Number of results to display per page
Search Results
52. Conventional arms control on the Korean Peninsula: The current state and prospects
- Author:
- Yong-Sup Han
- Publication Date:
- 05-2020
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- At the end of 2017, the Korean Peninsula reached the brink of a nuclear war, as the US president Donald Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un exchanged words of nuclear threats each other. A tug of war as to whose nuclear button is bigger and stronger exacerbated the nuclear crisis. However, the South Korean President Moon Jae-in intervened to resolve the crisis by taking advantage of the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics. In doing so, President Moon intended to pursue denuclearisation and peace-building on the Korean Peninsula at the same time. North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un responded positively to the South Korean call to hold the inter-Korean summit and the Trump-Kim summit. In order to end the Korean war and promote peace-building on the Korean Peninsula including termination of hostile acts on inter-Korean relations, the two Koreas adopted the April 27 Panmunjom Declaration, the September 19th Pyongyang Joint Declaration and the Inter-Korean Military Agreement at their summit in 2018. The Military Agreement is aimed at reducing tension and building trust between the two Koreas through conventional arms control, while the North Korean nuclear issue is being resolved through the US-DPRK summit. The September 19th Military Agreement is a modest but remarkable success in arms control history when compared with a long-term stalemate or even retreat in the contemporary international arms control arena. Indeed, arms control is at its lowest point in history, so dim are its prospects. Nevertheless, heated debates are taking place, both at home inside South Korea and abroad, over the legitimacy and rationality of the Sept. 19th Military Agreement. With little progress on the denuclearisation issue at the Kim-Trump summit and no sign of easing economic sanctions on Pyongyang, North Korea has test-fired short-range missiles ten times to exert pressure on the United States, undermining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. Against this backdrop, this policy brief intends to analyse the true meaning of the September 19 Military Agreement between the two Koreas, to identify its problems and policy implications in order to draw up supplementary measures to implement it successfully. Furthermore, the paper will draw some implications for the relationship between progress on North Korea’s denuclearisation issue and further conventional arms control on the Korean Peninsula.
- Topic:
- Conflict Prevention, Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Treaties and Agreements
- Political Geography:
- South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America
53. Coming out and breaking out: The US, Iran and Europe go nuclear
- Author:
- Erwin van Veen
- Publication Date:
- 10-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
- Abstract:
- On the eve of the US elections, the nuclear deal (JCPOA) stands on the edge of the precipice. The US strategy of ‘maximum pressure’ has not (yet) achieved its implicit objective of 'regime change' but tanked Iran’s economy, caused its government to dig in and increased regional instability. The geopolitical consequences of US sanctions, EU prevarication and Iran’s deep presence throughout the Middle East have been equally profound. At the global level, they include nudging Iran towards China/Russia, the US alienating its European ‘partners’ and encouraging them to develop greater strategic autonomy. At the regional level, US sanctions risk creating an alternative economic regional order, ensuring Yemen remains a protracted war and making a regional security initiative more necessary, but less likely. It is not yet too late to turn the tide. The focus should now be on reducing regional tensions and especially the stress that sanctions have put on Iran’s population and government. Radical action looks more inviting when one stands against the wall, but the Middle East does not need more conflict than it already has. To do so, the EU should first support Iran with a large-scale Covid-19 humanitarian economy recovery package. As such measures are already sanctions-exempt, they will create few new tensions. An economic initiative should follow that grants preferential access to the EU’s internal market for industrial and agricultural goods from the entire Middle East (for Iran via an upgraded INSTEX). Such interventions will not resolve existing security dilemmas but can show there is an alternative to confrontation.
- Topic:
- Treaties and Agreements, Sanctions, Nuclear Power, Elections, and European Union
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Europe, Iran, Yemen, and United States of America
54. Rediscovering a Strategic Purpose for NATO
- Author:
- Peter Ricketts
- Publication Date:
- 10-2020
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- PRISM
- Institution:
- Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
- Abstract:
- Watford is at first sight an unlikely place for a gathering of world leaders. This nondescript suburb to the north of London found itself briefly in the media spotlight one chilly afternoon in December 2019. Boris Johnson had taken time out from his election campaign just before polling day to host a meeting of NATO leaders. It was intended to be a signal of allied unity in the 70th anniversary year of the 1949 Washington Treaty.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North America, and United States of America
55. One Year after the U.S.-Mexico Agreement: Reshaping Mexico’s Migration Policies
- Author:
- Ariel G. Ruiz Soto
- Publication Date:
- 06-2020
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
- Abstract:
- On June 7, 2019, after months of heightened Central American migration through Mexico to the United States, the Mexican and U.S. governments signed an agreement to work together to manage the migration of Central American asylum seekers and other migrants. This ushered in an intense period of policy and institutional change that is reshaping Mexico’s immigration enforcement and humanitarian protection systems. After being threatened with steep tariffs on Mexican goods, Mexico agreed to step up enforcement efforts, accepted the expansion of the U.S. Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP, also known as Remain in Mexico) along the U.S.-Mexico border, and promised to increase collaboration with the United States to disrupt migrant-smuggling networks. In turn, the United States pledged to expedite the asylum cases of migrants waiting in Mexico under MPP and invest in economic development efforts in southern Mexico and Central America to address the drivers of migration. While the full impact of the deal will likely take years to unfold, this policy brief takes stock of what has changed in the first year since its signing. It charts trends in migrant apprehensions and returns by Mexican authorities, and the volume of asylum applications filed in Mexico. The brief also examines challenges that have intensified during this time, including the precarious conditions many migrants face while waiting in Mexican border communities for their U.S. asylum cases to be heard and the COVID-19 pandemic that hit in early 2020. Looking ahead, the brief highlights opportunities for further policy development.
- Topic:
- Treaties and Agreements, Immigration, Border Control, Refugees, Asylum, Deportation, and COVID-19
- Political Geography:
- Central America, North America, Mexico, and United States of America
56. Europe Needs a Regional Strategy on Iran
- Author:
- Cornelius Adebahr
- Publication Date:
- 05-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- The rift between Europe and the United States over Iran is deepening. To regain leverage, the Europeans should engage all eight Gulf states in talks about regional security and nonproliferation. The rift between Europe and the United States over Iran is deepening. Two years of U.S. maximum pressure on Tehran have not yielded the results Washington had hoped for, while the Europeans have failed to put up enough resistance for their transatlantic partner to change course. Worse, the U.S. policy threatens to destabilize the broader Persian Gulf, with direct consequences for Europe. To get ahead of the curve and regain leverage, the European Union (EU), its member states, and the United Kingdom have to look beyond their relations with the Islamic Republic and address wider regional security challenges. The United States’ incipient retreat as a security guarantor and Russia’s increased interest in the region make it necessary for Europe to engage beyond its borders. Despite being barely alive, the 2015 international nuclear deal with Iran offers a good starting point. The Europeans should regionalize some of the agreement’s basic provisions to include the nuclear newcomers on the Arab side of the Gulf. Doing so would advance a nonproliferation agenda that is aimed not at a single country but at the region’s broader interests. Similarly, the Europeans should engage Iran, Iraq, and the six Arab nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council in talks about regional security. Rather than suggesting an all-encompassing security framework, for which the time is not yet ripe, they should pursue a step-by-step approach aimed at codifying internationally recognized principles at the regional level.
- Topic:
- Security, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, and Nonproliferation
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Iran, Middle East, and United States of America
57. A New Erdogan-Putin Deal in Idlib May Help—For Now
- Author:
- Soner Cagaptay
- Publication Date:
- 03-2020
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- Turkey, Russia, and Washington have compelling reasons to welcome a new ceasefire agreement, however imperfect, but they still need to address the longer-term dangers posed by the Assad regime’s murderously maximalist strategy. Recent fighting between Turkish and Syrian regime forces in Idlib province has seemingly wiped away the last vestiges of the September 2018 Sochi agreement, brokered by Russian president Vladimir Putin as a way of pausing hostilities and dividing control over the country’s last rebel-held province. Beginning last December, renewed Russian and Syrian attacks against civilians sent a million residents fleeing toward the Turkish border, creating another humanitarian disaster. Then, on February 27, thirty-three Turkish soldiers were killed when their unit was attacked in Idlib—Ankara’s largest single-day loss in Syria thus far. Turkey initially blamed Bashar al-Assad for the deaths, but eyes soon turned to his Russian patron as the more likely culprit, elevating tensions between Ankara and Moscow to a level not seen since Turkish forces shot down a Russian plane in November 2015. Meanwhile, the Turkish military and its local partner forces launched a string of attacks against the Syrian regime and its Iranian-backed militia allies. On March 5, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet with Putin in Moscow to discuss these rising tensions. If the two leaders reach another ceasefire deal, will it last any longer than the short-lived Sochi agreement? More important, what effect might it have on the latest refugee crisis threatening to wash over Turkey and Europe?
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Syrian War, and Negotiation
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Turkey, Middle East, Syria, United States of America, and Idlib
58. Europe Is Creating an Opportunity for Iran Talks, and Washington Should Take It
- Author:
- Charles Thépaut and Elena DeLozier
- Publication Date:
- 01-2020
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- By triggering the nuclear deal’s dispute resolution mechanism, Britain, France, and Germany are opening diplomatic space that could help the United States and Iran return to the negotiating table. In a press conference following the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, President Trump reaffirmed his administration’s “maximum pressure” policy against Iran and asked, once again, for European countries to leave the nuclear deal. Meanwhile, Tehran announced what it called a “fifth and final remedial step” away from its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In response, the British, French, and German foreign ministers stated on January 14 that they would trigger the JCPOA’s dispute resolution mechanism (DRM). At the same time, however, the E3 clarified that they are not joining the Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign, which has steadily intensified ever since the United States withdrew from the JCPOA and reimposed unilateral sanctions in 2018. Contrary to U.S. claims, the European decision will not immediately provoke “snapback” UN sanctions on Iran (though that scenario could unfold later if the E3 plan fails and Iran’s violations go before the UN Security Council). Instead, Europe is maintaining its evenhanded position somewhere between Washington and Tehran in order to preserve the possibility of new negotiations, on both the nuclear program and other regional issues.
- Topic:
- Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Nuclear Power, and Negotiation
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Iran, Middle East, and United States of America
59. The White House Peace Plan Meeting: U.S. Goals, Israeli Repercussions
- Author:
- David Makovsky
- Publication Date:
- 01-2020
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- Whether they reveal a detailed plan or merely preview an aspirational document, U.S. officials still need to clarify their goals at a time when elections are looming and Palestinian participation seems highly unlikely. In a dramatic move, President Trump has announced that Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his leading rival, Blue and White Party leader Benny Gantz, will visit the White House on January 28 to be briefed on the administration’s long-awaited Middle East peace plan. Trump told reporters that the plan would likely be released before the summit. Predictably, no invitation was extended to the Palestinian Authority, which severed relations with Washington after the U.S. embassy was moved to Jerusalem in 2017.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Negotiation, Peace, and Donald Trump
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America
60. Conflict and Cooperation in Asia: Geopolitical Issues
- Author:
- Tatiana Rosito, Andy Mok, James Crabtree, and Rudolph Lohmeyer
- Publication Date:
- 11-2020
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Brazilian Center for International Relations (CEBRI)
- Abstract:
- The document produced by CEBRI’s Asia Program analyzes the following issues: 1) a long-term view of China's role in the region; 2) Regional and bilateral agreements in Asia/Eurasia and security policies; 3) The evolution of the role of the United States in the Indo-Pacific. The panelists pointed out that "Two questions remain open: China's ability to lead the international system and the United States' ability to build a broader agenda in addition to military issues in the Asian region".
- Topic:
- Security, International Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, Geopolitics, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific