Political Geography: North America / Publication Year: 3 selected / Topic: Diplomacy

1. Imperfect Partners: The United States and Southeast Asia

Author:: Scot Marciel and Ann Marie Murphy
Publication Date:: 05-2023
Content Type:: Video
Institution:: Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University
Abstract:: This event will discuss U.S.-Southeast Asian relations with Ambassador Scot Marciel, the former United States Ambassador to Indonesia and Myanmar. The talk will be based on his new book which will be released on March 15, 2023 entitled Imperfect Partners: the United States and Southeast Asia. Imperfect Partners is a unique hybrid – part memoir, part foreign policy study of U.S. relations with Southeast Asia, a critically important region that has become the central arena in the global U.S.-China competition. From the People Power revolt in the Philippines to the opening of diplomatic relations with Vietnam, from building a partnership with newly democratic Indonesia to responding to genocide in Myanmar and coups in Thailand, Scot Marciel was present and involved. His direct involvement and deep knowledge of the region, along with his extensive policymaking work in Washington, allows him to bring to life the complexities and realities of key events and U.S. responses, along with rare insights into U.S. foreign policy decision-making and the work of American diplomats in the field.
Topic:: International Relations, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Competition
Political Geography:: China, Indonesia, Asia, North America, Southeast Asia, Myanmar, and United States of America

2. US-China lessons from Ukraine: Fueling more dangerous Taiwan tensions

Author:: John K. Culver and Sarah Kirchberger
Publication Date:: 06-2023
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Atlantic Council
Abstract:: The lessons that Washington and Beijing appear to be learning from Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and from Ukraine’s resistance and counteroffensive, could set the stage for a crisis over Taiwan in the next few years. This grim prospect is driven by the United States and China arraying themselves for a strategic rivalry since 2017 through the continuing trade war, economic decoupling, and increasing rhetorical and military positioning for confrontation over Taiwan. In light of the Chinese military’s threatening gestures, belligerent rhetoric, and other recent actions that read like they could be preparation for war, there is a danger that the successive warnings by senior US military commanders that Chinese CCP General Secretary and President Xi Jinping has already decided to use military force in the near term could become the proverbial tail wagging the dog — and could impose a logic that makes a US-China war more likely, rather than enhancing deterrence.1 Therefore, the key question for the United States and its allies is how an increasingly truculent and belligerent Chinese leadership can be incentivized to walk back from the brink. This paper examines what lessons China, the United States, and European allies have drawn from the Ukraine conflict and how such lessons have shaped these actors’ strategic assumptions. It concludes with a discussion of policy recommendations for the transatlantic community confronting the possibility of a US-China conflict over Taiwan.
Topic:: Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Politics, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:: China, Ukraine, Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

3. Humanitarian aid: Defining new areas of US-LAC collaboration

Author:: Pepe Zhang and Isabel Bernhard
Publication Date:: 03-2023
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Atlantic Council
Abstract:: The US humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) system—well practiced and extensively developed—could further serve US and partners’ needs in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and beyond through targeted improvements. Based on our experience as HADR practitioners with operational and academic expertise, we share insights from many years of working with partners in the Americas. The task is urgent: fragile governments and organizations further impacted by COVID-19 and climate change have exposed HADR deficiencies that need to be rapidly strengthened. Redoubling the US’s HADR commitment to allies and partners can also have strategic benefits during a period of renewed competition with the People’s Republic of China. We believe that the United States can strengthen its HADR work globally, and particularly with LAC countries, through partnership and relationship building as well as education and exercises. By deepening its strengths and address- ing room for improvement, the United States can remain the partner of choice for LAC countries and conserve its positional advantage over China and other strategic competitors. How can LAC and partner nations (such as the United States), nongovernmental organizations, and regional and other global organizations strengthen their abilities to respond to natural disasters? What can the United States do to improve its disaster preparedness and response in LAC? And what can Washington learn from Beijing’s approach to disaster assistance in LAC? In crafting this report to address these questions, we drew from a roundtable discussion, verbal and written consultations with subject matter experts, and written material. A full description of the methodology is provided in the appendix. The findings of the report include eight recommendations grouped under two mutually complementary areas: (1) partnership and relationship building, and (2) education and exercises. Not only are these recommendations timely and relevant for HADR practitioners, but taking these steps would strengthen Western hemispheric security by investing in the region’s infrastructure and human capital. As the United States and its LAC partners consider future room for cooperation and collaboration, HADR work will form an indispensable centerpiece of their strategies.
Topic:: NATO, Climate Change, Diplomacy, Environment, Humanitarian Aid, International Organization, Politics, Partnerships, Resilience, and Energy
Political Geography:: China, Latin America, Caribbean, North America, and United States of America

4. The South Korea-U.S. Summit and Measures to Enhance Bilateral Cooperation on North Korea

Author:: Jechun Kim
Publication Date:: 05-2023
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:: Jechun Kim, a professor at Sogang University, points out that the Biden administration appears to prioritize competition with China, the Taiwan issue, and the Ukraine War, despite the growing threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities. In response, Kim underlines the importance of issuing a “2023 US-ROK Joint Statement on North Korea” after President Yoon’s visit to the White House. Given the fading interest and support for the reunification of the Korean Peninsula, Professor Kim emphasizes the significance of addressing the rapid advancement in DPRK’s nuclear capabilities. He then suggests that South Korea needs to create a conducive environment for peaceful reunification through strong support from the U.S. for the “Audacious Initiative.”
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Bilateral Relations, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:: Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

5. The US and Japan Build Multilateral Momentum

Author:: Sheila A. Smith and Charles McClean
Publication Date:: 05-2023
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Comparative Connections
Institution:: Pacific Forum
Abstract:: 2023 brings a renewed focus on the US-Japan partnership as a fulcrum of global and regional diplomacy. With an eye to the G7 Summit in Hiroshima in mid-May, Prime Minister Kishida Fumio began the year with visits to G7 counterparts in Europe and North America. Later in the spring, he toured Africa in an effort to gain understanding from countries of the Global South. The Joe Biden administration looks ahead to a lively economic agenda, as it hosts the APEC Summit in November on the heels of the G20 Summit in New Delhi in September. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan laid out in detail the economic ambitions of the Biden national strategy on April 27, giving further clarity to how the administration’s foreign policy will meet the needs of the American middle class. Regional collaboration continues to expand. Both leaders will gather in Australia on May 24 as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese hosts the third in-person meeting of the leaders of the Quad. Also noteworthy in this first quarter of 2023 is the progress in ties between Japan and South Korea. Trilateral consultations began early in the Biden administration, and after the election of President Yoon Suk Yeol last spring, the groundwork for resolving the many difficulties in the bilateral relationship began. This spring, President Yoon and Prime Minister Kishida revealed their progress in a set of visits to each other’s capitals. A trilateral summit is planned for the G7 Summit, which Yoon will attend as an observer. Overshadowing this active multilateral calendar is the continuing war in Ukraine. Both Kishida and Biden have visited President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in his capitol. The United States and Japan remain stalwart supporters of the Ukrainian defense effort as Ukrainians prepare for the spring counteroffensive against Russian forces. Yet questions have arisen within the US Congress over the scale and duration of military aide provided to Zelenskyy. Interestingly, there remains little doubt about the Kishida Cabinet’s support of Ukraine. While Japan does not provide lethal aid, it has joined in solidarity with European nations to contribute to the complex humanitarian relief needed by the Ukrainian people. Political choices will also shape the remainder of the year. President Biden on April 25 announced his run for a second term in the 2024 election. The Republican field of candidates begins to emerge with former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley officially declaring her candidacy on Feb. 14, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, while not yet official, has been the center of media attention. Former President Donald Trump has already begun his rallies, having announced his candidacy on Nov. 15. In Tokyo, talk of a national snap election continues, with the latest rumors suggesting that Kishida, coming off his party’s good showing in local elections in April, might opt for a ballot after the G7 Summit in Hiroshima.
Topic:: Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and Multilateral Relations
Political Geography:: Japan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

6. US-Japan Relations: Ramping Up Diplomacy and Defense Cooperation

Author:: Sheila A. Smith and Charles McClean
Publication Date:: 01-2023
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Comparative Connections
Institution:: Pacific Forum
Abstract:: In the wake of the death of former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, the fall brought unexpectedly turbulent politics for Prime Minister Kishida Fumio. In the United States, however, President Joe Biden welcomed the relatively positive outcome of the midterm elections, with Democrats retaining control over the Senate and losing less than the expected number of seats in the House. Diplomacy continued to be centered on various impacts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but both Biden and Kishida focused their attention on a series of Asian diplomatic gatherings to improve ties. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s attendance at the G20 Meeting in Bali and APEC gathering in Bangkok proffered the opportunity finally for in-person bilateral meetings for both leaders. Finally, Japan’s long awaited strategic documents were unveiled in December. A new National Security Strategy (NSS) took a far more sober look at China’s growing influence and included ongoing concerns over North Korea as well as a growing awareness of Japan’s increasingly difficult relationship with Russia. Accompanying the NSS is a 10-year defense plan, with a five-year build-up commitment, that gave evidence that Kishida and his ruling coalition were serious about their aim to spend 2% of Japan’s GDP on its security. The desire for greater lethality was also there, with the inclusion of conventional strike investment.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, and Defense Cooperation
Political Geography:: Japan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

7. Normalizing U.S.–Pakistan Relations

Author:: Adam Weinstein
Publication Date:: 08-2023
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:: The U.S.–Pakistan relationship is often portrayed negatively among the lawmakers, media, and general public of both countries, with a focus on mutual resentment and dysfunction. The early relationship was burdened by mismatched expectations regarding support in conflicts with India. Different priorities from the start of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan during the 1980s further strained the relationship. The United States also sanctioned Pakistan and India for developing nuclear weapons, which had a disparate impact on Pakistan, causing ongoing tension. Many in Washington’s policy and journalistic communities hold negative views of Pakistan, viewing it as an enabler of terrorism that seeks geopolitical rents but rarely delivers. Pakistanis often resent what they view as Washington’s use of the country as a “frontline state” in both the Cold War and the War on Terror, claiming tens of thousands of lives, only to discard it later. These grievances are largely dismissed in Washington as self–inflicted. Despite the negative public debate, serving officials in both governments generally hold a more nuanced view, recognizing the broad overlapping interests shared by the United States and Pakistan in areas like climate change, trade, and counterterrorism. There is already an exhaustive literature on terrorism in Pakistan, nuclear security, and potential conflicts along the Line of Control with India. This brief will instead focus on revitalizing U.S.–Pakistan relations through innovative diplomacy in areas that have received less attention, such as trade, regional integration, people–to–people connections, and climate change. Its principal recommendation is that Washington should resist viewing Pakistan through the narrow lens of the “War on Terror” or great power competition. Instead it should pursue its interests through more normalized relations, while recognizing U.S. limitations in influencing events in Pakistan or the region.
Topic:: Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Counter-terrorism, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:: Pakistan, South Asia, North America, and United States of America

8. Competition Versus Exclusion in U.S.–China Relations: A Choice Between Stability and Conflict

Author:: Jake Werner
Publication Date:: 09-2023
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:: The Biden administration’s China policy is pulling in two different directions, but the tension is not widely recognized because every antagonistic measure aimed at China is filed under the heading of competition. As a result, Washington’s debate on China loses the crucial distinction between “competition” — a kind of connection with the potential to be carried on in healthy ways — and “exclusion,” an attempt to sever connection that necessarily leads to conflict if the domain is significant. Biden’s exclusion policies focus on cutting China out of the principal growth sectors in the global economy and the most lucrative and strategically important markets. Administration officials think their approach is sensible and moderate compared to more extreme voices in Washington calling for exclusion in all realms. Even so, the Biden approach is highly destabilizing because both countries consider the targeted areas vital to the future of global authority and economic prosperity, and because the attempt to trap China in a position of permanent subordination represents a serious threat to the legitimacy of China’s leaders. Healthy competition requires a shared stake in the future. In earlier periods, despite sharp tensions and mutual suspicions suffusing the relationship, U.S.–China ties were stabilized first by the joint project of containing Soviet power and then by a shared commitment to market–led globalization. Now that leaders on both sides are disenchanted with key facets of globalization, the two countries are caught in an escalatory cycle of exclusion and retaliation that risks hardening zero–sum pressures in the global system into a permanent structure of hostility. In such a scenario, each country would organize its own society and international partners to undermine the other, dramatically increasing the likelihood of violent conflict. The warning signs are already clear on both sides, as each increasingly interprets every action on the other side as part of a conspiracy to achieve domination. Notwithstanding widespread complacency about the risks of conflict after a tentative diplomatic opening in recent months, the rise of securitized thinking in both countries is steadily building institutional and ideological momentum for confrontation that can only be broken by a new and inclusive direction for the relationship.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Political stability, Conflict, Strategic Competition, and Competition
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

9. Common Good Diplomacy: A Framework for Stable U.S.–China Relations

Author:: Jake Werner
Publication Date:: 09-2023
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:: One curious feature of the emerging U.S.–China conflict is that each side claims to be defending the existing international order against the threat the other poses to it. Hidden beneath this seemingly irreconcilable dispute is a crucial truth: both the United States and China are status quo powers, sharing a deep interest in a stable global security environment and an open global economy. At the same time, both countries are pursuing urgently needed reforms to a global system increasingly defined by zero–sum pressures. Yet both are prone to exclusionary impulses that threaten to ruin the possibility of a shared reform agenda and instead throw the world into conflict. Working with China to revitalize the international order would not only prevent such a conflict, it would also establish the conditions for healthy forms of both competition and cooperation in the U.S.–China relationship. But how can U.S. leaders pursue such a project without simply giving a pass to China’s sometimes undesirable behavior? The focus should be diplomacy to frame an inclusive global system, focusing on actions that would reduce zero–sum constraints. In the three key realms of global authority and security, the global economy, and climate change, China is currently engaged in counterproductive moves that exacerbate existing tensions but is also pursuing promising reforms that could expand the scope for positive–sum outcomes. Rather than seeking to counter every Chinese initiative, U.S. leaders should carefully distinguish between beneficial and damaging outcomes, affirming and building on China’s constructive proposals and managing differences through negotiation rather than polemics and confrontation. Some potentially fruitful areas for cooperation include joint action to limit climate change, development in the Global South, revising the global guidelines for economic statecraft, and reforming international institutions to create a more open and inclusive world order. Pursuing cooperative efforts in such areas would both create direct benefits and improve U.S. credibility as a responsible leader of the world order rather than simply a rival of China. It would also open space to pursue competition within a rules–based order rather than risk a slide into destructive zero–sum conflict.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Political stability, and International Order
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

10. U.S. Diplomacy Can Prevent Canadian Transboundary Mining Pollution on the Northern Border

Author:: Michael Freeman
Publication Date:: 04-2023
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:: The Biden administration’s America the Beautiful initiative1 has recently bolstered conservation and economic activity in southeast Alaska.2 Yet only a few miles away, Canada is allowing dangerous gold mines in British Columbia to put Alaskans, Alaska Native communities, and the ecosystems they rely on at risk. The United States must exercise its rights under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty3 to address these mining and diplomatic malpractices. The United States’ ability to clean up mining activity at home and abroad will soon be put to the test as the world moves to secure new supplies of the critical minerals needed to build a clean energy economy. New mining developments are moving forward in the transboundary region of British Columbia along the Alaskan border without the consent of Tribes and Alaskan communities downstream. Despite U.S. complaints under the Boundary Waters Treaty, both the Canadian federal government and the provincial government of British Columbia are pushing ahead. Much of this new mining activity is focused within the watersheds of the Taku, Stikine, and Unuk-Nass rivers. These rivers flow from Canada’s boreal forest into Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the site of one of President Joe Biden’s largest 4 conservation achievements5 and a bastion of ecosystem resilience for the state’s salmon fisheries.6 The dams used to capture and retain the toxic mine tailings—or waste—associated with gold-copper mining are prone to leakage and collapse, putting southeast Alaska communities, Tribes, and ecosystems at serious risk. Provincial mining activity in this region is recklessly underregulated, and efforts to introduce safeguards have faced diplomatic stonewalling from both the Canadian government and the provincial government of British Columbia. Low British Columbian bonding requirements, lax environmental protections, and no requirement to consult with the United States on new projects have attracted large gold mining operations to the region without consent or sufficient protections for downstream communities in Alaska. The International Joint Commission (IJC), a forum created to help the United States and Canada work out cross-border waterway issues and governed by the Boundary Waters Treaty,7 has been receiving increased attention as communities and Tribes call on both governments to find protective resolutions.8 The Biden administration should exercise its authority under the Boundary Waters Treaty—which Canada may already be violating by allowing British Columbian pollution to enter U.S. waters—to engage the government of Canada on these important transboundary environmental concerns: The United States should press Canada to join IJC proceedings to work out the mining pollution issues along the British Columbia-Alaska border. Through this process, the IJC should consider setting up watershed boards co-led by local Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. Similarly, the IJC should follow Indigenous nations’ recommendation to pause all mine permitting in the transboundary British Columbia region until watershed protections are implemented. Both Canada and the United States should also strengthen bonding requirements for mine liabilities so communities are not left holding the bag for tailings dam breaches.
Topic:: Climate Change, Diplomacy, Environment, Mining, Renewable Energy, Pollution, and Public Lands
Political Geography:: Canada, North America, and United States of America

11. Primer: Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Visit to the United States

Author:: John Lee
Publication Date:: 10-2023
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Hudson Institute
Abstract:: While Ukraine, Gaza, and climate change will feature heavily on the agenda during Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s visit to Washington, DC, the most important and enduring issue between the two countries is progressing AUKUS (Australia–United Kingdom–United States) as the key ANZUS (Australia–New Zealand–United States) contemporary alliance initiative. If the AUKUS arrangement stalls and fails to have a meaningful impact on the strategic and military balance of power, then America’s regional allies and partners will lose faith that a reinvigorated American-led alliance system can serve as a check on Chinese power. America’s slow progress to reform the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is an immense frustration for Australian and American proponents of AUKUS. However, concerns regarding inadequate investment in the American military industrial base are reasonable and legitimate. Australian defense policy is underfunded and lacks urgency despite defense analysts’ assessment that the strategic environment is rapidly deteriorating. Australian underperformance will increase skepticism of AUKUS in both countries. Both countries need to undertake much more detailed scenario planning and commit to the agreed sharing of burdens and responsibilities to deter or defeat China.
Topic:: Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and AUKUS
Political Geography:: Australia, North America, and United States of America

12. America’s Response after Russian Suspension of New START

Author:: Rebeccah L. Heinrichs and Marshall Billingslea
Publication Date:: 02-2023
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Hudson Institute
Abstract:: This week’s news that Russia will suspend participation in the New START nuclear treaty follows the State Department’s January announcement that Russia is in breach of New START and its obligation to allow inspection activities on its territory. Since the Cold War, the United States has led efforts to promote nuclear non-proliferation and to create a transparent and stable dynamic between Moscow and Washington regarding our nuclear weapons forces. But the Russians have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate the terms of our agreements. While the United States has sought to decrease our reliance on nuclear weapons in our military strategies, Russia has gone the other way. Russia is developing, testing, and fielding new delivery systems within traditional categories like road-mobile and silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. But it has also developed novel systems like nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicles that raise questions about their intent. And its large arsenal of non-strategic nuclear weapons remains outside the bounds of any treaty. As we’ve seen in Ukraine, Russia uses the threat of nuclear employment to coerce nations in wars of aggression that Russia has chosen. Moscow appears to have lowered the nuclear threshold. The best path for peace is for the United States to maintain credible deterrence options. This provides incentives for our adversaries to engage in diplomacy.
Topic:: Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, Military, and New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START)
Political Geography:: Russia, North America, and United States of America

13. Reagan in China: Don’t Say Anything about the Turkeys

Author:: Beatrice Camp
Publication Date:: 02-2023
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: American Diplomacy
Institution:: American Diplomacy
Abstract:: Twelve years after President Nixon’s historic opening to China, President Ronald Reagan visited the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in April 1984. The visit was a vast undertaking with an enormous entourage – Ambassador Arthur Hummel was reportedly stunned to hear that the president’s party would number over 800. For a politician like Reagan who had repeatedly criticized President Jimmy Carter for establishing diplomatic relations with Beijing, it was a huge move. For the Chinese, it was a very welcome symbol of acceptance. First lady Nancy Reagan accompanied her husband; some 600 journalists covered the trip. The Reagans toured historical and cultural sites in Beijing and attended a State Dinner at the Great Hall of the People before traveling on to Xian and Shanghai.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Memoir
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

14. Reconciling with a Former Enemy: Post-War Diplomacy between the US and Vietnam

Author:: Justin Ahn
Publication Date:: 11-2023
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: American Diplomacy
Institution:: American Diplomacy
Abstract:: After the Vietnam War ended in 1975, US–Vietnam relations were marked by continuing hostility. Deaths during the war have been estimated as 58,220 American soldiers and, on the Vietnamese side, a staggering two million civilians and one million soldiers.[1] The US had no diplomatic ties with Vietnam and imposed a full trade embargo on the country.[1] Less than fifty years later, the two countries are close economic and strategic partners thanks to their successful diplomatic efforts.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Reconciliation, and Vietnam War
Political Geography:: Vietnam, North America, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

15. HIV, the Legacy of America’s Response, and Lessons for Future Outbreaks

Author:: Alisha Smith-Arthur
Publication Date:: 11-2023
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: American Diplomacy
Institution:: American Diplomacy
Abstract:: As I stood in line (safety distanced) to receive a COVID test before returning home to the US after a trip to Cote d’Ivoire in 2022, I was able to see and reflect upon the enduring legacy of the American public health diplomacy effort to fight the global pandemic of HIV. The testing site had the unmistakable dual-flag PEPFAR (The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, announced by George W. Bush in 2003) logo outside, indicating that the testing equipment (and likely the training for the personnel inside) came via a PEPFAR project. I’ve seen similar stamps on rural labs and remote health posts across the countries I’ve worked in (as well as on the airport welcome signs of many a friendly health worker who has readily included me in their work), and it always serves to remind me of the common goals we are working towards in these health diplomacy projects.
Topic:: HIV/AIDS, Diplomacy, Public Health, and COVID-19
Political Geography:: Africa, North America, and United States of America

16. The Ripple Effect: A U.S. Diplomatic Strategy for a Changing World Order

Author:: Chester A Crocker and Barbara K. Bodine
Publication Date:: 08-2023
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Abstract:: Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine upended what policymakers thought they knew about the world and territorial military aggression. The ensuing war has brought destruction to Europe unlike anything since the Second World War. Regardless of how the war ends, several strategic trends, whether entirely new or preexisting and now reinforced, have set in a motion a new strategic environment in which the United States must compete. Ultimately, the new strategic environment is being defined by a global diffusion of power, where the agency of middle powers and their importance in solving geopolitical problems rise in tandem. In the spring of 2023, ISD convened two New Global Commons/Schlesinger Strategic Surprise working group meetings with participants drawn from academia, think tanks, government, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. The group identified key trends and potential strategic surprises emanating from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, honed in on the issues that would affect the strategic environment regardless of the war’s outcome, and put forth policy guidelines and recommendations for the United States as it seeks to navigate a more diverse geopolitical landscape in the coming years.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Geopolitics, Strategic Competition, International Order, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, Ukraine, North America, and United States of America

17. Enemies Foreign and Domestic: Confronting Kleptocrats at Home and Abroad

Author:: Kelly M. McFarland
Publication Date:: 01-2023
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Abstract:: As Putin and his kleptocratic regime of oligarchs wage a devastating war in Ukraine, the costs of corruption have never been so starkly visible. Beyond Russia, recent examples of corruption in China, Afghanistan, the Northern Triangle, the Solomon Islands, and elsewhere, prove that rampant corruption poses a significant threat to aspirations for a greener, healthier, more peaceful, and more democratic world. Countries such as Russia and China have elevated their brand of corruption into a distinct and powerful aspect of their foreign policy. They employ this strategic corruption abroad to stunt economic growth; prop-up fellow authoritarian regimes; exacerbate social inequality; erase political trust; accelerate pandemics and degrade healthcare systems; exploit the environment; and propel state oppression. As U.S. policymakers seek to counter this strategic corruption, they must first recognize the extent to which domestic laws and actors within the United States enable this corruption to fester. In the fall of 2021 and spring of 2022, ISD convened a series of New Global Commons working group meetings with participants drawn from academia, think tanks, government, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. The group crafted workable definitions of corruption, evaluated the unique political and related threats posed by corruption and kleptocracy, assessed Russia and China’s use of strategic corruption, and developed principles and recommendations for government and non-government entities to build a global, sustained, anti-corruption response.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Corruption, Diplomacy, Authoritarianism, and Kleptocracy
Political Geography:: Russia, China, North America, and United States of America

18. Fall 2022 edition of Strategic Visions

Author:: Alan McPherson, Brandon Kinney, Jay Lockenour, Alessandro Iandolo, Penny Von Eschen, and Ryan Langton
Publication Date:: 12-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Strategic Visions
Institution:: Center for the Study of Force and Diplomacy, Temple University
Abstract:: This edition of Strategic Visions includes four interviews with visiting speakers and members of the CENFAD community. In a print-aexclusive interview, the 2022-2023 Richard Immerman Fellow Brandon Kinney talks about his current research for his dissertation. I also sat down with Temple University Professor of History Jay Lockenour to discuss his new book, Dragonslayer: The Legend of Erich Ludendorff in the Weimar Republic and Third Reich. In addition to delivering lectures at CENFAD, Alessandro Iandolo and Penny M. Von Eschen also met with me over Zoom to talk about their recent projects. These interviews appear in print and video below. Lastly, Strategic Visions features an essay and three book reviews from Temple History graduate students. In his essay, “A Reckoning for the Field,” Graydon Dennison pushes historians to think beyond traditional actors and chronologies when studying United States diplomacy. Joseph Johnson reviewed Jacob Darwin Hamblin’s The Wretched Atom: America’s Global Gamble with Peaceful Nuclear Technology, Andrew Santora reviewed David Harrisville’s The Virtuous Wehrmacht: Crafting the Myth of the German Soldier on the Eastern Front, 1941-1944, and Lucas de Souza Martins reviewed Kenneth P. Serbin’s From Revolution to Power in Brazil: How Radical Leftists Embraced Capitalism and Struggled with Leadership.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, History, and Academia
Political Geography:: Brazil, North America, and United States of America

19. 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

20. A Roundtable on Tizoc Chavez, The Diplomatic Presidency: American Foreign Policy from FDR to George H.W. Bush

Author:: Kelly M. McFarland, Jeffrey A. Engel, Silke Zoller, Seth Offenbach, M. Elizabeth Sanders, and Tizoc Chavez
Publication Date:: 09-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: The Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR)
Abstract:: Presidential diplomacy has arguably been more front and center in the American public consciousness than usual over the last half decade. President Trump made his personal relationship with a multitude of world leaders a key media talking point. Whether it was his use of Twitter to praise, degrade, or threaten another leader, his bombastic actions at NATO and G-7 summits, his secretive discussions with Vladimir Putin, or his eventual BFF relationship with Kim Jong Un, Trump was always quick to place himself at the helm of his administration’s diplomatic endeavors. Likewise, albeit with a different tone, strategy, and oftentimes different desired outcomes, President Biden has made much of his personal diplomatic skills, and his belief in the need to use them. Candidate Biden touted his foreign policy experience on the campaign trail, noting that he personally knew many world leaders. Biden has used his experience and full Rolodex to try and repair relationships with allies. This approach has been on full display since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This recent atmosphere of personal presidential diplomacy makes the arrival of Tizoc Chavez’s work, The Diplomatic Presidency: American Foreign Policy from FDR to George H. W. Bush, all the more important. Chavez makes it clear that presidential diplomacy as we know it today become part of the office, for better or worse, with Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Most importantly, Chavez demonstrates that regardless of a president’s personal inclinations, personal diplomacy will come into play at points throughout their presidencies due to any one, or a combination, of four consistent structures. In doing so, he adroitly demonstrates how personal diplomacy became an ingrained part of the modern presidency.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Hegemony, Leadership, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

21. Revitalizing the U.S.-Philippines Alliance to Address Strategic Competition in the Indo-Pacific

Author:: Lisa Curtis, Joshua Fitt, and Zachary Durkee
Publication Date:: 06-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:: The purpose of this report is to assess the current state of the relationship and provide recommendations for revitalizing and expanding bilateral ties following a six-year period marked by turbulence and volatility. While Duterte has tested the flexibility of the alliance with his controversial counternarcotics campaign and attempted realignment toward China, his actions have also highlighted a broader need for the United States to reprioritize its oldest ally in Asia. To reinvigorate U.S.-Philippines relations, the report makes a series of policy recommendations regarding security and defense ties, foreign assistance, energy cooperation, and diplomatic ties. It further proposes ways to improve the narrative regarding U.S.-Philippines legacy issues and the two countries’ complicated colonial history.
Topic:: Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, Strategic Competition, and Rodrigo Duterte
Political Geography:: Philippines, North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

22. Heyday of Asian Regionalism? The Implications of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership for the United States

Author:: Mireya Solís
Publication Date:: 08-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
Abstract:: This paper analyses the implications of the entry into force of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) for the United States (US). Traditionally, trade policy has been central to the United States’ aim to position itself as a Pacific power and architect of the evolving regional economic architecture. Over the years, however, US trade strategy has evolved in distinct ways: from an emphasis on bilateral trade negotiations and open regionalism (in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] forum) to the pursuit of a high-standard transregional trade agreement (in the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP]); and more recently under the Trump administration the pursuit of unilateralism and the resort to tariffs as a form of leverage vis-à-vis competitors (China) and partners (allies in Europe and Asia) alike. When the RCEP negotiations launched, there was little concern in US policymaking circles that the emerging trade grouping in Asia could be disadvantageous for the US given that the TPP project was an effective vehicle to advance the US vision for quality economic integration and to cement its position in the dynamic Asian region. However, the US withdrawal from the TPP and the successful conclusion of the RCEP talks (even with the absence of India) have changed that calculus. This paper identifies three main implications of RCEP for the United States at this juncture: growing marginalisation from intra-Asian trade, diminished rulemaking capabilities as alternative standards disseminate widely in the region, and lessened diplomatic clout as the United States struggles to incorporate trade liberalisation into its Asia policy. A fourth possible consequence – a renewed interest in joining the Comprehensive and Progressive for Trans-Pacific Partnership – has not materialised. Instead, the Biden administration is developing an Indo-Pacific Economic Framework that will not include market access negotiations but will focus instead on issues such as supply chain resilience, infrastructure, and the digital economy. The ability of the United States to offer a compelling plan of economic engagement with the region is in question, raising the spectre of marginalisation whilst Asian regionalism makes strides.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Regionalism, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:: Asia, North America, United States of America, and ASEAN

23. Rewinding the Clock? US-Russia Relations in the Biden Era

Author:: Bobo Lo
Publication Date:: 02-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:: The escalating crisis in Ukraine in the winter of 2021-2022 has returned US-Russia relations to center stage. Faced with the prospect of a new Russian military intervention, US President Joe Biden has re-engaged with Vladimir Putin in a manner reminiscent of the diplomacy of the superpower era. But this latest American attempt at accommodation raises more questions than answers. In the intervening three decades the world has changed out of all recognition, the international influence of the US-Russia relationship is much diminished, and their cooperation has sunk to historic lows. Can Washington and Moscow defy gravity and achieve some level of pragmatic engagement? There is good reason for skepticism. Neither side is truly invested in cooperation, but instrumentalizes it to other purposes. The Biden administration hopes to neutralize Russia in order to focus on the all-encompassing challenge of China. The Kremlin looks to undermine American influence as part of its project of promoting Russia as an independent global power. These goals are essentially irreconcilable. Looking ahead, the real question is not whether the United States and Russia can recalibrate their relationship to new “normal”, but whether they can avoid confrontation in an increasingly fluid and disorderly world.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Military Intervention, Vladimir Putin, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:: Russia, Eurasia, North America, and United States of America

24. Starr Forum: The Future of US - China Relations

Publication Date:: 02-2022
Content Type:: Video
Institution:: MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:: Moderator: Taylor Fravel is Arthur and Ruth Sloan Professor of Political Science and Director of the MIT Security Studies Program (SSP). He studies international relations, with a focus on international security, China, and East Asia. Panelists: Eric Heginbotham is a principal research scientist at MIT’s Center for International Studies (CIS) and SSP. He is a specialist in Asian security issues. Before joining MIT, he was a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, where he led research projects on China, Japan, and regional security issues. Ketian Vivian Zhang is an assistant professor of international Security in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University. She studies rising powers, coercion, economic statecraft, and maritime disputes in international relations and social movements in comparative politics, with a regional focus on China and East Asia. Ali Wyne is a senior analyst with Eurasia Group's Global Macro practice, where he focuses on US-China relations and great-power competition. He is the author of a forthcoming book, America's Great-Power Opportunity: Revitalizing US Foreign Policy to Meet the Challenges of Strategic Competition.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Hegemony, Strategic Competition, Rivalry, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

25. Time to Get U.S.-Azerbaijani Relations on Track Azerbaijan’s victory in the Second Karabakh War has created a new geopolitical reality in the South Caucasus and the Caspian region.

Author:: Luke Coffey
Publication Date:: 01-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: Azerbaijan’s victory in the Second Karabakh War has created a new geopolitical reality in the South Caucasus and the Caspian region. This new geopolitical reality creates challenges and opportunities for the United States. Azerbaijan’s victory in the war means that NATO member Turkey’s influence in the South Caucasus, and by extension Central Asia, is on the rise. If Washington and Ankara can get their bilateral relationship back on track, Turkey’s ascendancy in the region can benefit broader U.S. strategic interests. In the aftermath of the conflict there is also an opportunity for America to increase and deepen regional economic and energy cooperation. However, Moscow now has troops—either by invitation or by occupation—in all three countries of the South Caucasus and in Kazakhstan on the other side of the Caspian. From the American point of view, this does not help bring stability or security to the region. Azerbaijan is in a strategic region where many U.S. geopolitical interests converge. Since 2001, Azerbaijan has proven to be a reliable partner for America against terrorism as well as in the war in Afghanistan. With the new geopolitical reality in the region, U.S. policymakers would be remiss to ignore this limited window of opportunity for improving Washington’s relationship with Baku.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:: Asia, Azerbaijan, North America, and United States of America

26. Azerbaijan in the Struggle for Eurasia Restoring America’s Geostrategic Approach

Author:: Michael Doran
Publication Date:: 01-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: Azerbaijan is “geopolitically critical” to the United States, argues the 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security advisor to former President Jimmy Carter. Counterbalancing Russia is a primary duty of the United States, and the mere placement of Azerbaijan on the map makes it a crucial partner in that effort. The benefits of partnership extend well beyond Azerbaijan’s immediate neighborhood, the South Caucasus. The country is the sole gateway to the West of the former Soviet states of Central Asia. The independence of those states, Brzezinski explains, “can be rendered nearly meaningless if Azerbaijan becomes fully subordinated to Moscow’s control.” Brzezinski was not alone in championing this view. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, American foreign policy professionals on both sides of the political aisle espoused the same perspective, which we shall dub the “the geostrategic approach.” Its influence generated significant American support for the creation of an East‑West land bridge, across which rail tracks and energy pipelines now stretch—the Silk Road region’s only terrestrial supply lines from Asia to Europe that Russia cannot control. This land bridge opened the way for an air corridor which, during the war in Afghanistan, allowed planes from America’s military bases in the Middle East to reach the battlefield by a route much shorter than any alternative, and one that required no haggling with difficult partners, such as Russia. As it emerged defeated three decades ago from the First Karabakh War (1988‑1994), Azerbaijan was virtually a failed state, inundated with hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons. Today it is the wealthiest, most prosperous, and most influential country in its neighborhood. Its victory in the 2020 Second Karabakh War also revealed the startling power of its military. The rise of Azerbaijan has vindicated Brzezinski and his cohort, but even as the country grows stronger and fulfills the role envisioned for it, the geostrategic approach grows weaker. Supporters of this perspective in Washington today are few and far between. Are we witnessing the temporary eclipse of an influential foreign policy doctrine, or its total demise?
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Hegemony, Geopolitics, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:: Asia, Azerbaijan, North America, and United States of America

27. Atticism and the Summit for Democracy

Author:: Damjan Krnjevic Miskovic
Publication Date:: 01-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: When in the course of reading the two most authoritative accounts that together chronicle the war of the Spartans and the Athenians and how they waged it against each other—i.e., the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides and the Hellenica by Xenophon—we come across the word attikizo and its cognates on at least seven different occasions: five in the former work and twice in the latter, by our count (see Thuc. III.62.2, III.64.5, IV.133.1, VIII.38.3, and VIII.87.1; Xen. Hell. I.6.13 and VI.3.14). A straightforward definition of this Thucydidean neologism is “to become like or join or side with the Athenians; to work for the interests of Athens.” However, as Victor Davis Hansonpoints out in A War Like No Other (2005), attikizo also has a normative connotation: it a “special word of sorts for Athenian expansionism.” We can thus allow ourselves to take the noun ‘Atticism’ to mean, figuratively, “alignment to a stronger power by a subordinate one acting under constraint at a time of crisis.” We may note, besides, that the classical Greek understanding of crisis connotes not just a meaning of momentous decisionand thus uncertain outcome, resulting in the need to exercise prudential judgment; it is also a key Hippocratic term used to refer to a sudden change in the health of a body towards either recovery or a turn for the worst. Crisis thus understood does not perforce imply predetermined reason or directionality. It is with this in mind that we can begin with preparations to conduct a little thought experiment on the strategic implications of the Summit for Democracy, which the Biden Administration staged online in December 2021 with much fanfare. In so doing, we can do worse than to call to mind a slight modification of something Barack Obama once said to Mitt Romney: “the 2000s called, and they want their foreign policy back” because, in many ways, the Summit for Democracy is reminiscent of various proposals put forward by Washington insiders in the first years of the third millennium for the establishment of some sort of U.S.‑led global coalition of democratic states. As we shall see, the speeches and deeds of the Biden Administration have provided enough evidence to suggest it may embrace some of the more dangerous elements of said proposals in the time ahead. This, in turn, may leave it open to the charge of advocating or suborning Atticism in the pursuit of its “America is Back” foreign policy posture. To get a sense of the possible effects thereof on U.S. national interests hereafter, we shall proceed with an inquiry into the scale, scope, and prudence of what we understand to be the Biden Administration’s essential ambition. We shall at times proceed in a contemporaneously unconventional approach on the grounds that operating in this manner can shed light on such matters in ways that conventional ones cannot, or at least cannot do as well. Genealogy of Morals Before coming to the various proposals made in the 2000s for the establishment of some sort of U.S.‑led global coalition of democratic states—an examination of which should prepare us to conduct our little thought experiment per se—we observe that “America is Back” represents most obviously a political aspiration to repudiate the foreign policy posture of the antecedent administration, which had conducted its external affairs according to the “America First” slogan that may be said to have been encapsulated by words spoken by Donald Trump in September 2019 during an address to the UN General Assembly: “The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.” But we suggest that “America is Back” may also be understood to be a reference to the spirit of an earlier moment in world politics in which it could be said that America had in fact recuperated or perpetuated its standing and come back (or out) on top.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Hegemony, Democracy, and Political Crisis
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

28. Our National Devaluation of Diplomacy

Author:: Thomas E. McNamara
Publication Date:: 08-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: American Diplomacy
Institution:: American Diplomacy
Abstract:: A recent RAND Report on “The Foreign Service and American Public Opinion” (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1845-1.html) reveals how little the American public knows about diplomacy and foreign affairs. For the report, which goes much deeper than most foreign policy polls, RAND surveyed representative samples of Americans over a two-year period (2020-2021). The results are not surprising, but they are worrisome for anyone interested in national security policy and prosperity. This report and conclusions highlight the deep ignorance of Americans about diplomacy, its policies, and its practice. The “no opinion” responses in some polls and the “I-never-knew-that” replies in some focus groups—even on basics—can range from 25% to 50%.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Public Opinion, and Civil Services
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

29. U.S. Relations With China: DACOR Conference Summary

Author:: Keith McCormick and Emma W. Sandifer
Publication Date:: 11-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: American Diplomacy
Institution:: American Diplomacy
Abstract:: As relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) loom ever larger for the U.S., DACOR’s annual conference in 2022 focused on “Balancing Competing Interests in U.S. Relations With China.” The Washington-based organization of foreign affairs professionals brought together diplomats and academics to explore the idea that U.S. policy toward China needs to pursue cooperation in some areas and competition in others while simultaneously confronting Beijing and preparing to deter or win a conflict, if it comes to war. The hybrid conference, with some attendees present at the historic DACOR-Bacon house and others joining online, was conducted under Chatham House Rules. The keynote address, by Ambassador (ret.) J. Stapleton Roy, was live-streamed to a classroom of political science faculty and students at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Topic:: Conflict Prevention, Diplomacy, Human Rights, Bilateral Relations, Trade, and Conference
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

30. Everything Counts: Building a Control Regime for Nonstrategic Nuclear Warheads in Europe

Author:: Miles A. Pomper, William Alberque, Marshall L. Brown Jr., William M. Moon, and Nikolai Sokov
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Abstract:: Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration insisted in arms control talks with Russia that a follow-on agreement to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) should cover all nuclear weapons and that such an agreement should focus on the nuclear warheads themselves. This would represent a significant change from previous agreements, which focused on delivery vehicles, such as missiles. The United States has been particularly interested in potential limits on nonstrategic nuclear warheads (NSNW). Such weapons have never been subject to an arms control agreement. Because Russia possesses an advantage in the number of such weapons, the US Senate has insisted that negotiators include them in a future agreement, making their inclusion necessary if such an accord is to win Senate approval and ultimately be ratified by Washington. In the wake of Russian nuclear threats in the Ukraine conflict, such demands can only be expected to grow if and when US and Russian negotiators return to the negotiating table.
Topic:: Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Military Strategy, and Nonproliferation
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America

31. Russian-Turkish Relations and Implications for U.S. Strategy and Operations

Author:: Hanna Notte and Chen Kane
Publication Date:: 11-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Abstract:: Russia and Turkey’s complex relationship has significant implications for U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) strategic interests. The two states cooperate, deconflict, and compete in multiple theatres within Turkey’s extended neighborhood, which straddles United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM), United States Central Command (USCENTCOM), and United States European Command (USEUCOM) areas of responsibility (AORs). 1 Their bilateral strategic trade has created mutual dependencies and vulnerabilities across multiple sectors, such as natural gas, nuclear energy, and tourism. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has many implications for the Russia-Turkey relationship. While engaging actively with Russia and stoking fears that its commercial ties with Moscow could serve Russia’s evasion of Western sanctions, Turkey has also provided TB2 Bayraktar drones to Ukraine, invoked the Montreux Convention, and offered itself as a mediator on various operational issues in the Russia-Ukraine war. As a result of these steps, Turkey’s leverage over both Russia and NATO allies has increased since February 2022. From a U.S. perspective, the implications have been mixed as Turkey has translated its increased leverage into foreign policy steps that threaten to undermine U.S. interests and NATO cohesion. Turkey remains of significant importance to the United States in enabling its interests in the three aforementioned AORs, preventing third actors like China and Iran from operating in the “seams,” and generating an enhanced, unified, and credible NATO capability and capacity in response to Russian aggression. It follows that Turkey’s interplay with Russia in its extended neighborhood has far-reaching implications for the United States and NATO. This study aims to shed light on this relationship, its likely trajectory over the coming decade, its implications for U.S. strategic interests, and how the United States and NATO might shape the Russia- Turkey interplay to their advantage.
Topic:: Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Conflict
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, Turkey, North America, and United States of America

32. The differences between Western and non-Western US allies in the Ukraine war

Author:: Jonathan Spyer
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:: For mid-level regional powers, avoiding non-essential friction with a major power like Russia is seen as an imperative, particularly in a situation where consistent support from their US patron is by no means a given.
Topic:: International Relations, Security, Diplomacy, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, Ukraine, North America, and United States of America

33. Biden, Israel, and China: Making a Difficult Threesome Work

Author:: Steven R. David
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:: It is wrong to expect Israel, a middle-level economy, to decouple from China when far wealthier countries (including the United States) show no signs of following suit. Israeli companies should not be subject to restrictions not placed on companies elsewhere, including the United States itself.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Trade and Finance, Hegemony, and Conflict
Political Geography:: China, Middle East, Israel, Asia, North America, and United States of America

34. Connecting Strategic Dots: Biden’s Visit to the Middle East

Author:: Eytan Gilboa
Publication Date:: 06-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:: During Biden’s upcoming visit, he plans to form a regional defense alliance at a regional conference in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The coalition will include the United States, Israel, and a host of Arab countries, including Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq. In this sense, Biden continues Trump’s policy of the Abraham Accords.
Topic:: International Relations, Diplomacy, Hegemony, Leadership, and Peace
Political Geography:: Africa, Iraq, Middle East, Israel, Saudi Arabia, North America, Egypt, Jordan, and United States of America

35. Pugwash note on present dangers

Author:: Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
Publication Date:: 06-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
Abstract:: The present global situation is very dangerous. Not since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis have we had such a dangerous environment. But while the Cuban missile crisis lasted 13 days, the present situation has continued for over 100 days since February 2022.
Topic:: Defense Policy, NATO, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:: Europe and North America

36. The Complexity Effect in U.S.-Turkey Relations: The Restructuring of the Middle East Regional Security

Author:: Devrim Sahin and Ahmet Sözen
Publication Date:: 06-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:: International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
Abstract:: This paper proposes a discussion of its core theoretical argument that the international order is more complex than the theories generated by traditionalist state-centric approaches and critical approaches, including the regional security complex approach. The complexity approach highlights the sensitive dependency of complex systems on the nonlinear feedback loops and dynamic interactions by which the longer term reactions to the behavior of actors could set off actions-reaction spirals. This path dependency is evident in the erosion of U.S.-Turkey relations which is a cause and a consequence of the realignment in the international system and the Middle East regional system.
Topic:: Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:: Europe, Turkey, Asia, North America, and United States of America

37. Building Bridges between Dependency Theory and Neo-Gramscian Critical Theory: The Agency-Structure Relation as a Starting Point

Author:: Rafael Alexandre Mello
Publication Date:: 04-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Contexto Internacional
Institution:: Institute of International Relations, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
Abstract:: Finding common ground between theories that have never or seldom spoken is a necessary first step to bridge-building, particularly concerning their foundational bases. This article proposes to develop such a footing for a dialogue between the Marxist version of Latin American Dependency Theory (MDT) and Robert Cox’s neo-Gramscian Critical Theory (NCT). The onto-methodological debate around the agency-structure relation offers a possible starting point for a discussion of (in)compatibilities, in particular by deciphering how each understands the relation; but also by asking whether they bring particular social ontologies that need to be addressed.
Topic:: Development, Diplomacy, Hegemony, and International Relations Theory
Political Geography:: South America, Latin America, North America, and Global Focus

38. The Complex History of US-Philippine Health Partnerships

Author:: Leslie V. Advincula-Lopez
Publication Date:: 06-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: East-West Center
Abstract:: Leslie V. Advincula-Lopez, Development Studies Program and Institute of Philippine Culture Ateneo de Manila University, explains that, "[l]ong before the term, global health diplomacy (GHD) became a buzzword in international relations, an efficient Philippine public health system... was a focal point of US-Philippine relations."
Topic:: Diplomacy, Health, Bilateral Relations, Partnerships, Public Health, and COVID-19
Political Geography:: Philippines, North America, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

39. China below the Radar: Israel-US Strategic Dialogue on Technology

Author:: Assaf Orion and Shira Efron
Publication Date:: 07-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:: The statements issued by President Biden during his visit to the Middle East include little mention of China. However, close reading reveals that between the lines, China is quite present in the agreements reached by the President and Israel and Saudi Arabia. The dialogue on technology cooperation announced by Jerusalem and Washington, which is related directly to the Great Power competition, signals a new stage in partnership between the countries: Israel alongside the United States, even if not against China
Topic:: Diplomacy, Science and Technology, Bilateral Relations, and Rivalry
Political Geography:: China, Middle East, Israel, Asia, North America, and United States of America

40. President Biden's Visit to the Middle East: Recommendations for Israel

Author:: Tamir Hayman and Eldad Shavit
Publication Date:: 07-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:: President Biden’s forthcoming trip to Israel, intended to emphasize the US commitment to Israel’s security, brings with it a golden opportunity for Jerusalem on issues such as Iran, the campaign between wars, and Saudi Arabia – also on the Biden itinerary, where the President will attempt to achieve immediate economic gains
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and Leadership
Political Geography:: Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America

41. The Iranian Nuclear Program Advances, with only a Slim Chance of Restoring Nuclear Agreement

Author:: Sima Shine and Ephraim Asculai
Publication Date:: 06-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:: Although the nuclear talks in Vienna were renewed over a year ago, a return to the deal is not on the horizon, and the regime of the ayatollahs has increased the pace of its violations of the deal, which will make it even harder for the parties to reach understandings. The coming weeks will be critical, and at this point the world powers, as well as Israel, must prepare for a reality where there is no agreement, accompanied by troubling Iranian progress on its nuclear program
Topic:: Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Power, Peace, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:: Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

42. Between Erdogan, Mitsotakis, and Biden: The Evolving Ankara-Athens-Washington Triangle

Author:: Gallia Lindenstrauss, Christoph Becker, and Remi Daniel
Publication Date:: 06-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:: “The Prime Minister of Greece no longer exists for me,” declared Turkey’s President, reflecting a break in the rapprochement seen over the past year between Ankara and Athens. What lies behind this change of approach, and how does this affect Israel’s relations with Eastern Mediterranean states?
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Regional Cooperation, and Leadership
Political Geography:: Europe, Turkey, Greece, North America, United States of America, and Mediterranean

43. US Relations with Arab Gulf States: A Passing Crisis?

Author:: Yoel Guzansky and Eldad Shavit
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:: After US–Saudi relations deteriorated when Biden entered the White House, relations between the two countries have recently improved, with reports of a possible visit by the US president to Riyadh. What are the reasons for the rapprochement trend, and how can it affect Israel?
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Leadership
Political Geography:: Middle East, North America, United States of America, and Gulf Nations

44. The Folly of Pushing South Korea Toward a China Containment Strategy

Author:: Jessica J. Lee and Sarang Shidore
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:: The narrow victory of conservative candidate Yoon Suk-yeol in the recent South Korean presidential election comes against the backdrop of an intensifying U.S.-China rivalry, now compounded by the Ukraine crisis. Washington would like South Korea to play a security role in its Indo-Pacific strategy — a strategy that effectively aims to contain China. However, South Korean elites (and the general public) are deeply ambivalent and internally divided on the question of containing China. Pushing South Korea — a robust democracy with major elite divisions — toward containing Beijing risks negative consequences for the United States. These include a reduction in U.S. influence in South Korea, erosion of the U.S.-South Korea alliance, a less-effective South Korean presence in the region, and, in the long run, the potential of South Korean neutrality with respect to China. To avoid these negative outcomes for the United States, Washington should: • Avoid pressuring South Korea to join its China-containment strategy, • Refrain from including Seoul in emerging, non-inclusive, bloc-like structures of U.S. allies in Asia, • Consider pulling back on its intended new Terminal High Altitude Area Defense deployments until a greater consensus is reached within South Korea on the issue, • See South Korea’s role as a bridge and an opportunity to stabilize Washington’s own relationship with Beijing. For example, both South Korea and China could be included in non-traditional security activities of the Quad such as infrastructure and climate change, and • More generally, demilitarize the Quad and open it to wider participation for strengthening U.S. influence in Asia, rather than see it as a zero-sum vehicle for containing China.
Topic:: Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Containment, and Quad Alliance
Political Geography:: China, Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

45. Rising Anti-China Sentiment in South Korea Offers Opportunities To Strengthen US-ROK Relations

Author:: Haneul Lee, Alan Yu, and Tobias Harris
Publication Date:: 08-2022
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:: The Yoon administration’s posture toward China has important implications for the U.S.-ROK alliance and America’s strategic approach in the region
Topic:: Security, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Bilateral Relations, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:: China, Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

46. Will US-Israel ties withstand possible strains due to the Iranian and Palestinian issues?

Author:: Eytan Gilboa
Publication Date:: 01-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:: Despite former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim to a 40-year friendship with President Joe Biden, the latter preferred the new government headed by Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Leadership, and Alliance
Political Geography:: Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America

47. Could Biden construct a new world order through détente with Russia?

Author:: Efraim Inbar
Publication Date:: 01-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:: Such a scenario would give the US a leg up against China’s totalitarianism and expansionist aims, and bridge the age-old schism with Russia
Topic:: Diplomacy, Hegemony, Rivalry, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:: Russia, China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America

48. US-China Roundtable on Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage

Author:: David B. Sandalow, Sally Qiu, and Zhiyuan Fan
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:: On November 17, 2021, New York time/November 18, 2021, Beijing time, the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University and Energy Foundation-China convened an online roundtable on carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) in the United States and China. Scholars, industry officials and policy makers exchanged information and ideas concerning CCUS development in each country. Participants discussed the role of CCUS in achieving net zero emissions, focusing on three topics in particular: CCUS costs, strategies for utilization of carbon dioxide (CO2) and CCUS policies. This report summarizes key points made by participants at the roundtable, which was held under the Chatham House Rule.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Energy Policy, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

49. China's Contribution to the Stabilization of 'Democratic' Afghanistan

Author:: Lukasz Jurenczyk
Publication Date:: 08-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:: Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:: The People’s Republic of China and Afghanistan established diplomatic relations in 1955. In the following decades of the Cold War, however, relations between the countries were limited, which was due to the main directions of the foreign policies of both countries. Afghanistan focused on balancing the influence of the USSR and the US on its territory. China, in turn, adopted a rotational stance towards superpowers, and in the region, it strengthened political, economic and military cooperation with Pakistan (Zaborowski 2012, 142). In the 1970s, China supported the pro-communist Shu’lai Javid (Eternal Flame) party operating in Afghanistan. Members of Parcham, the pro-Moscow wing of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), contemptuously described its members as Maoists (Levi-Sanchez 2017, 46). During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Beijing allowed Xinjiang Uyghur Muslim fighters to pass through the Wakhan Corridor into Afghanistan to support the mujahideen insurgency there. At that time, political relations between states were maintained only at the consular level.By February 1989, the Soviets withdrew their troops from Afghanistan, and in September 1992 the last communist president - Mohammad Najibullah (09.1987-09.1992) was overthrown. However, this did not end the civil war, as individual mujahideen groups fought for influence in the country. The war destabilized not only Afghanistan, but also the border areas of neighboring countries, including the Western border of the PRC. In 1992, the President of Afghanistan - Burhanuddin Rabbani (06.1992-09.1996) tried to normalize relations with Beijing, but due to increasing military operations in 1993 China withdrew its diplomatic representation from Kabul. When the Taliban took power in Afghanistan in 1996, the country fell into international isolation in which China participated. During the Taliban regime, Afghanistan hosted al-Qaeda, which trained around 1,000 Uyghur fighters in the camps there. In Beijing, this caused serious concern and encouraged the Chinese authorities to intensify security cooperation with Pakistan. According to leaders of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), most of the security problems in the Muslim-dominated Xinjiang province were to be caused by neighboring Afghanistan. For example, the 1997 incidents in the province, known as the Yining riots, were considered to be Taliban-inspired (Cheema 2002, 308)
Topic:: Diplomacy, Hegemony, Democracy, and Stabilization
Political Geography:: Afghanistan, China, Middle East, Asia, North America, and United States of America

50. US-Africa Leaders Summit: New Beginning or Old Wine in a New Bottle?

Author:: Charles A. Ray
Publication Date:: 12-2022
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Foreign Policy Research Institute
Abstract:: The US-Africa Leaders Summit—which included delegates from forty-nine countries and the African Union—was held in Washington, D.C., from Dec. 13–15, 2022. The summit focused on deepening and expanding the US-Africa partnership and giving voice to Africans in meeting current global challenges. The summit addressed substantive issues like climate change, food security, and human rights, without dwelling on America’s concern about Chinese or Russian influence on the continent. While specific details remain to be worked out, the three most important deliverables of the summit were: US support for the African Union to become a member of the G-20; a promise of $55 billion in aid to Africa over the next three years; and a commitment from President Joe Biden to visit Africa in 2023.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Diplomacy, Human Rights, Food Security, and Leadership
Political Geography:: Africa, North America, and United States of America

Search

Search Constraints

Search Results

Refine your search

Topic

Political Geography

Content Type

Journal

Publishing Institution

Author

Publication Year

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS