Political Geography: United States / Topic: International Cooperation

1. AUKUS Security Pact: Setting the Rivalry with China in the Indo-Pacific

Author:: Krševan Antun Dujmović
Publication Date:: 12-2021
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:: The announcement of the trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, known by the acronym AUKUS, intended to enhance cooperation between the three countries in the Indo- Pacific region in defense and security, has sent shockwaves throughout the world, especially the UK for the Royal Navy of Australia. The nuclear fueled submarines will be armed by conventional weapons, the number of acquired vessels will be at least eight, and as a typically Australian request, part of the vessels will be constructed in Australia’s naval shipyards. So far, the US, the UK, Russia, China, France in China and Europe. The key element of the AUKUS pact, signed on 15th September 2021, is the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines from the US and and India are the only six countries that have commissioned nuclear-powered submarines. Furthermore, before signing the AUKUS pact, the UK was the only country in the world with which the US was sharing the nuclear propulsion technology, under the Mutual Defense Agreement signed back in 1958. The supply of Australia with British and American nuclear-powered attack submarines, as the most delicate part of the AUKUS pact, attracted by far the most of media attention and provoked China’s aggressive reaction. Even more, the three nations security pact, which is in principal intended to bring “enhanced trilateral security partnership for the 21st century”, has made Beijing particularly worried as China fears that this triple alliance is pointed directly against it. The three countries intend to step up their cooperation in the security and defense sector, and apart from cooperation in industrial production of new military equipment, AUKUS also envisages a broad cooperation in the fields where the three countries feel particularly threatened by China’s staggering growth, and they include cyber security, quantum computing and artificial intelligence.
Topic:: Security, International Cooperation, Alliance, Conflict, and Rivalry
Political Geography:: United States, China, United Kingdom, Europe, Asia, Australia, North America, and Indo-Pacific

2. New Frontiers for Security Cooperation with Seoul and Tokyo

Author:: Henry D. Sokolski
Publication Date:: 02-2021
Content Type:: Research Paper
Institution:: Nonproliferation Policy Education Center
Abstract:: With a new Democratic administration, Washington is almost certain to moderate its demands that Japan and South Korea pay more for American forces on their soil. This should ease tensions with Seoul to Tokyo. To strengthen security relations with Japan and South Korea, though, more will be required. Rather than simply increase their conventional military deployments, Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo will need to collaborate in new ways to enhance allied security. This will entail working more closely on new military frontiers, such as enhancing allied command of outer and cyber space as well as in underwater warfare. Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo will also want to carve out new functional areas of cooperation to make existing energy sources more secure, communications more reliable, data sharing easier and safer, and allied economic assistance to developing nations in strategic zones more effective. Enhanced collaboration in each of these areas has begun but is not yet locked in or fully institutionalized. It should be. Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo need one another to deal with China and North Korea. Yet, how each currently strategically views Beijing and Pyongyang differs. Nor is America’s preferred military approach to deterring Chinese and North Korean adventurism — by preventing Beijing and Pyongyang from projecting military strikes against their neighbors — all that easy to achieve. Adding new, more tractable items to America’s Asian security alliance agenda won’t immediately eliminate these misalignments. But it will strengthen the security ties they have as liberal democracies — bonds Beijing and Pyongyang are straining to fray.
Topic:: International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Science and Technology, International Security, Military Affairs, Cyberspace, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:: United States, Japan, China, and South Korea

3. A Roundtable on Michael Kimmage, The Abandonment of the West

Author:: Christopher McKnight Nichols, Heather Marie Stur, Brad Simpson, Andy Rotter, and Michael Kimmage
Publication Date:: 04-2021
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: The Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR)
Abstract:: The title of this book evokes numerous Donald Trump tweets, statements, and threats over the past five years. It also raises questions: was Trump pro-West or not, and how does his administration and its policies compare to those of his predecessors? Trumpism and the related, inchoate policies of “America First” were firmly positioned against the organizational structures and assumptions of the so-called liberal international order, or rules-based order. Trump’s targets ranged from NATO to the World Health Organization (WHO). From his speech at Trump Tower announcing his run for office to statements we heard during his efforts to contest the results of the 2020 election, Trump promulgated racist, particularist claims about which peoples and groups counted (white ones), which immigrants should be allowed in (northern European) and which should be banned (Muslims, those from “shithole” countries), and what wider heritages they fit into or “good genes” they were blessed with.
Topic:: International Cooperation, Liberal Order, Donald Trump, Anti-Westernism, Rivalry, Clash of Civilizations, and America First
Political Geography:: United States and Global Focus

4. Reconsidering US Nuclear Cooperation Agreements

Author:: Richard Nephew
Publication Date:: 03-2020
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:: Despite having played a central role in the creation of the international nuclear commercial sector, today the United States is increasingly on the outside looking in when it comes to civil nuclear projects. The United States now accounts for a relatively small number of new reactor builds, both at home and abroad. There are a few rays of sunshine for the US nuclear industry, especially when it comes to new technology. In fact, many of the new reactor builds that are underway do involve US technology and intellectual property, even if others are performing the construction. To take advantage of a similar dynamic, US innovators are looking to both new and forgotten designs as a way of managing the challenges of nuclear fuel manufacture, safety, waste management, security cost, and proliferation. But these new technologies face an uncertain future (and so consequently does the US role), even notwithstanding the advantages nuclear energy would bring to managing climate change and the edge the United States may have in their development. Various factors account for the challenges facing the US nuclear industry, including the complex political, economic, scientific, and popular environment around nuclear technology and civil nuclear energy. Of the various problems potentially plaguing US nuclear energy policy, one remains both difficult to address and controversial: US requirements for nuclear cooperation, and in particular, the demand from many in Congress and the nonproliferation community that the United States insist on binding commitments from its cooperating partners to forswear developing enrichment and reprocessing technology. While this policy is not responsible for the decline of the US nuclear industry, it adds additional hindrance to US nuclear commerce abroad and may even be to the long-term detriment of US nonproliferation policy interests. If so, then the questions that arise are whether this is in the US interest and, if not, how the US ought to respond. If the government believes that having a role in international nuclear commerce is advisable on both economic and strategic grounds, then it needs to decide whether to commit resources to incentivize foreign partners to overlook the problems its nonproliferation policies may cause these partners or seek modifications to those policies. From a pure nonproliferation perspective, it would be preferable for the United States to invest in its nuclear industry to ensure it is competitive globally. But, this does not seem to be a likely course of action for the United States given the myriad political, legal, and budgetary complexities that would be involved. Consequently, this paper recommends several changes to how US nuclear cooperation agreements are negotiated as well as enhancements to overall US nuclear nonproliferation policies. In aggregate, they seek to rebalance and reformulate some aspects of US nuclear nonproliferation policy to make it more effective and efficient, particularly regarding engagement in civil nuclear commerce, but without compromising the core nonproliferation interests the current US diplomatic approach seeks to advance. With respect to nuclear cooperation agreements, the paper recommends the following: Relaxing the current US preference for a legally binding commitment to forswear all enrichment and reprocessing capabilities indefinitely for these agreements, while continuing traditional US policy to discourage these technologies development through various means. Relying on enhanced inspector access and improved verification tools, technology, and practices to provide confidence on the nondiversion of civil nuclear cooperation rather than assurances regarding enrichment and reprocessing that, in any event, are potentially revocable. Adopting a favorable view of “black box” transfers of nuclear power reactors and building this into policy as new, advanced reactor concepts are being explored, developed, and marketed. Creating a new sanctions regime to cover countries that pursue enrichment and reprocessing capabilities after concluding a 123 agreement. With respect to nuclear nonproliferation policy more generally, the paper recommends the following: Developing an annual nonproliferation indicators publication to identify trends in proliferation, including the kinds of goods that proliferators are potentially seeking. This document would also include a list of countries where there are presently enhanced concerns regarding national nuclear programs or concerns about transshipment and export control risk. Its objective would not be to serve as a proxy for future sanctions designations decisions but rather to give a broad perspective of the challenges that exist with particular jurisdictions even—and perhaps especially—if there is no need or justification for sanctions at present. Developing a warning system for sought-after goods. The United States should work with industry to develop a restricted database that identifies sensitive goods that are being sought. This database would be accessible to corporate compliance officers, who would be vetted for access to the information. Within it, the database could also include additional information about the sorts of tactics being employed by proliferators. Making greater use of end use verification as a means of facilitating monitoring of the nonproliferation commitments of countries, particularly regarding dual use technology. This could also be built out to include greater collaboration with partner countries and companies. Amending Executive Order 13382, which provides for sanctions against proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, to add a prong of “willful negligence.”
Topic:: Energy Policy, International Cooperation, United Nations, Infrastructure, Nuclear Power, and Nonproliferation
Political Geography:: United States

5. The “Indo-Pacific” Concept: Geographical Adjustments and their Implications

Author:: Wada Haruko
Publication Date:: 03-2020
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
Abstract:: The United States, Australia, Japan, India, France, the United Kingdom, Indonesia and ASEAN have adopted the term “Indo-Pacific” as a policy symbol of regional engagement. However, less attention has been given to the change in the geographical definition of the “Indo-Pacific”. This study examines how these countries have adjusted the geographical scope of “Indo-Pacific” to understand how they conceptualise the region. It finds that the inherent core area of the “Indo-Pacific” is from India to the Southeast Asian countries and the seas from the eastern Indian Ocean to the South China Sea, and that the “Indo-Pacific” has converged eastwards and diverged westwards through the geographical adjustment process. It also found that some of the geographical definitions have an additional function of conveying diplomatic messages. These findings will help us understand how the concept of “Indo- Pacific” as conceptualised by various countries develops.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Regional Cooperation, and ASEAN
Political Geography:: United States, Japan, United Kingdom, Asia, France, Australia, and Indo-Pacific

6. Beyond Corona: Getting EU Economic Security Right

Author:: Tobias Gehrke
Publication Date:: 04-2020
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
Abstract:: The corona crisis, the US-China great power competition and lacklustre international rules vividly demonstrate the vulnerability of economic interdependence. Interdependence is a power struggle, not a mutual aid society. For the vast benefits of a globalised economy to continue to outweigh its risks, policies to build greater resilience are necessary. For the EU, the unprecedented events also offer an opportunity to forge a new economic security approach to better manage its dependencies in strategic sectors.
Topic:: Security, International Cooperation, Europe, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:: United States, China, Europe, Asia, and North America

7. Post-workshop Briefing Paper: Preventing a COVID-19 Crisis in Africa

Author:: Atif Choudhury, Yawei Liu, and Ian Pilcher
Publication Date:: 06-2020
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: The Carter Center
Abstract:: In May 2020, the Carter Center’s China Program partnered with the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) and the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) to organize a virtual workshop on Africa-U.S.-China cooperation on COVID-19 response. The workshop brought together a range of experts from the U.S, China, Ethiopia, Burundi, Kenya, and South Africa to discuss the public health impact and wider policy implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on the African continent. Emory University’s Global Health Institute and The Hunger Project also helped identify speakers and moderate panels.
Topic:: International Cooperation, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:: Kenya, Africa, United States, China, Asia, South Africa, North America, Ethiopia, and Burundi

8. The United States and the World Health Organization

Author:: Theodore M. Brown
Publication Date:: 09-2020
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: The Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR)
Abstract:: A little more than two months ago, U.S. President Donald Trump began to lash out at the World Health Organization, blaming it for what he claimed were missteps, failures, and prevarications in its handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Then, on April 14, after several days of threats, he announced that U.S. funding for the WHO would be frozen for sixty to ninety days while his administration conducted a review to “assess the World Health Organization’s role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of coronavirus.” Widely seen as a transparent attempt to deflect attention from his own inconsistent, incompetent, and irresponsible response to the crisis, Trump’s threatened withdrawal of funds from the WHO at a critical moment drew widespread condemnation from medical and public health leaders. Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of Lancet, called Trump’s decision a “crime against humanity.” Dr. Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association, “denounced” the Trump administration’s decision to halt U.S. contributions to the WHO, which, he said, would “cripple the world’s response to COVID-19 and would harm the health and lives of thousands of Americans.”
Topic:: International Cooperation, World Health Organization, Coronavirus, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:: United States and Global Focus

9. On the Value of Nuclear Dialogue with China

Author:: David Santoro and Robert Gromoll
Publication Date:: 11-2020
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Pacific Forum
Abstract:: This material is based on research sponsored by DTRA and managed by the US Air Force Academy (USAFA), and Pacific Forum International under agreement number FA7000-19-2- 0012. The US Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation thereon. The opinions, findings, views, conclusions or recommendations contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the USAFA, DTRA, or the US Government. This paper was written by Dr. David Santoro, Vice President and Director for Nuclear Policy at the Pacific Forum, and Dr. Robert Gromoll, former Director of the Office of Regional Affairs at the US Department of State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; Dr. Gromoll is now retired. Both Drs. Santoro and Gromoll participated in numerous dialogue rounds, and Dr. Santoro was a co-organizer. The paper is based primarily on the contents of the dialogue’s written reports, several of which were authored or co-authored by Dr. Santoro. By and large, the paper draws directly from these reports and reviews how the topics addressed in the dialogue were approached and discussed by the US and Chinese sides over time. (A list of these reports is included at the end of the paper; some have been published, others have not.) The paper is also based on the authors’ broader experience in participating in the Track-1.5 dialogue; the conversations they have had with US and Chinese participants on these issues over the years, both during the dialogue and on the margins; and their own personal research. This paper represents the views of the authors and not those of Pacific Forum or the US State Department.
Topic:: Arms Control and Proliferation, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Nonproliferation, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:: United States and China

10. Reset Overdue: Remaking U.S.—Saudi Relations

Author:: Annelle Sheline and Steven Simon
Publication Date:: 10-2020
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:: • The U.S.–Saudi relationship is long overdue for a reset: The U.S. should push Saudi Arabia to engage productively with the region rather than tolerating policies that undermine stability. • Specifically, the U.S. should pressure Saudi Arabia to end the war on Yemen, end the blockade of Qatar, participate in the development of an inclusive regional security architecture, and respect the sovereignty of other countries and the human rights of Saudi citizens. • To encourage Saudi Arabia to adopt these policies, the U.S. should be prepared to support and invest in Saudi economic diversification and support the development of Saudi nuclear energy. If Saudi Arabia does not respond to these incentives, the U.S. should end all weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and seek other regional partners.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Human Rights, International Cooperation, Sovereignty, Political stability, Diversification, and Economic Development
Political Geography:: United States and Saudi Arabia

11. Brothers in Arms and Faith? The Emerging US-Central and Eastern Europe ‘Special Relationship’

Author:: Vibeke Schou Tjalve and Minda Holm
Publication Date:: 02-2020
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:: In this policy note, we explore the nature, strength and tensions of the contemporary US-Central Eastern Europe relationship. We describe the expanding US-CEE ‘brotherhood in arms’: growing trade relations, intensified military cooperation, and rekindled diplomatic ties. Further, we unpack the striking and largely ignored dimensions of the US-CEE ‘brotherhood in faith’: the many ways in which the United States and Central and Eastern Europe are tied together by overlapping ideologies of national conservatism and a particular version of Christian ‘family values’. This involves addressing the complexities of an increasingly influential and ambitious Visegrád Group, whose key players – Poland and Hungary – may be brothers, but are by no means twins. It also means raising some broader, burning discussions about the future of NATO and the meaning of ‘Europe’. Universalist, multicultural and postnational? Or conservative, Christian and sovereigntist?
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Conservatism, Alliance, Ideology, Christianity, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:: United States, Eastern Europe, and Central Europe

12. Seventy years of NATO: Is the Alliance still needed?

Author:: Krševan Antun Dujmović
Publication Date:: 04-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:: This year the North Atlantic Treaty Origination (NATO) marks seventieth anniversary of its creation. Back in 1949, the founding nations gathered around the United States as the leader of Western liberal democracies, establishing NATO as a military and political alliance that was to serve as a barrier against the Soviet Union, ‘’’’ serve as a counterbalance to NATO and the era of the Cold War gained full sway, with clearly established division in Europe between the capitalist West and communist East, and with only a handful of European countries opting for neutrality. Thus, a bipolar system of world order was established, with defined territories and its export of communism throughout the continent. Just six years later, Moscow assembled the Warsaw Pact together with other Eastern European communist countries, excluding Yugoslavia. The Warsaw Pact was to and frontiers of the two global adversaries, and the Cold War pertained until the collapse of the USSR in 1991. From 1991 onwards, fifteen new independent states emerged from the disintegrated Soviet Union, with the newly founded Russian Federation as its legal successor and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Subsequently the Warsaw Pact had collapsed, and Eastern European countries used a transition period that was to bring them closer to the West, ultimately to NATO and the European Union. The collapse of the Soviet Union was the single most important event in history after the World War II and the world entered into a new era. Back in early nineties, it seemed that Russia and the West have buried the tomahawk of war for an indefinite time, and many political theorists and politicians, in both NATO member states and in Russia, have stated that without its archrival NATO no longer had raison d’etre.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:: United States, Europe, North Atlantic, and North America

13. Change and Continuity in Japan-Russia Relations: Implications for the United States.

Author:: Paul Saunders and John Van Oudenaren
Publication Date:: 03-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Abstract:: The report provides a synthesis of Japanese and American expert perspectives on the recent history, current state and future prospects for Japan-Russia relations. The authors examine the political, diplomatic, security, economic and energy dynamics of this important, but understudied relationship. They also assess how the Japan-Russia relationship fits within the broader geopolitical context of the Asia-Pacific region, factoring in structural determinants such as China’s rise and the level of U.S. presence in the region. Finally, the authors consider potential policy implications for the United States, paying special attention to how shifts in relations between Tokyo and Moscow could impact the U.S.-Japan alliance. As Saunders observes in his introduction to the volume, the currently shifting strategic environment in the Asia-Pacific region, which is a central factor in Tokyo and Moscow’s efforts to foster constructive relations, also raises a host of questions for the US-Japan alliance. What are the prospects for Japan-Russia relations? What are Russian and Japanese objectives in their bilateral relations? How does the Trump administration view a possible improvement in Russia-Japan relations and to what extent will U.S. officials seek to limit such developments? Is the U.S.-Russia relationship likely to worsen and in so doing to spur further China-Russia cooperation? Could a better Russia-Japan relationship weaken the U.S.-Japan alliance? Or might it in fact serve some U.S. interests?
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Regional Cooperation
Political Geography:: Russia, United States, Japan, China, Europe, and Asia

14. China in Latin America: Major Impacts and Avenues for Constructive Engagement

Author:: Margaret Myers and Rebecca Ray
Publication Date:: 06-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: The Carter Center
Abstract:: Over the past two years, U.S. officials have sought to highlight China’s negative effects on the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region’s development and stability, whether to U.S. or Latin American audiences. As U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said during a trip to Mexico City in October 2018, "China has invested in ways that have left other countries worse off." Pompeo and other U.S. officials have also taken this message elsewhere in the region, cautioning against the effects of Chinese engagement on LAC governance, security, regulatory capacity, and financial stability, and in a rage of other areas. For Latin Americans, though, relations with China aren’t so black and white. China may be an imperfect partner for LAC, as many in the region will attest, but it is an increasingly important one. After nearly two decades of enhanced Chinese economic engagement with the region, LAC governments and economic sectors rely heavily on China’s economic partnership and inputs. China is LAC’s second most important trading partner, second most important source of mergers and acquisitions foreign direct investment, and top source of development finance. For South America, China’s importance is even more pronounced: It became the top export destination for South American goods in 2010. China’s effects on regional development are also mixed, as we demonstrate below. China’s contributions to the region’s economic growth are well-documented, but Chinese demand for raw materials has also accentuated regional dependence on these commodities, in a process of “re- primarization” in South American economies, with troubling implications for the region’s long-term development prospects. Chinese investments have transformed the energy sectors in some countries, but the environmental effects of hydroelectric and other projects will be long-lasting in certain cases. To achieve a wide range of development objectives—economic, environmental, and social—LAC must depend on increasingly well-planned and coordinated engagement from all of its major economic partners and donor nations, including China. This is especially true in times of growing uncertainty, as the region grapples with humanitarian and migration crises, growing populist tendencies, relentless corruption, and climate change, among other factors.
Topic:: Security, Corruption, Imperialism, International Cooperation, Governance, and Regulation
Political Geography:: United States, China, Asia, Latin America, and North America

15. The U.S.-South Korea Alliance: Toward a Relationship of Equals

Author:: Jessica J. Lee
Publication Date:: 11-2019
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:: President Trump contends that “very rich and wealthy countries” like the Republic of Korea should pay more for American troops stationed in their countries. While a more balanced burden-sharing arrangement is necessary, the U.S.’s demand for a five-fold increase in South Korea’s contribution, from $924 million to $5 billion, threatens to tear apart the bilateral relationship and undermines U.S. interests on the Korean Peninsula. The issue demanding attention is not who pays how much, but whether the existing terms of the U.S.–ROK security relationship remain pertinent or must be revised. The long-term goal of U.S. grand strategy should be to facilitate the creation of a peaceful global order consisting of fully sovereign, law-abiding states capable of providing for their own security. Any state that hosts foreign forces and relies on those forces for its defense is not fully sovereign: It is dependent upon others to ensure its security. This describes the Republic of Korea today.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Liberal Order, and Alliance
Political Geography:: United States, Asia, and South Korea

16. On The Question Of Chinese Espionage

Author:: Nicholas Eftimiades
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Research Paper
Institution:: Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:: Throughout recorded history, nations have employed spies to support foreign policy goals and military operations. However, such clandestine activities seldom become the subject of foreign policy themselves, and intelligence and related activities are rarely subject to public review. Yet in the People’s Republic of China, a massive “whole-of-society” approach to economic espionage is creating a new paradigm for how nations conduct, view, and address intelligence func- tions. In fact, a key element in the United States-China trade war is Washington’s insistence that Beijing cease stealing American intellectual property and trade secrets. China denies the claim, but hundreds of recently prosecuted espionage cases prove otherwise. These espionage activities are changing the global balance of power, impacting U.S. and foreign economies, and providing challenges to domestic and national security, as well as foreign policy formulation. Domesti- cally, they threaten economic security, the protection of critical infrastructure, and intellectual property rights.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Law, and Espionage
Political Geography:: United States and China

17. A Multicultural Nationalism?

Author:: Tariq Modood
Publication Date:: 03-2019
Content Type:: Research Paper
Institution:: Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:: Today’s “new nationalism” marks merely the latest iteration of yesterday’s old nationalism. I refer here to the majoritarian nationalism that seems to be the rising or dominant politics in many parts of the world today—Russia, China, India, the United States, many Muslim-majority countries, and central and eastern Europe. Yet, what is genuinely new is the identity-based nationalism of the center-left—sometimes called “liberal nationalism” or “progressive patriotism”—that is appearing in Anglophone countries. In a recent study covering Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, India, South Africa, and Peru, Raymond Taras expresses the novelty of his empirical fndings as a move toward “nationhood.” He sees this as “enlarging the nation so that it consists of difer- ent integrated ethnic parts” and describes it as “a characteristically British way of viewing a political society.”2 I present here a view that falls into this category, which I shall call “multicultural nationalism.”3 I argue that multiculturalism is a mode of integration that does not just emphasize the centrality of minor- ity group identities, but rather proves incomplete without the re-making of national identity so that all citizens have a sense of belonging. In this respect, multiculturalist approaches to national belonging have some relation to liberal nationalism and majoritarian interculturalism, making not only individual rights but, also minority accommodation a feature of acceptable nationalism. Unlike cosmopolitanism, multiculturalist approaches are nationally-focused and not against immigration controls (subject to certain conditions).
Topic:: International Cooperation, Nationalism, Multiculturalism, Nation-State, and Secularism
Political Geography:: Russia, United States, and China

18. China and instability in developing countries

Author:: Nicholas Crawford
Publication Date:: 10-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: International Institute for Strategic Studies
Abstract:: China has become the largest lender to developing countries, and a major investor there too. As a result, it has a major stake in many countries facing political and economic instability. Western policymakers involved in responding to instability and crises overseas need to understand how China navigates these situations. China’s approach is similar in some respects to that of Western states, but there are also important differences. China’s policy towards countries facing political and economic instability is driven by four main concerns: It seeks to strengthen and maintain its partnerships with those countries to ensure they remain open to and supportive of the Chinese government and its businesses. China is determined to protect its financial interests, businesses and citizens from the harms that result from instability. It is concerned to see its loans repaid, its investments secure, its workers safe and its supply chains undisrupted. It wants to maintain its narrative of non-interference. Any intervention in the politics or policies of its partner states must be seen as being at the invitation of their governments (although China may pressure its partners for consent). China wants to increase its influence in the world, independently and distinctively. It is increasingly proactive in its response to instability in partner countries. Some responses seek to address the instability directly; other responses are intended to protect Chinese interests in spite of the instability. This paper analyses the political economy of China’s responses to instability, identifies the types of responses China undertakes, and assesses these responses.
Topic:: Human Rights, International Cooperation, Developing World, Political stability, and Trade
Political Geography:: Africa, United States, China, Europe, Beijing, and Asia

19. Trump Trade Policy, Exchange Rate Surveillance and the IMF: Back to the Future?

Author:: James A. Haley
Publication Date:: 07-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:: This paper discusses the nexus between the Donald Trump administration’s trade policy and International Monetary Fund (IMF) exchange rate surveillance. It reviews the evolution of IMF surveillance and the possible implications of incorporating currency manipulation clauses into bilateral trade agreements. Such clauses constitute a key US trade negotiation objective. While they may reflect genuine concern over practices to thwart international adjustment, they could erode the effectiveness of the IMF at a time of transition and resulting tension in the global economy. Managing this tension calls for a cooperative approach to the issue of adjustment, one consistent with the fundamental mandate of the IMF. An approach based on indicators of reserve adequacy is proposed. Such a framework was briefly considered and dismissed almost 50 years ago, which was likewise a period of tension in trade and global monetary affairs. Prospects for success today are equally dim because cooperative measures to assuage adjustment challenges would require repudiation of the view that exchange rate surveillance is about bilateral trade balances and abandonment of the zero-sum game approach to international arrangements on which Trump administration trade actions are based.
Topic:: International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Exchange Rate Policy, and IMF
Political Geography:: United States and North America

20. Digital Trade at the WTO: The CPTPP and CUSMA Pose Challenges to Canadian Data Regulation

Author:: Patrick Leblond
Publication Date:: 10-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:: On the margins of the Group of Twenty leaders’ meeting in Osaka, Japan on June 28-29, 2019, Canada and 23 others signed the Osaka Declaration on the Digital Economy. This declaration launched the “Osaka Track,” which reinforces the signatories’ commitment to the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations on “trade-related aspects of electronic commerce.” In this context, unlike its main economic partners (China, the European Union and the United States), Canada has yet to decide its position. The purpose of this paper is thus to help Canada define its position in those negotiations. To do so, it offers a detailed analysis of the e-commerce/digital trade chapters found in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), the North American Free Trade Agreement’s replacement, in order to identify the potential constraints that these agreements could impose on the federal government’s ability to regulate data nationally as it seeks to establish a trusting digital environment for consumers and businesses. The analysis leads to the conclusion that Canada’s CPTPP and CUSMA commitments could ultimately negate the effectiveness of future data protection policies that the federal government might want to adopt to create trust in the data-driven economy. As a result, Canada should not follow the United States’ position in the WTO negotiations. Instead, the best thing that Canada could do is to push for a distinct international regime (i.e., separate from the WTO) to govern data and its cross-border flows.
Topic:: International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, World Trade Organization, European Union, and Digital Economy
Political Geography:: United States, China, Europe, Canada, Asia, and North America

21. Russia and Iran: Is the Syrian Honeymoon Over?

Author:: Udi Dekel and Carmit Valensi
Publication Date:: 05-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:: The rescue of Bashar al-Assad’s regime by the pro-Assad coalition, comprising Russia, Iran, and Iranian proxies, led to the victory of the regime over the rebels; the coalition’s achievements stem primarily from the effective cooperation between Iran and Russia since 2015 in fighting the rebels. Now, with the battles over, despite shared interests in consolidating the Assad regime, inherent tensions between Russia and Iran regarding influence in Syria have emerged in greater relief. Yet despite the disagreements, this it is not a zero-sum game between Russia and Iran. Both continue to cooperate on a range of issues in the Syrian arena and beyond. Iran for its part continues to see its consolidation in Syria as a strategic objective, and despite difficulties that have emerged, it seems that Tehran remains determined to continue, even if to a lesser extent than originally planned. After the success of Israel’s military actions to halt Iran’s military consolidation in Syria, Jerusalem should maximize the political potential and the shared interest of Russia and the United States to stabilize the situation in Syria, and to reduce Iran’s influence and capabilities in the country.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Foreign Interference
Political Geography:: Russia, United States, Europe, Iran, and Syria

22. The basis for strong US-European relations endures: Continuity in institutions and interests

Author:: Christopher Kojm
Publication Date:: 10-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:: President Donald Trump’s words and actions are disrupting US-European relations. Yet the structural basis for strong transatlantic ties endures. Key institutions and forces involved in the making of US foreign policy exhibit more continuity than change with respect to transatlantic relations. Congress strongly supports NATO. It agrees with the President on the need for greater burden-sharing, yet opposes the President’s harsh and gratuitous attacks on the Alliance. Executive Branch Departments, especially the Department of Defence, have longstanding institutional ties with European counterparts. High-level meetings, defence cooperation agreements, military exercises, and relationship-building continue without interruption. The US business community strongly opposes tariffs, and has been able to blunt the Administration’s further imposition of tariffs on European partners. Public opinion still strongly supports transatlantic defence and trade relations, even as partisan differences grow.
Topic:: Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Tariffs, and Transatlantic Relations
Political Geography:: United States, Europe, North Atlantic, and North America

23. The militarization of US foreign policy: Engagement with Europe increasingly about defense

Author:: Deborah A. McCarthy
Publication Date:: 11-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:: The US Department of Defense is playing a predominant role in US foreign policy due to expanded mandates, large budgets and the disparagement of diplomacy by the Trump Administration. Defense relations may be the steadier foundation for transatlantic cooperation.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Budget, and Transatlantic Relations
Political Geography:: United States, Europe, and North America

24. The Lessons of Betrayal in Northern Syria

Author:: Jonathan Spyer
Publication Date:: 10-2019
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:: The move confirms that the current US administration is not interested in heading an alliance of regional forces against Iranian expansionism or Sunni political Islam, but is, like its predecessor, managing imperial decline.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Regional Cooperation, and Alliance
Political Geography:: United States, Iran, Middle East, Israel, and North America

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

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

26. Poland, US bases and geopolitical games

Author:: Robert Barić
Publication Date:: 08-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:: Recent Polish proposal for financing permanent US military presence in Poland isn't motivated only to counter current Russian aggressive posture. This offer is a part of a wider Poland strategy for achieving long term security. In pursuing this strategy, Warsaw risks not only to undermine NATO cohesion, but also to deepen growing East-West divide inside the EU.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, NATO, Diplomacy, Imperialism, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:: Russia, United States, Europe, Eastern Europe, and Poland

27. U.S. Strategy, the JCPOA Iranian Nuclear Arms Agreement, and the Gulf: Playing the Long Game

Author:: Anthony H. Cordesman
Publication Date:: 03-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Few recent American foreign policy decisions have been as divisive as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear arms control agreement with Iran. Advocates of the agreement have focused far too exclusively on its potential benefits. Opponents equally exclusively on its potential faults. Both sides tend to forget that any feasible arms control agreement between what are hostile sides tends to be a set of compromises that are an extension of arms races and potential conflicts by other means. As a result, imperfect agreements with uncertain results are the rule, not the exception. President Trump has made it clear that he opposes the agreement and would like to terminate it. His dismissal of Rex Tillerson as Security of State, and his replacement by Mike Pompeo – along with his dismissal of General H.R. McMaster and replacement with John Bolton – indicate that President Trump may well seek to terminate the agreement in the near future – action which might or might not have significant bipartisan support. He faces a May 5th to decide whether to again waive economic sanction against Iran, a decision which comes up for renewal every 120 days.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Deterrence, and JCPOA
Political Geography:: United States, Europe, Iran, Middle East, and Israel

28. Enhancing the U.S.-Indonesia Strategic Partnership

Author:: Brian Harding and Andreyka Natalegawa
Publication Date:: 07-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The United States and Indonesia are natural partners. Despite our geographic distance, we have striking similarities. We are large, diverse, and democratic societies. We both seek an international order in the Indo-Pacific region based on rules that enable all countries to have a voice. Our shores each span two oceans, imbuing our countries with a deep maritime heritage and culture that shapes how we approach the world. When each plays its natural role as a leader in regional affairs, both parties benefit. In recognition of the great mutual benefit that a close U.S.-Indonesia partnership could bring, Presidents Barack Obama and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono launched a comprehensive partnership in 2010 to build closer government-government, economic, and people-people ties between our two countries. Critically, the agreement created a framework for collaboration across a multitude of government departments and ministries under a joint commission co-chaired by the U.S. secretary of state and the Indonesian minister of foreign affairs. In 2016, under President Joko Widodo (Jokowi), the comprehensive partnership was elevated into a strategic partnership, further signaling the relationship’s importance to both countries. Yet despite having many common interests and recent high-level efforts to push the relationship forward, U.S.-Indonesia relations are not meeting their potential. Bilateral economic interaction is limited compared to the size of our economies. Official interaction is often bureaucratic and rarely strategic. And people-people relations, including of education exchanges, are minuscule considering that Indonesia and the United States are the third- and fourth-most-populated countries in the world. President Donald Trump’s political ascent has also created additional headwinds for U.S.-Indonesia relations. Candidate-Trump’s statements regarding the Muslim world caused unease in Indonesia and his policies as president toward Israel and Palestine have damaged Indonesian views of the United States. In Asia, the Trump administration’s framing of great-power competition with China and the administration’s nontraditional economic statecraft have created uncertainty in Jakarta. From Washington’s perspective, the Jokowi administration’s relative disinterest in playing a leading role in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and in the broader Indo-Pacific region has dampened enthusiasm in some quarters for investing in the relationship. Recognizing the importance of both the U.S.-Indonesia relationship and its continued underperformance, on May 3, 2018, the CSIS Southeast Asia Program convened a first annual bilateral, track 1.5 strategic dialogue in Washington, D.C., to inject new momentum into the relationship and to begin building deeper connectivity between policy experts in the two countries. This report outlines conclusions and recommendations that surfaced during the dialogue. However, the report reflects the opinions of the authors, and does not necessarily reflect those of the dialogue participants.
Topic:: International Cooperation, Culture, Maritime, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:: United States, Indonesia, North America, and Indo-Pacific

29. U.S.-Nepal Relations: Leveraging Operational Efficiencies to Achieve Our Objectives

Author:: Alaina B Teplitz
Publication Date:: 03-2018
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Abstract:: Nepal, that mythical Shangri-La nestled in the Himalayas, has long captured the hearts and imaginations of Americans. In the 70 years since the United States established formal relations with the erstwhile hermit kingdom, Nepal has seen dramatic socio-economic progress—often stemming from its partnership with the United States. But in many ways, it still remains under-developed, fragile and vulnerable. As the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu celebrated the 70th anniversary of our partnership in 2017, we pursued a dozen month-long campaigns around today’s policy objectives to highlight our historical collaboration and leverage this retrospective to draw attention to the need for further progress. Combining diplomatic engagements and public events targeted at thought leaders and policy leaders, our campaigns moved forward our shared U.S.-Nepali priorities. As the U.S. government revisits its approach to the Indo-Pacific region and new Nepali leaders form what promises to be the country’s first multi-year government in decades, we now face a unique opportunity to advance our mutual objectives of a stable, prosperous Nepal that is a robust partner of the United States. Coming at the same time as potential adjustments to foreign affairs budgets and staffing, Embassy Kathmandu is reorganizing how we do business to improve our effectiveness, find efficiencies and enhance our focus on an agenda that delivers results. Rather than organize ourselves by the agency that pays our salary, we have structured our unified U.S. government team according to what each unit is doing. Our interagency Integrated Country Strategy (ICS) Teams—co-chaired by section chiefs from separate agencies and physically co-located within the chancery—have designed common strategies for how the U.S. Embassy intends to pursue major objectives and coordinate approaches, as well as explicitly identifying those nice-to-pursue efforts that limited staffing or resources require relegating to the back burner. Through action plans, each ICS Team identifies strategic, impactful and tangible targets to achieve each year—institutionalizing best practices from our 70th anniversary campaigns to sustain meaningful progress toward our goals. As the stakes and challenges facing U.S. diplomacy continue to grow, Embassy Kathmandu is using the strategic opportunity that current U.S.-Nepal relations offer to develop a proof of concept for how a 21st century embassy can organize our people and operations to maximum effect.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:: United States, China, Asia, and Nepal

30. Soft vs Hard Governance for Labour and Environmental Commitments in Trade Agreements: Comparing the US and EU Approaches

Author:: Vandana Gyanchandani
Publication Date:: 08-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Centre for Trade and Economic Integration, The Graduate Institute (IHEID)
Abstract:: Three methodologies are used to enforce labour and environmental commitments in the US and EU trade agreements: cooperative, sanctions and composite. In-depth analysis of the scope of commitments, level of protection, institutional framework as well as types of informal and formal dispute processes elucidates the pros and cons of such methodologies. Sanctions approach weakens cooperation by misjudging the complexity of domestic policy adjustments through transnational governance. Cooperative mechanism within the NAAEC's composite design emerges as the best approach: Submission on Enforcement Matters (SEM). As it provides for an independent secretariat supported by civil society group and factual records as a sunshine remedy to review citizen submissions. However, the process is constrained by political clout, lack of managerial capacity and legal dilemmas around informal lawmaking (IN-LAW) procedures.
Topic:: Economics, Environment, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Labor Issues, Sustainable Development Goals, and Global Political Economy
Political Geography:: United States, Europe, Global Focus, and European Union

31. Trade linkages and firm value: evidence from the 2018 US-China "trade war"

Author:: Yi Huang, Chen Lin, Sibo Liu, and Heiwai Tang
Publication Date:: 04-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Centre for Trade and Economic Integration, The Graduate Institute (IHEID)
Abstract:: On March 22, 2018, Trump proposed to impose tariffs on up to $50 billion of Chinese imports leading to a significant concern over the "Trade War" between the US and China. We evaluate the market responses to this event for firms in both countries, depending on their direct and indirect exposures to US-China trade. US firms that are more dependent on exports to and imports from China have lower stock and bond returns but higher default risks in the short time window around the announcement date. We also find that firms' indirect exposure to US-China trade through domestic input-output linkages affects their responses to the announcement. These findings suggest that the structure of US-China trade is much more complex than the simplistic view of global trade that engendered Trump's "Trade War" against China.
Topic:: Economics, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Global Political Economy, Trade Wars, and Exports
Political Geography:: United States, China, and Asia

32. Are Iran’s ballistic missiles designed to be nuclear capable?

Author:: Michael Elleman and Mark T. Fitzpatrick
Publication Date:: 02-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: International Institute for Strategic Studies
Abstract:: Iran has the largest and most diverse ballistic-missile arsenal in the Middle East – could these systems one day be used to launch nuclear weapons? In a new report, IISS analysts Michael Elleman and Mark Fitzpatrick offer a detailed assessment of the design intentions behind each missile within Iran’s inventory. The result is a clear picture as to which platforms the United States and its allies should seek to remove, and which ones can be discounted. The common claim that Iran’s missile development must be stopped altogether because these systems could deliver nuclear weapons in the future rests on broad generalisations. While there is reason for concern, priority attention should be given to those missiles that might realistically be used for such a purpose, if Iran were to go down a perilous nuclear path. The international standard – but not treaty – for determining the inherent nuclear capability of missiles is the threshold developed in 1987 by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which seeks to forestall exports of missile systems able to deliver a 500kg payload a distance of 300km or more. Eight of Iran’s 13 current ballistic missile systems – the largest and most diverse arsenal in the Middle East – exceed this threshold and are thus deemed to be nuclear capable. The other five, all within the Fateh-110 family of missiles, are certainly lethal, especially when shipped to Hizbullah for use against Israel, but they are clearly not intended for nuclear use. Because capability does not equal intent, the MTCR guidelines should be just the first step in an assessment of Iran’s intentions for its missiles. When the United Nations Security Council drafted a new resolution in July 2015 to accompany the Iran nuclear agreement finalised that month, an element of intent was added to previous sanctions resolution language that prohibited launches of Iranian missiles that were ‘capable of delivering nuclear weapons’. The 2015 resolution calls upon Iran not to engage in activity concerning missiles ‘designed to be’ capable of delivering nuclear weapons. What it means ‘to be designed’ is undefined. Judging intent is partly subjective, but technical clues and intelligence information can guide analysis. The soundest approach is to disaggregate Iran’s various missile systems, and to assess design intentions on the basis of the technical capabilities and lineage of the different missiles.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:: United States, Europe, Iran, Middle East, Israel, and North America

33. The conventional military balance on the Korean Peninsula

Author:: James Hackett
Publication Date:: 06-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: International Institute for Strategic Studies
Abstract:: As US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un meet in Singapore on 12 June, it is useful to keep in mind what is at stake. The long-standing tinderbox of the Korean Peninsula, if ignited through another provocation or miscalculation, could spark a full-scale war that could well go nuclear. The prize of diplomacy – sustainable peace on the peninsula – is all the more valuable when one considers the range of military capabilities potentially in play. This information is of use in assessing both the goals of diplomacy and the risks should the current efforts fail. Weapons based on the Korean Peninsula have become faster, more precise and more powerful. North Korea has tested a thermonuclear weapon, an intercontinental ballistic missile and more accurate shorter-range missiles, all designed to offset the relative qualitative weakness of its broader conventional forces. It has also pursued advanced cyber capabilities. South Korea, meanwhile, has focused on developing military systems allowing for more rapid and precise strikes. US forces on the peninsula have introduced yet more advanced capabilities. For these reasons the IISS provides this independent, measured and detailed analysis of military dynamics on the peninsula. The report focuses on the defence policies and military capabilities of the two Koreas, and the US military forces stationed in South Korea which can be brought to bear in a crisis. While it does not ignore unconventional systems, it principally focuses on conventional capabilities. Due to its poverty and isolation, North Korea’s conventional forces have become relatively weaker, compared with those of South Korea and its US ally. Aware of this qualitative inferiority, Pyongyang has invested in asymmetric capabilities, particularly the pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to deliver them. Nonetheless, Pyongyang’s armed forces remain equipped with a wide range of conventional military systems, including large numbers of artillery pieces and multiple-launch rocket systems. Its armed forces, at around 1.2 million, are the fourth-largest in the world. Its conventional military power remains significant, not least because of these numbers (for instance, 4,000 main battle tanks and 8,500 self-propelled- and towed-artillery systems) and the weight of fire they could rapidly bring to bear if employed. Seoul, for instance, is within range of many of North Korea’s artillery systems. North Korea has also developed increasingly advanced cyber capabilities as another aspect of its asymmetric power. The North will continue to improve these, if only to slow the decline in military parity between it and the South. US and South Korean defence authorities assume that the North will, in the event of major conflict, use cyber attacks against South Korean critical infrastructure and command-and-control networks. However, recent events like the Wannacry ransomware attacks have shown that North Korea is now using its cyber power for another purpose: raising revenue to support the regime. Meanwhile, South Korea’s defence policy and military posture is dominated by the security challenge from the North. This has led Seoul to pursue military capabilities, and strategies, designed to defeat North Korean provocations. These range from developments in air-defence, intended to tackle North Korea’s air force and missile capabilities, to strategies designed to pre-empt a potential North Korean provocation. To enable these strategies, South Korea has developed and procured increasingly advanced military systems, ranging from its own Hyeonmu ballistic- and cruise-missiles, to advanced air-to-ground air-launched weapons and, in the next few years, squadrons of F-35A combat aircraft. Working closely with the South Korean armed forces, the US maintains a military presence some 28,500-strong in South Korea, augmented by advanced military systems on the peninsula like the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) ballistic-missile-defence system, and the military power deployed by the US in the broader Indo-Pacific. This publication builds on the contributions of expert analysts of military power on the Korean Peninsula, and the extensive information holdings available in the IISS Military Balance+ database. It was prepared with the support of the Korea Foundation.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:: United States, Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

34. Reducing the Risk of Iran Developing an ICBM

Author:: Michael Elleman
Publication Date:: 08-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: International Institute for Strategic Studies
Abstract:: With the Iran nuclear accord currently on life support, it is not too late to pursue diplomatic measures that address the growing challenge posed by Iran’s ballistic missiles, argues Michael Elleman in a new report. The lack of curbs on Iran’s missile programme was cited by President Donald Trump in May 2018 as one of the principal reasons for withdrawing from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). With the nuclear accord consequently on life support, it is not too late to pursue diplomatic measures that address the growing challenge posed by Iran’s ballistic missiles. The most promising would be to lock in, through negotiations, the 2,000 kilometre-range limit that Iran has previously stated is its maximum requirement. While this would not reduce the threat perceived by Iran’s regional neighbours, it would forestall development of systems that could target Western Europe or North America. Tehran is not likely to commit to verification measures for such negotiated range limits, however, without receiving something in return. One bargain that could be considered would be to allow Iran to continue its satellite-launch programme, under certain conditions, while capping the maximum range of its ballistic missiles. Such a trade-off may also be relevant to the North Korean case.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:: United States, Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

35. Ministers For Foreign Affairs 1972-83

Author:: Melissa Conley Tyler and John Robbins
Publication Date:: 11-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Australian Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:: The Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA) is pleased to present the latest book in the Australian Ministers for Foreign Affairs series. In May 2016 the AIIA held a one-day forum to examine the achievements of Australia’s foreign ministers between 1972-83. This forum and publication is the third book in the AIIA’s Australian Ministers for Foreign Affairs series following on from Ministers for Foreign Affairs 1960-72 and R.G. Casey: Minister for External Affairs 1951-60.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Cold War, Diplomacy, Human Rights, and International Cooperation
Political Geography:: United States, Japan, China, Indonesia, Asia, and Australia

36. Building Confidence in the Cybersphere: A Path to Multilateral Progress

Author:: Nancy Gallagher and Theresa Hitchens
Publication Date:: 03-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
Abstract:: As use of the Internet has become critical to global economic development and international security, there is near-unanimous agreement on the need for more international cooperation to increase stability and security in cyberspace. Several multilateral initiatives over the last five years have begun to spell out cooperative measures, norms of behavior, and transparency and confidence-building measures (TCBMs) that could help improve mutual cybersecurity. These efforts have been painstakingly slow, and some have stalled due to competing interests. Nonetheless, a United Nations (UN) Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) and the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE) have achieved some high-level agreement on principles, norms, and “rules of the road” for national Internet activities and transnational cyber interactions. Their agreements include commitments to share more information, improve national protective capacities, cooperate on incident response, and restrain certain destabilizing state practices. Voluntary international agreements are worth little, unless states implement their commitments. So far, implementation has been crippled by vague language, national security considerations, complex relations between public and private actors in cyberspace, and privacy concerns. This is particularly true regarding the upfront sharing of information on threats and the willingness of participants to cooperate on incident investigations, including identifying perpetrators. With multilateral forums struggling to find a way forward with norm-setting and implementation, alternate pathways are needed to protect and build on what has been accomplished so far. Different strategies can help advance implementation of measures in the UN and OSCE agreements. Some commitments, such as establishing and sharing information about national points of contact, are best handled unilaterally or through bilateral or regional inter-governmental cooperation. Other objectives, such as protecting the core architecture and functions of the Internet that support trans-border critical infrastructure and underpin the global financial system, require a multi-stakeholder approach that includes not only governments but also private sector service providers, academic experts, and nongovernmental organizations. This paper compares what the GGE and OSCE norm-building processes have achieved so far and what disagreements have impeded these efforts. It identifies several priorities for cooperation identified by participants in both forums. It also proposes three practical projects related to these priorities that members of regional or global organizations might be able to work on together despite political tensions and philosophical disputes. The first would help state and non-state actors share information and communicate about various types of cybersecurity threats using a flexible and intuitive effects-based taxonomy to categorize cyber activity. The second would develop a more sophisticated way for state and non-state actors to assess the risks of different types of cyber incidents and the potential benefits of cooperation. The third would identify aspects of the Internet that might be considered the core of a public utility, worthy of special protection in their own right and for their support of trans-border critical infrastructure.
Topic:: International Cooperation, United Nations, Infrastructure, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:: United States and Europe

37. The Militarization of the Arctic is Not Certain

Author:: Rachael Gosnell
Publication Date:: 12-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
Abstract:: While concern about renewed international competition in the Arctic has attracted significant attention, the continuation of cooperation and adherence to international rules and norms of behavior is a far more likely outcome. The magnitude of activity in the region remains below historic Cold War levels and accounts for a very small percentage of overall global military activity. Further, stakeholders have thus far exhibited adherence to international law, and venues for dialogue offer an alternative to an Arctic security dilemma. Sound adherence to the principles of deterrence, international norms, and continued cooperation in forums such as the Arctic Council will ensure the region remains stable into the future.
Topic:: International Cooperation and Military Strategy
Political Geography:: Russia, United States, Europe, and Arctic

38. Main Strategic Considerations of Contemporary Israel

Author:: Yossi Peled
Publication Date:: 05-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:: The relocation of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem draw once again the attention of international community to Israel. The event of relocation is in line with the decision of the Trump administration reached in December last year, a move that has its legal foundation in the Jerusalem Embassy Act that was passed by the US Congress as far as 1995. For more than twenty years, the American administrations have been delaying the decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, and the Jerusalem Act was void of presidential signature until Donald Trump became president. In the same year when he took of�ice president Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital city of the State of Israel and ordered the relocation of the US embassy from Tel Aviv. Ever since the time of David, the king of Israel who conquered Jerusalem more than three thousand years ago, and his son king Solomon who built the First Temple, Jerusalem was the Holy City for Jews around the world and the center point for Israel and Judaism. At the same time Jerusalem is a holy site for the Palestinians and the Muslim world, hence a source of confrontation for the two sides. Notwithstanding, people of Israel believe that Jerusalem cannot be divided and that only Jerusalem due to its cultural, historical and religious importance for the Jews, is and can be the only capital city of the State of Israel. However, this status of Jerusalem is still not fully internationally recognized, with a number of United Nations states who do not acknowledge the right of Israel to sovereignly rule in Eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City where most sacred sites of Judaism are located – the Western Wall and the Temple Mount.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Imperialism, International Cooperation, Religion, and Anti-Semitism
Political Geography:: United States, Israel, Palestine, and Jerusalem

39. French Guiana and the Falklands: The Military Presence of France and the United Kingdom in the South Atlantic and the South American Continent

Author:: Marcos Valle Machado De Silva
Publication Date:: 12-2018
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 issue of the Falklands catalyzes the attention of researchers in studies of the military presence of extraregional actors in South America. However, France, a state equally exogenous to the South American nations, is present in the region, keeping a colonial territory, where contingents and military installations are located, almost always ignored in regional security studies. In this context, this paper aims to highlight the military presence of France and the United Kingdom in America and South Atlantic, and to analyze the tensions arising from this presence in relation to the regional Brazilian view of defense.
Topic:: Defense Policy, Imperialism, International Cooperation, and Military Affairs
Political Geography:: United States, United Kingdom, France, Brazil, Argentina, South America, Falkland Islands, and South Atlantic

40. Cooperation in a Post-Western World: Challenges and future prospects

Author:: Michèle Roth and Cornelia Ulbert
Publication Date:: 01-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Institute for Development and Peace
Abstract:: The post-Cold War world has been characterised by global cooperation, largely driven by Western actors and based on the norms of Western liberalism. Today, global power shifts are accelerating. The Western liberal order finds itself in deep crisis. Its previous anchor, the United States (US), is no longer willing or able to run the system. Its most important former ally, the European Union (EU), is struggling with inte- gration fatigue. New nationalist movements in many Western countries are proliferating. In other parts of the world, too, people fear the impact of globalisa- tion and are seeking to regain national autonomy. What does this mean for the future of global cooper- ation? How can the wish for more national autonomy be reconciled with the need to cooperate in the face of unsustainable development, global inequality, conflict and gross violations of human rights? How do changing power constellations affect global cooper- ation? We suggest that new forms of governance will contribute to sustaining global cooperation. This paper uses the example of the Paris Agreement to illus- trate new forms of polycentric and multi-stakeholder transnational governance that are bottom-up rather than top-down. Moreover, constructive coalitions of the willing and more flexibility in global governance provisions might also be key for successful future cooperation.
Topic:: Climate Change, International Cooperation, Governance, European Union, and Post Cold War
Political Geography:: United States, Europe, and North America

41. The Attack on the Chemical Weapons Targets in Syria: Doing the Minimum

Author:: Udi Dekel and Carmit Valensi
Publication Date:: 04-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:: Besides the operational success, the attack in Syria earned the United States a clear political achievement, with the enforcement of American red lines by way of a coalition with Britain and France. However, this ad hoc coalition is focused solely on preventing the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and as Trump administration spokesmen clarified, there is no change in the US policy toward Syria. As such, the United States is threatening neither the Assad regime, nor the growing Iranian presence or Russian dominance in Syria. This attack was also not enough to address definitively the violations of the rules of war and the wide-scale attacks on civilians by Assad forces, including the use of conventional weapons, such as massive bombings from the air and barrel bomb attacks from helicopters. The United States and its partners did not present a plan to guarantee that the targeted attacks against civilians – and not just chemical attacks – on the part of Assad and the coalition that supports him will not continue. However, after seven years of war, in which more than a half a million people have been killed and millions have been displaced or have become refugees, the Syrian civilian population deserves more committed international support. For its part, Israel remains alone in the campaign against the consolidation by Iran and its proxies in war-torn Syria.
Topic:: International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Hezbollah, and Chemical Weapons
Political Geography:: United States, Middle East, Israel, Syria, and North America

42. Strengthening the JCPOA

Author:: Ephraim Asculai, Emily Landau, Daniel Shapiro, and Moshe Ya'alon
Publication Date:: 04-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:: Against the backdrop of the visit to Washington by President Macron and the scheduled visit by Chancellor Merkel in an effort to persuade US President Trump not to leave the JCPOA, this article zeros in on the key issues that need to be addressed by the allies. Guided by what is not only necessary but feasible at this late stage, the topics addressed include missiles, inspections, lack of transparency, sanctions, and the sunset provisions. Everything turns on political will – if it exists, agreeing to the proposed steps should not entail a lengthy process, and implementation can realistically begin in relatively short order. Significant results will mean the international community emerges with reinforced solidarity and a strengthened JCPOA. If negotiations progress seriously on this basis, it would make sense for the Trump administration to allow additional time beyond May 12 to complete them.
Topic:: Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:: United States, Iran, Middle East, Israel, and North America

43. Israel and United States Military Assistance to Egypt

Author:: Shimon Arad
Publication Date:: 04-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:: In January 2018, the United States and Egypt signed a bilateral communications security agreement known as the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA), which protects and regulates the use of sensitive American avionics and communications systems. This development now allows, for the first time, the acquisition by Egypt of US-made high precision GPS-based air-to-ground weapon systems and components, as well as advanced air-to-air missiles. Over the years, Israel’s concerns over the sale of large quantities of US weapon systems to Egypt were moderated by the quality cap dictated by the absence of a CISMOA agreement. Israel thus needs to raise this issue with Washington, within the context of the Qualitative Military Edge (QME) discussions. Given the unreliability of enduring stability in the Middle East, as exemplified by the events in Egypt since 2011, Israel should not disregard possible future scenarios in which its QME versus Egypt may matter. Based on the current convergence of security interests between Israel and Egypt, raising this issue with the US, though likely to upset Cairo, is not expected to undermine the practical manifestations of this relationship.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Military Affairs
Political Geography:: United States, Middle East, Israel, North America, and Egypt

44. Iran in the Nuclear Realm and Iran in Syria: A New State of Play

Author:: Assaf Orion and Amos Yadlin
Publication Date:: 05-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:: Despite the two blows Iran sustained last week, Israel cannot afford to be complacent or overly satisfied. It will need to follow meticulously the updated policies adopted by each of the theater’s involved actors. Thus far, Israel has held separate policies regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the Iranian proxy war and malevolent influence. Now, it must develop an integrative long term policy and strive for coordinated efforts and meaningful cooperation with the United States, European countries, and the countries of the region. Operational and strategic coordination with Russia remains essential. Contending with the Iranian nuclear challenge will require the establishment of a joint “strategic early warning enterprise,” with the United States and other allies, aimed at preventing critical surprises.
Topic:: Arms Control and Proliferation, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and JCPOA
Political Geography:: United States, Iran, Middle East, Israel, Syria, and North America

45. Managing Global Disorder: Prospects for U.S.-China Cooperation

Author:: Council on Foreign Relations
Publication Date:: 04-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:: Emerging challenges to international order require cooperation between the United States and China, two countries that share a common interest in preventing the world from becoming more dangerous and disorderly. U.S.-China relations are becoming more strained and antagonistic, however, and the prospects for cooperation appear to be receding. To explore whether there are still grounds for cooperation on issues of common concern between the two countries, in March 2018 the Center for Preventive Action (CPA) at the Council on Foreign Relations convened a group of fifteen experts from the United States and China for the workshop “Managing Global Disorder: Prospects for U.S.-China Cooperation.” CPA partnered with Peking University’s School of International Studies in Beijing for the workshop and also met with experts at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations in Beijing and the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies in Shanghai. During the workshop, President Donald J. Trump announced plans to impose about $60 billion in new tariffs on Chinese imports. While trade was a major topic of discussion, it was by no means the only area discussed. Workshop participants assessed conflicting views of the sources of global disorder and examined areas of global governance such as international trade, development, the environment, and the future of various multilateral institutions. They also discussed the most pressing security challenges in East and Southwest Asia. Participants highlighted the need for a greater understanding between the United States and China on the evolving international order. No major transnational problems will be solved without some cooperation between the two powers. It is therefore imperative that the two countries avoid a further deterioration of the relationship and instead identify areas of potential cooperation.
Topic:: International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Tariffs, and Social Order
Political Geography:: United States, China, Asia, and North America

46. The U.S.-Southeast Asia Relationship: Responding to China’s Rise

Author:: Council on Foreign Relations
Publication Date:: 05-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:: Although the Barack Obama administration rhetorically made Southeast Asia a centerpiece of its “rebalance to Asia” strategy, the administration still largely focused on the Middle East and Europe, and Southeast Asia remained a low U.S. policy priority. The Obama administration did try to boost U.S. economic ties with Southeast Asia in 2016 by forging the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), but that trade deal was broadly unpopular in the United States. The following year, the Donald J. Trump administration ended U.S. participation in the TPP, and it also suggested launching punitive economic measures against Southeast Asian states currently running trade surpluses with the United States. Many Southeast Asian leaders now worry that Washington has no clear security or economic strategy for the region, other than applying pressure on Beijing to respect freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. In this perceived void of U.S. leadership and strategy, workshop participants assessed how Southeast Asia might change as China becomes an increasingly dominant regional security and economic actor. They also discussed the future of U.S. strategic and economic relationships with important partners in the region, including Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Participants further considered how China might use its growing leverage in Southeast Asia, and whether Beijing’s tactics could backfire. Finally, several workshop participants posited that the United States, China, and Southeast Asian states could cooperate on at least some nontraditional security issues, such as combating piracy and terrorism.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:: United States, China, Asia, and Southeast Asia

47. Managing Global Disorder: Prospects for Transatlantic Cooperation

Author:: Council on Foreign Relations
Publication Date:: 08-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:: Despite recent turbulence in the transatlantic relationship, the United States and the European Union share a common interest in managing emerging sources of global disorder. To explore prospects for and challenges to transatlantic cooperation, the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations convened an international group of twenty-three experts at the Tufts University Center in Talloires, France, on July 12–13, 2018, for the workshop “Managing Global Disorder: Prospects for Transatlantic Cooperation.” The workshop is the third in a series of meetings supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. It is premised on the belief that the United States, China, the European Union, and Russia not only share a common interest in preventing the world from becoming more dangerous and disorderly, but also that the nature and scope of this task necessitates cooperation among them. Workshop participants discussed their perceptions of the growing sources of disorder in the world, examined areas of strategic cooperation, and explored where the United States and the European Union might work together to address a variety of regional concerns emanating from Africa, China, the Middle East, and Russia. While highlighting how the two can work together to address increasing political instability and violent conflict, participants also cited the importance of the transatlantic relationship in preventing or mitigating the demise of the liberal international order.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, European Union, and Transatlantic Relations
Political Geography:: United States, Europe, North America, and Atlantic Ocean

48. Contextualizing the "Trump Doctrine": Realism, Transactionalism and the Civilizational Agenda

Author:: Ville Sinkkonen
Publication Date:: 11-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:: This FIIA analysis situates President Donald J. Trump’s foreign policy in the discursive field of post-Cold War American foreign-policy debates, and assesses the possible perils it poses for US global engagement. The “Trump doctrine” has been built in contradistinction to liberal internationalism, contains civilizational tropes drawn from neoconservatism, and is underpinned by a zero-sum materialist worldview borrowed from realism. Trump’s approach to the international is also transactional, which means he intermittently draws upon (neo)isolationist themes. This Trumpian amalgamation of four American foreign policy traditions can be termed transactionalist realism with civilizational undertones. By embracing this approach to the international arena, Trump and his administration risk eschewing the importance of social relations that legitimize US international conduct, turning inter-cultural struggles into self-fulfilling prophecies, and undermining prudent long-term use of American power. If methodically carried out, the emerging “Trump doctrine” will prove detrimental for the future of US global leadership in a complex 21st-century world.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, Leadership, and Social Roles
Political Geography:: United States and North America

49. The Sino-Russian and US-Russian relationships: Current developments and future trends

Author:: Marcin Kaczmarski, Mark Katz, and Teija Tiilikainen
Publication Date:: 12-2018
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:: The great-power system has been in constant change since the end of the Cold War. The US became the hegemonic power, and under its shelter, the European Union was able to transform into a European-wide political body. Soon, a group of leading regional powers started to question the universalist aspirations of the Western-led international order. Two members of this club in particular were not satisfied with the role of a regional hegemon and had more global ambitions. China has already become the largest trading nation globally, and Chinese foreign policy has assumed an assertive tone. China has both the potential to challenge US hegemony, as well as the political will to use it. Russia’s project to achieve a global great-power status, on the other hand, is inspired by its historical identity and its alleged humiliation by the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia longs for recognition of its great-power status in particular from the US. This report focuses on relations between China and Russia on the one hand and the US and Russia on the other. It analyses the current developments and future trends in these relationships, as well as their implications for the EU.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, and Hegemony
Political Geography:: Russia, United States, China, Europe, Asia, and North America

50. The United States and the Two Koreas in the Trump Era: Prospects for Denuclearization

Author:: Kathleen Stephens
Publication Date:: 12-2018
Content Type:: Video
Institution:: The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
Abstract:: This, the 2018 John Oh Memorial Lecture, was delivered by U.S. Ambassador (Retired) Kathleen Stephens.
Topic:: International Cooperation and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:: United States, South Korea, and North Korea

Search

Search Constraints

Search Results

Refine your search

Topic

Political Geography

Content Type

Journal

Publishing Institution

Author

Publication Year

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS