade agreements. However, since president Donald Trump came to office in January 2017, U.S. trade policy has undergone a dramatic reorientation, creating enormous volatility and impacting global trade and supply chains. President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) on the third day of his presidency, his focus on reducing bilateral trade deficits, and his interest in only forging new bilateral trade deals have had widespread implications for U.S.-Southeast Asia economic and political relations. In many ways, the United States is no longer a predictable trade partner for Southeast Asian countries, and the uncertainty stemming from U.S.-China trade tensions is further affecting U.S.-Southeast Asia trade relations. Meanwhile, Asian regional economic integration and regional trade architecture are moving ahead without the United States at the table.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Alliance, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:: Asia, North America, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

65. Space Force or Space Corps?

Author:: Kaitlyn Johnson
Publication Date:: 06-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: In 2018, President Trump requested that the U.S. military restructure its space offices and personnel to create a U.S. Space Force. Since then three competing visions for how the Department of Defense (DoD) should be restructured to better support its national security space enterprise have been crafted: one from the DoD itself and two from either chamber of Congress. This brief compares these three legislative proposals to create a new military service for space.
Topic:: Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Space, and Space Force
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

66. The U.S. Department of Defense’s Role in Health Security

Author:: Tom Cullison and J. Stephen Morrison
Publication Date:: 06-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Protecting the homeland against biological threats begins with preventing those threats from reaching our shores. The Department of Defense (DOD) contributes to overall U.S. health security through programs specifically aimed at countering biological threats from all sources—through public health activities coordinated with civilian counterparts at home and abroad and through research and development of medical countermeasures aimed at protecting U.S. Forces against health risks throughout the world. Civilian and military scientists, public health experts, and disaster planners are somewhat familiar with DOD’s health security capabilities, yet most lack a clear understanding of the breadth, depth, and limitations of DOD’s capacities. A solid and consistent U.S. policy framework has steadily evolved over the past few decades that identifies health as a national security issue and calls for a broad-based, inclusive national response to addressing the issue of health security. Now is the time to more fully integrate DOD’s unique expertise and capabilities in a more cohesive and efficient manner. This paper provides a broad overview of DOD health security activities and capabilities and also offers select concrete recommendations for strengthening the coherence and integration of DOD activities, with a special emphasis on leadership, novel diseases and new dangerous forms of resistance, surveillance, building host country capacities, and expanded exercises.
Topic:: Security, Defense Policy, Health, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

67. Sharpening Our Efforts: The Role of International Development in Countering Violent Extremism

Author:: Erol Yayboke and Sundar R. Ramanujam
Publication Date:: 06-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Thanks to the generous support and cooperation from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the CSIS Project on Prosperity and Development releases this new essay anthology, Sharpening Our Efforts: The Role of International Development in Countering Violent Extremism. As policymakers confront the ongoing challenge of radicalization and violent extremism, it is important that stakeholders and counterterrorism strategists recognize the critical role for development and other non-kinetic approaches to counter violent extremism (CVE). To that end, this new anthology takes a multidimensional role mapping out the role of soft power institutions in enabling lasting peace, prosperity, and global security.
Topic:: Development, Foreign Aid, Violent Extremism, and Counter-terrorism
Political Geography:: North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

68. Tell Me How This Ends: Military Advice, Strategic Goals, and the “Forever War” in Afghanistan

Author:: Mark F. Cancian
Publication Date:: 07-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: When the United States invaded Afghanistan after the attacks on September 11, 2001, and then overthrew the Taliban regime, senior military officers were not predicting that the United States would be militarily involved 18 years later. Yet, after expending nearly $800 billion and suffering over 2,400 killed, the United States is still there, having achieved at best a stalemate. This CSIS report concludes that the mission in Afghanistan expanded from a limited focus on counterterrorism to a broad nation-building effort without discussion about the implications for the duration and intensity of the military campaign. This expansion occurred without considering the history of Afghanistan, the Soviet experience, and the decades-long effort required in successful nation-building efforts. The report makes a series of recommendations: improving the dialogue between senior military and civilian officials about desired goals/end states and the implied intensity/duration of a military campaign; continuing the development of military strategists; revising military doctrine publications to include discussion of choices about goals/end states; and taking more seriously the history and experience of others.
Topic:: Military Strategy, Conflict, and Strategic Planning
Political Geography:: Afghanistan, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

69. Home and Abroad: Building U.S. Global Economic Leadership on Strong Domestic Foundations

Author:: Matthew P. Goodman
Publication Date:: 07-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The liberal international order set up under U.S. leadership at the end of World War II has produced enormous economic benefits for both the United States and the rest of the world. But recently, the order has been under severe strain, the result of shifting economic forces at home and challenges from new powers abroad. U.S. leadership remains critical to an international order that delivers broad-based prosperity for Americans and stability abroad. In a new essay collection, CSIS experts on economics, trade, energy, technology, and development share their thoughts on how the United States can reaffirm its leadership through smart policies both at home and abroad.
Topic:: International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Economic Cooperation, and Domestic Policy
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

70. Dangerous Liaisons: Russian Cooperation with Iran in Syria

Author:: Seth G. Jones, Nicholas Harrington, and Joseph S. Bermudez Jr.
Publication Date:: 07-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: As tensions escalate between the United States and Iran in the Middle East, Russia is engaged in covert and overt cooperation with Iran in ways that undermine U.S. national security interests. This analysis of commercial satellite imagery at Tiyas Airbase in Syria indicates the scope and proximity of Russian and Iranian military ties. If Washington wants to contain Tehran and prevent further Iranian expansion, U.S. policymakers will need to increase pressure on Moscow to curb Tehran’s activities in countries like Syria.
Topic:: Security, Diplomacy, Intelligence, and International Cooperation
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

71. Creating a Real Peace in Afghanistan

Author:: Anthony H. Cordesman
Publication Date:: 07-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: It has been a long, grim war since the first U.S. troops appeared in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. The fighting has now lasted close to 18 years, and the conflict has become one of the worst managed wars in American history. The effort to reinvent Afghan government as a functioning democracy has so far been an unstable nightmare mixing corruption and uncertain central leadership with power brokers, ex-warlords, and divided leadership. Efforts at economic growth and reform have fallen far short of their goals, vast sums have been wasted or lost through corruption, and the current Afghan economy now survives on the basis of outside aid and domestic narcotics exports. Major security efforts have at best produced an uncertain stalemate and one where the Afghan government increasingly seems to be losing control in the countryside in order to maintain its hold on major population centers. Three different Presidents have made major errors in overall strategy. President Bush gave priority to Iraq at the cost of giving the Afghan war proper attention and providing adequate forces to deal with the return of the Taliban. President Obama first authorized a surge — which wasted major resources in Helmand — and then called for a premature U.S. withdrawal based on totally unrealistic goals for Afghan force development. President Trump has adopted a strategy which has no clear political or economic element, and is unclear as to whether the U.S. is willing to keep supporting Afghan government military efforts or is giving priority to peace more as part of an effort to withdraw U.S. forces than to achieve a lasting and meaningful peace settlement. This report addresses the options for staying in Afghanistan, for reaching a cosmetic or real form of peace, and for some form of unilateral withdrawal. It describes the challenges in each area: the current stalemate in conflict and the debate over Afghan Government versus Taliban control, the critical problems in Afghan governance, the weaknesses in the Afghan economy, and the many remaining challenges in creating Afghan forces that can stand on their own. It addresses the challenges in cutting or removing U.S. land and air forces. Finally, it addresses critical problems in assessing and costing the current level of U.S. involvement in the war, and in estimating the future cost of supporting a peace or continuing the fighting.
Topic:: Military Strategy, Public Opinion, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:: Afghanistan, Middle East, Asia, Vietnam, North America, and United States of America

72. China’s New 2019 Defense White Paper

Author:: Anthony H. Cordesman
Publication Date:: 07-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: For all the furor over Iran and the Gulf, or Britain and Brexit, the most important foreign news of the month is what would normally be a relatively obscure Chinese official document: China’s National Defense in the New Era. This White Paper was issued on July 22nd in both Chinese and English. Unlike China’s previous defense white papers — the most recent of which came out in 2015 and was blandly reassuring to the point of being vacuous — the new White Paper picks up the gauntlet that the U.S. threw down in its 2017 National Security Strategy and in 2018 National Defense Strategy. Both of these documents effectively made China the key objective in strengthening U.S. military forces and single it out as America’s primary strategic competitor. China’s National Defense in the New Era is a clear and detailed 51-page response to the massive shift in U.S. strategy from a focus on counterterrorism and extremism to competition and possible conflict with China and Russia. It flags the fact that America and China are now competing superpowers, and that China’s growing military forces are developing to the point where they will be able to challenge the United States. More than that, the detailed contents of the White Paper are a direct response to the official U.S. reports on Chinese Military Power issued by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Topic:: Defense Policy, Intelligence, Military Strategy, and Conflict
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

73. Training the Next Revolution in American Manufacturing

Author:: Charles Carson and Jonathan Robinson
Publication Date:: 07-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: In the United States, there is currently a dichotomy: employers are unable to fill manufacturing jobs, and yet there are hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers looking for jobs. How can this be? Many point to a skills deficit across the U.S. workforce. Much like other aspects of daily life and the economy, technology is changing the way U.S. based companies manufacture goods for the global market. As technology permeates and alters the manufacturing industry, it has created a massive boost in manufacturing productivity, while simultaneously requiring fewer workers to maintain and increase production. For those still employed in the manufacturing sector, they also need to be better equipped with the skills to handle the new demands such advanced technology and techniques impose. This report analyzes different workforce development programs for advanced manufacturing across the nation, seeking to better understand what is required to educate and retrain the worker of the future.
Topic:: Science and Technology, Labor Issues, Manufacturing, and Skilled Labor
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

74. Achilles’ Heel: Adding Resilience to NATO’s Fragile Missile Shield

Author:: Ian Williams
Publication Date:: 08-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Tensions with Iran are once again increasing. The slow implosion of the nuclear accord, Iran’s harassment of cargo ships, and the downing of a U.S. unmanned aircraft have made plain the risk of conflict between Iran and the United States. The dispute should also draw attention to the questionable preparedness of the United States and its allies to fight a war with Iran on short notice and deal with that war’s blowback across the Middle East and Europe. Regional missile defense architectures are an important part of that preparedness. Iran has the largest and most diverse supply of ballistic missiles in the Middle East region, and Tehran has shown an ability and willingness to use them in combat operations.1 Iran is also learning to employ other kinds of aerial threats, such as long-range cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). In a conflict with Iran, U.S. and allied forces would likely face a wide spectrum of air and missile threats. The biggest U.S. investment in Iran-centric missile defenses has been the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). EPAA is a phased buildup of U.S. missile defense assets in and around Europe to deter and, if necessary, limit damage from an Iranian missile attack on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Yet the EPAA architecture is heavily dependent on the nominal, unencumbered performance of a single radar deployed relatively close to Iran. This produces a single point of failure susceptible to malfunction or operator error. It also presents an Achilles’ heel that a determined or imaginative adversary could exploit. Iran certainly fits both descriptors. In 1958, strategist Albert Wohlstetter wrote that U.S. confidence in its nuclear second-strike ability was achieved only by “ignoring the full range of sensible enemy plans.”2 This same critical judgment should be applied to confidence in the EPAA as currently configured. Inasmuch as a sensible adversary such as Iran relies upon its missile forces to achieve its defense goals, it should be credited with the foresight to target single points of failure that would preclude the effective application of that missile force. Fortunately, there are practical steps that NATO and the United States can take to further adapt EPAA for greater resiliency. Upgrades to existing radars, the integration of allied radars into the missile defense mission, and the addition of air and space-based sensors would do much to improve EPAA’s capability and survivability, improving U.S. and NATO preparedness for an unexpected Middle East conflict.
Topic:: Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Missile Defense
Political Geography:: Europe, Iran, North Atlantic, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

75. Trade Policy on the 2020 Trail: The Second Debate

Author:: William Alan Reinsch, Jack Caporal, Jonathan Robison, Beverly Lobo, and Catherine Tassin de Montaigu
Publication Date:: 08-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: As the race to be the Democratic nominee for president heats up, the second round of debates between the 20 candidates offered the American public a glimpse of the different candidate’s trade policies and their values around the issue. Already we are seeing some trends emerge and divisions widen within the group on trade, which remains in the background compared to hot button policy issues like health care or immigration. Nonetheless, as President Trump continues his trade wars, trade will certainly be a topic of further debate and discussion for the election.
Topic:: International Trade and Finance, Elections, Trade Policy, and Domestic Policy
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

76. Federal Funding for Biosafety Research Is Critically Needed

Author:: Rocco Casagrande
Publication Date:: 08-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The advent of powerful new tools in biotechnology promises to open a new era in the battle against infectious disease. This research will undoubtedly lead to better capability to predict and prevent global outbreaks, and will support the development of new vaccines and treatments to reduce the burden of outbreaks we cannot prevent. The benefits afforded by these powerful tools are not without attendant risks. The threat of biological laboratory accidents is not commonly understood to be a serious health security concern similar in significance to the threats of emerging infectious diseases and biological attacks. However, scientists are just now creating viruses that exceed the transmissibility or pathogenicity of naturally occurring strains. Also contributing to the rising risk of accidents is the entry into the life sciences of scientists from other fields and hobbyists, who may be accustomed to weaker accountability measures, enjoy less training and weaker knowledge of safety and consequences of accidents, and yet are drawn to the tools of biology because of the expansive power they afford. Unlike accidents in transportation, chemical production, or even nuclear power, biosafety accidents can result in the unforeseen and uncontrolled infection of lab personnel or their local communities, the release of a pathogen into the environment, or even the initiation of a global pandemic that could reach millions. There is abundant concern among health security experts and U.S. policymakers over the threat of pathogens being deliberately released into communities by malevolent actors and terrorist attacks. While these concerns are valid, we are not paying enough attention to the costly and real risks of biological laboratory accidents that threaten similarly dangerous outcomes. The United States is underinvesting in the science of biosafety. The resulting lack of data and active research in the field leaves the biosafety community with little understanding of how accidents are likely to occur and impedes the identification of cost- effective measures to prevent accidents. This gap in knowledge could be addressed with a modest budget of $10 million per year given to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to fund a dedicated U.S. biosafety research program. The funding is modest because the first step is to develop a research community that focuses on these issues; currently, the lack of funding has prevented focused attention on research in biosafety. With adequate funding, this research will lead to the development of cost-effective training programs to reduce human error in the laboratory, the redesign of risky experiments to prevent outbreaks before they occur, and the identification of cost-effective investments in laboratory safety equipment, which could make the conduct of life sciences research more efficient.
Topic:: Health, Science and Technology, Biosecurity, and Medicine
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

77. Acquisition of Software-Defined Hardware-Based Adaptable Systems

Author:: Maura Rose McQuade, Andrew Philip Hunter, and Schuyler Moore
Publication Date:: 08-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The increasing importance of software has created an opportunity for the Department of Defense (DoD) to harness innovation through the acquisition and modification of adaptable systems that are 1) inherently multifunctional and 2) designed for continuous modification. Identifying an acquisition approach to these types of adaptable systems that are software-defined and hardware-intensive is particularly challenging from an acquisition perspective as these systems do not fall into typical acquisition phases that discretely differentiate between phases such as research & development and production. However, there are several existing enablers that, if adopted, can mitigate barriers to the acquisition of adaptable systems.
Topic:: Defense Policy, Science and Technology, Military Strategy, Infrastructure, and Innovation
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

78. The State of the Fighting in the Afghan War in Mid-2019

Author:: Anthony H Cordesman
Publication Date:: 08-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The Afghan War has entered a critical period in which the U.S. is actively seeking a peace settlement with the Taliban, and doing so in spite of the fact that it is negotiating without the full participation of the Afghan government. Peace is a highly uncertain option. There are no official descriptions of the terms of the peace that the Administration is now seeking to negotiate, but media reports indicate that it may be considering a full withdrawal within a year of a ceasefire, and other reports indicate that it is considering a 50% cut in U.S. military personnel even if a peace is not negotiated. As of mid-August 2019, the Taliban has continued to reject any formal peace negotiations with the Afghan government, and has steadily stepped up its military activity and acts of violence while it negotiates with the United States. Terrorist groups like ISIS-K add to the threat, as do the many splits within the Afghani government and political structure. The Taliban has not encouraged further ceasefires, or shown any clear willingness to accept a lasting peace on any terms but its own. It may well see peace negotiations as a means of negotiating a withdrawal of U.S. and other allied forces and a prelude to a peace that it could exploit to win control of Afghanistan. At the same time, major uncertainties also exist regarding continuing support for the war. Some press reports indicate the Administration is seeking a 50% reduction in active U.S. military manpower in country by the end of 2019 or some point in mid-2020 regardless of whether a peace settlement is reached. Some members of Congress have called for major U.S. force cuts and shown only a limited willingness to keep up U.S. support of the Afghan government and forces if peace negotiations do not succeed. Much depends on current trends in the war, and the extent to which the Afghan Government or the Taliban are winning control and influence over the country. Much also depends on the degree to which the Afghan government forces can stand on their own if a peace negotiation leads to the withdrawal of U.S. and Resolute support forces, or if the U.S. makes major further force cuts.
Topic:: Development, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:: Afghanistan, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

79. The Civil Challenges to Peace in Afghanistan

Author:: Anthony H. Cordesman
Publication Date:: 08-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The Afghan War has entered a critical period in which the U.S. is actively seeking a peace settlement with the Taliban, and doing so in spite of the fact that it is negotiating without the full participation of the Afghan government. Its options now consist of finding some form of peace, leaving the country without any form of victory or security, or fighting indefinitely in a country whose central government has no near or mid-term capability to either defeat its opponents or survive without massive military and civil aid. Peace is a highly uncertain option. There are no official descriptions of the terms of the peace that the Administration is now seeking to negotiate, but media reports indicate that it may be considering a full withdrawal of its military support within one to two years of a ceasefire, and other reports indicate that it is considering a 50% cut in U.S. military personnel even if a peace is not negotiated. As of late-August 2019, the Taliban continued to reject any formal peace negotiations with the Afghan government, and its military activity and acts of violence while it negotiated with the United States. Terrorist groups like ISIS-K add to the threat, as do the many splits within the Afghani government and political structure. The Taliban has not encouraged further ceasefires, or shown any clear willingness to accept a lasting peace on any terms but its own. It may well see peace negotiations as a means of negotiating a withdrawal of U.S. and other allied forces and a prelude to a peace that it could exploit to win control of Afghanistan. At the same time, the other options are no better. They either mean leaving without a peace and the near certain collapse of the Afghan government, or continuing the war indefinitely with no clear timeframe for victory or the emergence of an Afghan government that can fight on its own or act as an effective civil government. Much of the analysis of these three options has focused on the possible terms of the peace, the immediate progress in the fighting, and/or the coming Afghan election and Afghanistan’s immediate political problems. These are all important issues, but they do not address the basic problems in Afghan security forces that will limit its military capabilities indefinitely into the future, or the scale of the civil problems in Afghanistan that have given it failed governance and made it the equivalent of a failed state, and that will shape its future in actually implementing any peace or in attempting to continue the war.
Topic:: Civil Society, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Peace
Political Geography:: Afghanistan, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

80. Where Are the Northern Triangle Countries Headed? And What Is U.S. Policy?

Author:: Mark L Schneider and Michael Matera
Publication Date:: 08-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Central America has been a concern for U.S. foreign policy for more than a half century, spanning the Cold War, the Alliance for Progress, military regimes, and popular upheavals. Insurgencies had ideological roots, but most of the popular movements were aimed at securing democracy, justice, and economic change and were linked to ending elite dominance, corruption, and closed political systems. Only Costa Rica, and Panama since the removal of Noriega, have managed over the past three decades to see steady political and economic forward movement. Nicaragua remains mired in the throes of a despotic, discredited regime whose disregard for human rights and national well-being is beyond argument. The Northern Triangle Countries (NTC) of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have loomed larger in national attention ever since 2014 when a large number of unaccompanied minors suddenly appeared on the southwest border of the United States. Migrants from these countries were not new. Total migration had hit three million even before 2014, perhaps half living in the shadows, undocumented and vulnerable. This migration had been driven by the civil conflicts of the 1980s, the deportation of violent gang members (who brought back organized crime and violence from their Los Angeles barrios), and a paucity of economic opportunity. U.S. support for development efforts in the NTC since the end of the region’s domestic civil conflicts more than 20 years ago has been marked by inconsistent attention, with sudden peaks in financial commitments combining development and security cooperation. Then as other crises loomed and the Central American isthmus seemingly mellowed, Washington lost interest, without ever recognizing that weak and corrupt justice systems, dysfunctional governance, and elite-dominated economies had not changed fundamentally.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Regional Cooperation, Hegemony, and Regionalism
Political Geography:: Central America, North America, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and United States of America

81. Transforming the U.S. and EU Electric Power Sectors

Author:: Sarah Ladislaw and Stephen Naimoli
Publication Date:: 08-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Across Europe and the United States, the electric power sector is undergoing a fairly profound transformation driven by a changing fuel mix, higher penetration of renewable energy resources, changing consumer preferences and interface with the electric power system, and evolving business models. Policy and regulatory frameworks need to be updated to reflect these changes and facilitate future transformation. In both places this transformation is uneven, with some localities moving along faster than others, and complex, driven by a variety of factors. While the transformation is multidimensional, two conversations relating to the long-term vision for the sector are central to navigating a path forward. First, what are the challenges and opportunities associated with higher penetration of renewable energy and distributed energy resources? Second, what are the opportunities and challenges associated with the electrification strategies, particularly for measures to electrify transport and industry? In addition, the increased digitalization of the energy sector writ large, and specifically the electric power sector, raises issues about access to data, cybersecurity, and grid resilience, all areas that have become an integral part of the conversation in the European Union and the United States on the transformation of the electric power sector. The following brief outlines some of the issues related to these topics that were discussed at a recent U.S./EU stakeholder workshop held at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in June 2019. The information and reflections here do not necessarily represent the views of the participants and are meant to serve as useful background to stimulate further discussion. The European Union and the United States launched a dialogue on wholesale power markets in 2016 that continues to date. The 10-year anniversary of the U.S.-EU Energy Council—the primary forum for transatlantic energy cooperation established in 2009—presents an important milestone and an opportunity to reflect on the future direction of the U.S.-EU energy partnership. The European Union and the United States share similar challenges associated with the transformation of the electric power sector. While approaches may differ in each region for a variety of reasons, several areas of common interest can serve as grounds for future transatlantic cooperation on these important issues.
Topic:: Energy Policy, International Cooperation, European Union, and Electricity
Political Geography:: Europe, North America, and United States of America

82. Understanding DoD’s Defense-Wide Zero-Based Review

Author:: Seamus P. Daniels
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: On August 2, Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist issued a memo calling for a “comprehensive zero-based review of all defense-wide (DW) functions and activities” in the Department of Defense (DoD). The goal of this ongoing effort, led by the deputy secretary, is to ensure the alignment of resources with the National Defense Strategy (NDS) through the FY 2021 program review cycle and to “support a longer-term focus on structural reform” that generates future savings. In line with Norquist’s call to “begin immediately and move forward aggressively,” the review kicked off on Saturday, August 10, only eight days after the memo was issued. This brief explains what the review entails, which defense-wide organizations are subject to it, and previous efforts at driving efficiencies in the “Fourth Estate.”
Topic:: Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

83. Emerging Technologies and Managing the Risk of Tech Transfer to China

Author:: James Andrew Lewis
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: There are deep interconnections between the U.S. and Chinese economies, and China has built its technology base on what it has acquired from the West. China’s government and some Chinese companies will use any means, legal or illegal, to acquire technology. The United States’ relationship with China cannot continue unchanged, but given the interconnections, change must be managed carefully. New restrictions are needed, but counterintuitively, these should be shaped by recognizing that being open makes the United States stronger than being closed. The best approach is an incremental and flexible approach to technology transfer centered on the need to avoid harm to the U.S economy. This report outlines the policy tools that the United States can use to mitigate risk while maintaining the openness that is a hallmark of the U.S. economy.
Topic:: Science and Technology, Intellectual Property/Copyright, Conflict, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

84. Putin and Global Health: Friend or Foe?

Author:: J. Stephen Morrison and Judyth L. Twigg
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Over the course of this decade, Russia has consciously enlarged its engagement and commitments, at home and in the wider world, in battling both tuberculosis (TB) and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Despite these positive steps, Russia remains a serious global health security threat. There is a live risk of uncontrolled HIV/AIDS and drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) epidemics within Russia itself, as well as ongoing risk of export to neighbors in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, whose deep interdependence with Russia, including extensive migrant traffic, creates acute vulnerabilities. Beyond Eurasia, Russia stands out as one of several flashpoints in the world that could contribute to a resurgent HIV/AIDS and DR-TB epidemic that reverses the global gains of the past 15 years. Russia’s social media practices deliberately spread confusion and distrust surrounding a wide range of preventive health measures, ranging from vaccines to harm reduction. This analysis weighs Russia’s positive contributions against its multiple destructive actions in global health, examines what the overall pattern of Russian behavior means for U.S. policy, and concludes with a proposal for an expanded U.S. health security alliance with Eastern Europe and Central Asia. It argues that the United States should welcome Russian contributions and collaborate with serious Russian partners in the service of broader shared health goals. At the end of the day, however, Russia will only earn a legitimate global health leadership seat through progressive, evidence-based policies and actions, which can never be wholly segregated from the noise created by its geopolitically destabilizing actions.
Topic:: Health, International Cooperation, Public Health, and Pandemic
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America

85. Human Rights in a Shifting Landscape: Recommendations for Congress

Author:: Amy K. Lehr, Michael J. Green, Victor D. Cha, Jon B. Alterman, Judd Devermont, Melissa Dalton, Mark L Schneider, and Erol Yayboke
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Human Rights are part of the American DNA. Congress has long advocated for human rights to play an integral role in U.S. foreign policy, with significant success. However, rising authoritarianism and the gross human rights violations taking place around the world call for immediate and stronger U.S. leadership and Congressional action. To that end, the Human Rights Initiative of CSIS worked with CSIS scholars, who developed recommendations relevant to their expertise that identify how Congress can build on its past human rights leadership to meet today’s challenges.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Authoritarianism, Democracy, and Leadership
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

86. The Era of the Gas Mega-Players

Author:: Nikos Tsafos
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Within 10 years, three exporters will tower over the global gas world: Russia, the United States, and Qatar. Other exporters—Norway, Australia, Canada—will remain big players, but their influence will be regional, not global. New entrants will emerge, and existing players will expand their presence, but no country will match the big three in scale, growth, and reach. China will meanwhile become the largest destination for gas, surpassing Japan in imports and closing in on Europe as a whole. These profound changes will rewire the gas system, making it more integrated and competitive. But the system may also allow these mega-players the opportunity to exercise market power, using levers at their disposal to influence prices and flows. Geopolitics might also weigh heavily as a possible driver of behavior or source of friction. The gas world will thus be pulled in three directions: more integration and competition, more efforts to exercise market power, and more geopolitics complementing and complicating market forces. The big question is which of these three competing forces will have a greater say in this new gas era.
Topic:: Energy Policy, Natural Resources, Gas, and Exports
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, Middle East, North America, Qatar, and United States of America

87. Does the United States Renegotiate Its Trade Agreements after They Are Signed?

Author:: William Alan Reinsch and Catherine Tassin de Montaigu
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: With House members pushing for changes to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement’s (USMCA) legal text and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) directing working groups of Democratic members to work with U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer on changes to address their concerns, the question of whether a trade agreement can be reopened and renegotiated after signing has been raised. In an effort to inform that debate with some facts, CSIS reviewed trade agreements the United States entered into after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and examined whether any of them were modified after signing. In brief, we concluded that of the 12 agreements reviewed, six were subject to subsequent modification. In all six cases, new side letters were signed after the agreement was signed. In three cases, the text of the agreement itself was reopened. Below are the details of our conclusions. Agreements post-NAFTA are set out in the order by which they entered into force. The “days in between” calculation refers to the number of days between the agreement’s signing and its entry into force, which in most cases was well after the date of final congressional approval. In addition, links are provided to the text of each agreement and any side letters that were added.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Trade and Finance, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

88. Energy Spheres of Influence

Author:: Sarah Ladislaw and Nikos Tsafos
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: For several decades, energy security has been defined and pursued in a multilateral world with relatively open markets and technology transfer, where energy relations have become increasingly commodified. But that world may soon disappear—energy relationships might become more political, open trade might give way to friction, and great powers might leverage energy relations or energy technology to gain an edge over each other. For decades the United States has promoted a rules-based, multilateral order, supported by shared gains from free trade and deeper economic and political integration within and among countries. Energy security, the ability to secure affordable and reliable supplies of energy, has been widely recognized as common good promoted by this system. As the world’s largest consumer and importer of energy, it was squarely in the United States’ national interest to support this approach through domestic and international energy policy as well as foreign policy. Today, this multilateral order is being challenged. The world is experiencing a new era of competition for greater geographic and economic power driven by the shifting center of gravity of the global economy, the realignment of relationships between and among countries, and rapid technological change. Energy is poised to play an important role in this upheaval and will be affected by these changes. The United States is no longer the largest consumer or importer of energy. Instead, it is now the largest producer of oil and natural gas and will soon be a net exporter of energy. The energy world also is changing rapidly, with renewable energy resources like solar and wind making up the fastest growing and largest source of new supplies and global imperatives like climate change challenging the role of status quo fuels. These changes have heralded a reexamination of the United States’ national interest regarding energy in this changing global system. The United States has important decisions to make about its position in this new environment. Can energy play an influential role in achieving U.S. foreign policy objectives in various regions of renewed geopolitical competition? Is any country or group of countries poised to dominate a given energy market or fuel and might that negatively affect U.S. national security interests? How does this changing global dynamic in which countries are vying for greater geographic and economic spheres of influence affect our approach to global energy security? Will the energy sector become fundamentally more mercantilist, and will the United States be competitive if it does? Greater insight about each of these questions is a prerequisite to the formulation of U.S. foreign and energy policy. So far, the United States has grappled with these questions by pursuing “energy dominance,” a strategy in which energy represents (1) a tool for gaining geopolitical influence in a given region and (2) an area of competitive and strategic economic advantage for the United States. But other global powers, like China and Russia, pose strong competition for this U.S. strategy. Energy features prominently in the economic, foreign, and national security strategies of all three countries but in different ways. And although all three recognize the importance of maintaining affordable and reliable energy supplies for the good of the global economy as well as their own economic well-being, they also recognize the influence of energy in the execution of foreign policy at the global and regional level. The issue for the international energy community is whether the multilateral approach to shared energy security, supported by the promotion of free and integrated markets, is breaking down into regional and economic spheres of influence more mercantile in nature—and if so, how the United States should respond.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

89. Research Collaboration in an Era of Strategic Competition

Author:: Stephanie Segal and Dylan Gerstel
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: There is a growing concern in Washington that certain aspects of international scientific collaboration pose a risk to U.S. economic and national security, making it the latest front in rising U.S.-China competition. At the same time, the U.S. innovation ecosystem depends greatly on foreign scientists and partnerships with foreign research institutions. A well-calibrated strategy to manage these risks will maximize openness while protecting intellectual property, research integrity, and national security. These efforts should preserve the ability of the United States to attract top talent, including by maintaining a welcoming environment for foreign researchers, while improving domestic investment in science, technology, engineering, and math outcomes. This report outlines the vulnerabilities arising from foreign research collaboration, the risks of policy overreach, and recommendations to manage risks while maintaining scientific openness.
Topic:: Security, Science and Technology, Innovation, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

90. U.S. Military Forces in FY 2020: The Struggle to Align Forces with Strategy

Author:: Mark F. Cancian
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Annually, CSIS Senior Adviser Mark Cancian publishes a series of papers on U.S. military forces--their composition, new initiatives, long term trends, and challenges. The overall theme of this year's report is the struggle to align forces and strategy because of budget tradeoffs that even defense buildups must make, unrelenting operational demands that stress forces and prevent reductions, and legacy programs whose smooth operations and strong constituencies inhibit rapid change. Subsequent papers will take a deeper look at the strategic and budget context, the military services, special operations forces, DOD civilians and contractors, and non-DOD national security organizations in the FY 2020 budget.
Topic:: Military Strategy, Military Affairs, Budget, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

91. Strategic Directions for the United States International Development Finance Corporation (DFC)

Author:: Daniel F. Runde
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The United States International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) will merge the staff, assets, and liabilities of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Development Credit Authority (DCA). It will seek to catalyze vitally needed private sector investments in low- and lower-middle-income countries through new development finance tools such as local currency loans, first-loss guarantees, and equity investments. However, the DFC is not designed to be simply another development finance institution—in addition to a greater proposed focus on development impact, it is an agency also embedded in the U.S. foreign policy and national security architecture. This report offers concrete and independent ideas on how the DFC can better support U.S. national security interests while also examining the new agency’s limitations. Within this context, the three key U.S. national security challenges that CSIS highlights include a) China’s rising influence in the developing world, b) actions the United States and others can do to further mitigate violent extremism, and c) addressing the root causes of migration.
Topic:: Security, Development, and Finance
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

92. Youth Violence Prevention in the United States

Author:: Sarah Bast and Victoria DeSimone
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: This report concludes that international terrorists, domestic terrorists, school shooters, and gang members share some common factors that made them vulnerable to radicalization to violence. By focusing on the areas of commonality, it would be possible to further prevention efforts on all four types of violence rather than isolating initiatives. Efforts should focus on the personal, group, and community-level, aiming to provide early education, intervention, or off-ramping options.
Topic:: Terrorism, Radicalization, Youth, and Violence
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

93. CSIS Brief: Beyond the Brink: Escalation and Conflict in U.S.-China Economic Relations

Author:: Matthew P. Goodman, Dylan Gerstel, and Pearl Risberg
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: As the United States and China mark their 40th anniversary of formal diplomatic relations in 2019, the world’s most important bilateral relationship is increasingly defined by mistrust, competition, and uncertainty. After four decades of deepening economic integration, the talk in Washington today is about the extent to which the two economies will “decouple” over the years ahead. In a recent study, the CSIS Simon Chair drew on several different academic disciplines to model how an economic conflict between the United States and China could escalate and eventually de-escalate. Our findings suggest that economic conflict is likely to be an enduring feature of the U.S.-China relationship for many years to come. Until perceptions of relative costs in the two countries shift, Washington and Beijing seem set on a path of continued escalation, no substantial trade deal, and at least partial decoupling of their economies.
Topic:: International Trade and Finance, Conflict, Trade Policy, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

94. The Art of Summitry

Author:: Judd Devermont
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: It has recently become fashionable to host a regional summit with African leaders. The Arab states, China, the European Union, France, India, Russia, and Turkey all established high-profile diplomatic forums with African counterparts. Japan has been one of the pacesetters, inviting African governments, as well as multilateral institutions, to attend TICAD since 1993. TICAD’s seventh iteration, which was staged in Yokohama from August 28- 30, 2019, welcomed 42 African presidents, vice presidents, and prime ministers and witnessed the signing of 110 memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with African countries and private-sector companies.1,2 The United States chaired one such event, the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, in August 2014. While it represented a milestone in U.S.-African diplomatic engagement, the United States has not attempted anything on the same scale since. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Commerce with Bloomberg Philanthropies chaired a second U.S.-Africa Business Forum. President Trump met with eight sub-Saharan African leaders on the margins of the UN General Assembly in 2017 and separately invited Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari and Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta to the White House in 2018. If the U.S. government decides to resume the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, it has the potential to deepen ties between the United States and African counterparts, as well as promote trade and investment and advance signature initiatives.
Topic:: Development, Foreign Aid, Leadership, and Humanitarian Intervention
Political Geography:: Africa, Japan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

95. Smart Money on Chinese Advances in AI

Author:: William A Carter and William Crumpler
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Few countries have embraced the vision of an AI-powered future as fervently as China. Unlike the United States, the Chinese government is dedicating significant resources and attention to AI development and creating a supportive policy environment to facilitate innovation and experimentation and proactively manage risk. However, numerous misconceptions and competing narratives around China’s innovation economy have made it difficult for U.S. policymakers to understand the AI ecosystem in China and its links to AI innovation in the United States. This report seeks to improve this understanding by examining China’s progress toward achieving its four strategic goals. We find that while China’s progress towards AI leadership remains uneven, its commitment to building domestic innovation capacity could allow the country to become a world-leading AI power in the coming decades. China’s progress in AI can complement and accelerate U.S. AI development, and policymakers should avoid responding to China’s advances with counterproductive policies that undermine the U.S. innovative capacity to little or no gain. Instead, the United States should focus on developing a positive agenda for driving its own AI development.
Topic:: Science and Technology, Innovation, Artificial Intelligence, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

96. U.S. Military Forces in FY 2020: The Strategic and Budget Context

Author:: Mark F. Cancian
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: lthough the dictates of the 2018 national defense strategy are clear, implementing them in the real world is difficult in the face of real-world crises, the inertia of legacy investments, and the long timelines needed to field new capabilities. Thus, the budget continues the priorities that Secretary James Mattis set in 2017 but struggles with the need to make trade-offs.
Topic:: Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Military Affairs, and Budget
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

97. Comments to the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Author:: James Andrew Lewis
Publication Date:: 01-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Recent legislative changes call for enhanced scrutiny on potential transfers of “emerging and foundational technologies.” These are broadly defined as technologies essential to U.S. national security. The Congressional intent is for agencies to develop a more specific list, with robotics and artificial intelligence as primary concerns. Developing this list raises several issues. These include how to determine the military utility of an emerging technology, how to control the diffusion of the technology, and how to manage the risks of increased control for American innovation. Enhancing controls on the transfer of emerging technologies is necessary for several reasons. First, the U.S. finds itself in a contest with China. China intends to eventually displace the U.S as a global leader in technology, part of its larger effort to expands its influence and power. China is a technological rival of a kind the U.S. has never had before, given the deep interconnections between the two economies. China is still dependent on the West for advanced technology and uses a combination of techniques to acquire it. The 2015 Obama-Xi agreement on commercial cyber espionage attempted to address the problem, but China now ignores that agreement. In this environment, strengthening oversight of technology transfers from the U.S. and its allies to China is essential. In particular, new rules are needed to review technology transfers through co-production, joint ventures, or intangible exports, as these have been a major source of China’s access to technology. Second, current controls on technology transfers do not adequately protect emerging and foundational technologies. The current technology transfer control system is too close to its Cold War roots. Thresholds were set by asking what was the state of the art, how close our Soviet competitor was to this, and whether a technology was “controllable” or if it had become a commodity or was widely available from foreign sources. These are no longer the right questions to ask. The approach needed now is whether we want to transfer a technology to China and whether an effort to prevent this would do more harm than good to America’s own technological capabilities. This calls the whole complex structure of precise control thresholds into question. Modernizing export controls will be difficult, but the proposed rulemaking offers an opportunity to begin the process of revision. Export controls have their background in the 20th Century, when two bifurcated economic blocs were in competition and where thresholds for controls could be set with a degree of precision. This is no longer the case. Attempting to layer a 20th century export control regime over the new dynamics of global trade and innovation will not adequately protect emerging technologies. Reform will necessarily be an iterative process, part of a larger restructuring of export controls for a new international environment. A key point to bear in mind is that since China is still dependent on advanced Western technology (and this is an unlikely change in the near future), access to western technology should be used to gain leverage in talks to change China’s aggressively mercantilist policies. This will be difficult, and it will take time, but a failure to confront China and bring about change will lead to the outcomes that technology controls seek to avoid. The goal is not to defeat or contain China, but to bring its practices in line with international expectations in ways that allow commercial relationships to continue without risk to national security.
Topic:: Security, Industry, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

98. Pursuing Effective and Conflict- Aware Stabilization: Framing and Constructing a Roadmap

Author:: Melissa Dalton
Publication Date:: 01-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Like it or not, countries beset by instability from terrorist organizations or contested by state-based adversaries will continue to pose national security challenges to the United States. In the face of these challenges and given political and budgetary constraints at home, the United States must be more selective in how it scopes and executes efforts to consolidate gains after military operations and build institutional resiliency against adversaries. The Trump administration released its Stabilization Assistance Review (SAR) framework on June 19, 2018, which is a strategic document to guide U.S. government efforts to maximize the effectiveness of stabilizing conflict-affected areas. Following the large-scale reconstruction efforts of the early 2000s in Iraq and Afghanistan, the SAR recognizes changing geopolitical realities and U.S. domestic political and budgetary constraints that will shape future stabilization efforts. This interagency framework, co-produced by the Department of State (DoS), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Department of Defense (DoD) provided the first-ever U.S. government unified definition of stabilization, recognized as an “inherently political endeavor involving an integrated civilian-military process to create conditions where locally legitimate authorities and systems can peaceably manage conflict and prevent a resurgence of violence.”2 The SAR defined roles for the key agencies involved in providing stabilization assistance to foreign countries. DoS is designated as the overall lead for stabilization efforts, formulating the political strategy. USAID is intended to be the lead implementor for non-security stabilization assistance, bringing considerable technical expertise. The SAR specifies that DoD is a supporting element in providing security-related stabilization assistance in support of civilian-led efforts. Other U.S. government departments and agencies may also play roles in stabilization under this organizational rubric. The SAR also highlighted the intended short-term nature of stabilization efforts, typically lasting between one to five years, agile, and adaptive to host country needs. Furthermore, the SAR underscored the need to coordinate and burden-share with allies and multilateral institutions in bolstering support for locally legitimate actors on the ground. The SAR rightly responds to U.S. taxpayer fatigue regarding previous U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan by focusing on cost-effectiveness and allied support for future U.S. foreign assistance programs. However, stabilization efforts should also be placed in a broader context. Conflict in the twenty-first century has become increasingly localized in nature and often results in longer, more violent clashes between state and non-state actors. It is also characterized by state-based competitors, which can exploit localized conflict and undermine the institutions of allies and partners. Indeed, given the emphasis the Trump administration has placed on prioritizing great power competition in both the U.S. National Security and Defense Strategies, future stabilization policies also need to account for competition with U.S. adversaries such as Russia and China.3 Traditional conflict phases are also melding together, such that stabilization operations may well take place during active conflict than following a ceasefire or temporary cessation of hostilities and share strong characteristics with preventive activities. Planning for stabilization should be required at the outset of any military operation, reevaluated as the environment shifts during operations, and deployed in parallel as conditions permit.
Topic:: Political stability, Conflict, Peace, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

99. America’s Military Spending and the Uncertain Costs of its Wars: The Need for Transparent Reporting

Author:: Anthony H. Cordesman
Publication Date:: 01-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The United States has now been continuously at war for more than seventeen years. It is still fighting an active war in Afghanistan, has yet to fully defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq – much less establish a state of lasting security in either country – and is playing a role in low level conflicts against extremist and terrorists in many other parts of the world. The U.S. government, however, has never developed a convincing method of reporting on the cost of the wars, and its estimates are a confusing morass of different and conflicting Departmental, Agency, and other government reporting that leave major gaps in key areas during FY2001-FY2019. It has never provided useful forecasts of future cost, instead providing empty "placeholder" numbers or none. It has failed to find any useful way to tie the cost estimates it does release to its level of military and civil activity in each conflict or found any way to measure the effectiveness of its expenditures or tie them to a credible strategy to achieve some form of victory. The result is a national embarrassment and a fundamental failure by the Executive Branch and Congress to produce the transparency and public debate and review that are key elements of a responsible government and democracy.
Topic:: Security, Military Strategy, Budget, and Military Spending
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

100. 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

Search

Search Constraints

Search Results

Refine your search

Topic

Political Geography

Content Type

Publishing Institution

Author

Publication Year

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS