Search

Begin New Search Topic Diplomacy Political Geography North America Publication Year within 10 Years Publication Year within 5 Years

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