Search

Begin New Search Political Geography United States of America Publication Year within 3 Years Publication Year within 1 Year

41. Building Critical Minerals Cooperation Between the United States and the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Author:
Gracelin Baskaran
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is one of the world’s most resource-rich countries, and in 2024, it attracted the largest volume of mineral exploration investment in Africa. Enhancing U.S.-DRC cooperation is critical to counterbalance China’s dominance. The United States has historically underinvested in commercial diplomacy in the DRC, while China has established control over key mines through state-backed financing and infrastructure-for-resources deals. This brief answers two questions: First, how can the U.S. government utilize its resources to maximize impact in this sector? And second, what reforms can the DRC government implement to attract investment? Building the bilateral minerals partnership will require a suite of bilateral diplomatic, financial, and legislative reforms.
Topic:
Human Rights, Bilateral Relations, Natural Resources, and Critical Minerals
Political Geography:
Africa, North America, United States of America, and Democratic Republic of Congo

42. Improving the Efficiency of NRC Power Reactor Licensing: Environmental Reviews

Author:
Matt Bowen and Rama T. Ponangi
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Achieving net-zero emissions in the United States by mid-century requires the rapid buildout of low-carbon energy infrastructure. One challenge to this rapid buildout is the environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which are part of federal approval processes for new energy projects. This process has increasingly caused significant delays and added costs, and the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) of 2023 was passed by Congress in part to address these issues through amendments to NEPA that impose timelines on environmental reviews. For nuclear power, a low-carbon energy source that has a role in many US net-zero scenarios, environmental reviews are conducted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as part of its reactor licensing process. Because this process has at times been lengthy and costly, Congress passed the 2024 ADVANCE Act in part to require the NRC to implement its responsibilities under NEPA more efficiently. During the 2000s and 2010s, most of the environmental impact statements (EISs) these reviews produced would not have complied with NEPA’s new FRA timeline (two years or fewer) and page limit (150, or in extraordinary cases 300). More recent NRC environmental reviews for test reactor deployments have been somewhat quicker and had shorter review documents, perhaps a recognition by the agency that the efficiency of this process needed improvement. This report, part of a series of publications on nuclear licensing reform at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA, focuses on how the NRC can fulfill the new legal mandates on time and page limits for environmental reviews and in general improve the efficiency of these reviews. The report demonstrates that earlier (1970s–80s) environmental reviews for nuclear power reactors licensed under the 10 CFR 50 licensing pathway took less time and generated shorter review documents than those conducted under 10 CFR 52 during the 2000s and 2010s. The latter reviews—all of which were for large light water reactor projects—also utilized substantial NRC resources, thereby incurring significant costs to the applicants. None of these reviews found that the reactor projects were expected to create what the NRC calls “large adverse” environmental impacts, which could destabilize environmental resources. Although some “moderate adverse” impacts were identified, they typically came from unavoidable elements such as new transmission lines and traffic that would result from any large construction project. And beneficial impacts always came in the form of jobs and taxes. At the very least, these findings raise questions about the allocation of time and resources to various aspects of the NRC’s environmental review.
Topic:
Environment, Regulation, Carbon Emissions, Nuclear Energy, and Permitting
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

43. Collateral Effects of the Tariff War on ASEAN Food Security

Author:
Jose M. L. Montesclaros and Kayven Tan
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
Abstract:
The United States and China are locked in a cycle of escalating tariffs, with likely knock-on impacts on global food supplies and prices. In response to increases in tariff rates imposed by the US on China’s exports, China hit back with additional tariffs on US$21 billion worth of US agricultural products in March 2025. Beijing’s retaliatory tariffs will mean an additional 10 per cent tariff on soybeans, sorghum, beef, pork, aquatic and dairy products, fruits, and vegetables, and an additional 15 per cent tariff on wheat, corn, maize, and chicken from the US. Given the tense words exchanged by leaders and officials on both sides in recent days, neither side appears ready to back down from these trade measures. The food security concern for ASEAN states is whether the trade war will impact the supply and prices of food in a region where 37 per cent, or 251 million people, cannot afford a healthy diet. Many Asian states rely heavily on imports for their food. Wheat is used in household staples such as noodles and bread, while corn and soybeans are used for food and livestock feed.
Topic:
Food Security, Tariffs, Trade Wars, ASEAN, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

44. California Wildfires and Planetary Health

Author:
Pey Peili
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
Abstract:
The California wildfires are an environmental disaster, but they also point to a deeper set of challenges, not only for the United States of America but for the global community. Such wildfires, which are ever-increasing in frequency and scale due to the impact of climate change, result in structural damage and long-term health risks that disproportionately affect vulnerable communities and are a costly burden to the state. A planetary health approach highlights the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the climate-environment-health interface in managing the risk and incidence of wildfires.
Topic:
Climate Change, Health, Natural Disasters, and Wildfires
Political Geography:
California, North America, and United States of America

45. The U.S. Pursues Increasingly Aggressive Policy towards Latin America

Author:
Bartłomiej Znojek
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
Donald Trump’s administration is seeking to rebuild U.S. influence in Latin America. It is trying to convince the countries of the region that cooperation with the United States will bring development and increased security to the Americas. For the time being, however, this approach mainly serves U.S. security interests, in particular combating irregular migration, organised crime and drug trafficking, and reducing China’s influence. The current administration’s threats, inconsistent positions, and expansionist drive will deepen the distrust of the U.S. and antagonise important Latin American partners.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Migration, Donald Trump, Strategic Interests, and Drug Trafficking
Political Geography:
Latin America and United States of America

46. U.S. Interest in Greenland Reflects the Ongoing Competition in the Arctic

Author:
Kinga Dudzińska and Paweł Markiewicz
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
President Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested his intention to attach Greenland to the U.S., a move that has met with opposition from the Greenlandic and Danish governments. The pressure from the U.S. is one manifestation of its aspirations to strengthen its position in the North Atlantic, both because of the strategic importance of the island and the growing international rivalries in the Arctic. The situation will require greater EU and NATO involvement in the High North, as well as consideration of this perspective by countries outside the region, such as Poland.
Topic:
NATO, European Union, Donald Trump, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Greenland, Arctic, and United States of America

47. China Building Up BRICS as Important Foreign Policy Tool

Author:
Marcin Przychodniak
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
BRICS is useful for China in its rivalry with the U.S., mainly as a tool to influence developing countries. It is also an important element of strategic cooperation with Russia and a platform for dialogue with India. China does not care about BRICS integration, instead it wants to consolidate the group’s participants to further China’s goals.. The EU’s response to this should include effective support for developing countries and a subjective approach to their demands for global governance.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, European Union, BRICS, Rivalry, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

48. Trump Takes on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Author:
Michał Wojnarowicz
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
Donald Trump’s actions and announcements to date regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are reversing the decisions of previous administrations and strengthening Benjamin Netanyahu’s political position. At the same time, they threaten the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. The deliberately ambiguous statements about the resolution of the crisis seem gauged to increase pressure on regional states and European partners.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Donald Trump, Israeli–Palestinian Conflict, and 2023 Gaza War
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Gaza, and United States of America

49. Securing a development-friendly US trade policy: the urgent need for an AGOA revamp

Author:
Wolfgang Britz, Zoryana Olekseyuk, and Tim Vogel
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
In times of heightened uncertainty surrounding US trade policy, it is increasingly vital to secure a development-friendly approach toward African countries. They are among the most vulnerable to climate change, conflicts and pandemics, yet are also gaining geo-economic significance. Given the expiry of the US Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) in 2020 and the upcoming expiry of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in September 2025, Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries urge policymakers to timely reauthorise and upgrade the non-reciprocal trade programme to improve market access to the US and ensure long-term support for sustainable development across the African continent. While the AGOA Renewal and Improvement Act of 2024 was introduced to Congress with bipartisan support, the election of Donald Trump and his “America First” approach have increased doubts about a swift extension of AGOA. This policy brief examines the potential effects of the expirations of GSP and AGOA using a multi-region Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model. By simulating the shift from duty-free to Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment, we find the following: All in all, aggregated effects over all countries are rather muted while some specific countries face strong losses. Whereas bilateral exports of AGOA-eligible countries to the US decline by 3.7%, their total exports fall by only 0.1%, with real GDP remaining almost unaffected. Looking more closely, specific SSA countries would face high bilateral losses: The most substantial reduction of exports to the US occurs in Lesotho (-35%), Malawi (-25%) and Kenya (-16%), while welfare decline is the highest in Lesotho and Mauritius. The most affected sectors are sugar, wearing apparel, leather, dairy products, and beverages and tobacco. The limited aggregate effects of a loss in trade preferences are mainly driven by relatively weak ties of SSA to the US and rather low US MFN tariff rates. This highlights the limited effectiveness of the AGOA preference scheme, indicating that its renewal should go hand in hand with a comprehensive modernisation of the programme. While the AGOA Renewal and Improvement Act of 2024 acknowledges this, it still falls short of modernising the programme in some key areas. To ensure long-term benefits for SSA economies, we recommend: • A swift reauthorisation for a longer period, incorporating continuation provisions to reduce future uncertainty. • More transparent and predictable eligibility reviews, with a possibility of partial exclusion for non-compliance, would also help mitigate uncertainty. • Expansion of rules of origin, which is crucial for stimulating intra-continental trade and enhancing value addition within SSA. • Widening the programme’s scope by addressing, for example, digital trade, services, non-tariff measures, regulatory cooperation and investment facilitation.
Topic:
Development, Exports, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:
Africa and United States of America

50. Trump’s assault on foreign aid: implications for international development cooperation

Author:
Sebastian Haug, Anna Novoselova, and Stephan Klingebiel
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The United States of America has long been a leading force in international development cooperation, both politically and financially. However, the first weeks of the second Trump administration have called the traditional role of US foreign aid fundamentally into question. From a 90-day funding freeze to the withdrawal from United Nations (UN) bodies and the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), measures taken by Trump and his team are not only having palpable repercussions on a wide range of humanitarian and development programmes, but they also point to more far-reaching implications. Against this backdrop, this paper presents the contours and discusses the global consequences of Trump’s assault on US foreign aid, as of late February 2025. We outline the extant role of the United States as a donor in Section 2 and review the changes announced – and/or implemented – by the current US government in Section 3. Section 4 discusses the implications of US funding cuts for bilateral cooperation, while Section 5 focuses on repercussions on multilateral development work. Section 6 outlines three scenarios on how the ongoing changes in the United States might affect the field of international development. We discuss the possible ramifications of (a) a revamped US approach to foreign aid centring on crude national interests, (b) a US retreat that is at least partially offset by other providers and (c) a US retreat without other providers stepping in. Section 7 concludes by discussing the implications for dealing with the second Trump administration. We outline four recommendations that address stakeholders across the – increasingly outdated – donor–recipient divide: (1) refining development cooperation approaches, (2) strengthening the multilateral development system, (3) promoting Southern self-reliance and (4) fostering alliances beyond a Trump-led US government.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Foreign Aid, International Development, Donald Trump, and USAID
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

51. Net-Zero and Nonproliferation: Assessing Nuclear Power and Its Alternatives

Author:
Henry D. Sokolski
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Nonproliferation Policy Education Center
Abstract:
Six years ago, NPEC ran a mock execution of a law Congress passed in 1978 but that the Executive refused to implement —Title V of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978. Title V called on the State and Energy Departments to conduct country-specific analyses of how developing states might best meet their energy needs without nuclear power. It also called for the creation of an energy Peace Corps and an assessment of what our government was spending on energy development aid-related projects. When NPEC started its efforts, the staff on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee asked to see what NPEC produced to use it to pressure the Executive finally to implement the law. NPEC commissioned a number of studies on how Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, and Taiwan might best meet their energy requirements without nuclear power. The center also contracted studies on the history and intent of Title V and on what government programs were already in play that aligned with Title V‘s stated objectives. As soon as NPEC’s project was completed, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff prepared a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking the Secretary finally to implement Title V and file the reports required by law. Then, something unexpected occurred. The committee’s legal counsel discovered that the Secretary was under no obligation to comply: Congress had eliminated Title V’s reporting requirements along with several hundred other Congressionally mandated reports back in 1995. Flummoxed, I quietly set the book manuscript aside. Why, then, release it today? Because it is again timely. In October, the Biden Administration announced it is still considering extending civilian nuclear cooperation with Riyadh that would allow the Kingdom to enrich uranium — a process that can bring states within weeks of acquiring the bomb. Administration officials no longer question if Saudi Arabia really needs nuclear energy to meet its energy requirements. Shouldn’t they? Meanwhile, Taiwan’s presidential election this coming Saturday will, among other things, decide if Taiwan will build more nuclear reactors or not. Again, is new nuclear Taiwan’s best energy bet? As for China, the Pentagon has become increasingly concerned that the two “peaceful” fast breeder reactors and plutonium reprocessing plants Beijing is building will be used to make hundreds of bombs worth of weapons plutonium. One of the two fast breeder reactors is already operating. The question these dangerous nuclear activities raise is just how necessary they are to meet China’s energy requirements. Then, there’s Iran, which is intent on building reactors of Iranian design. It plans on expanding its nuclear power program from roughly one gigawatt electrical capacity to 11. Given Iran’s renewables potential and oil and gas reserves, how much sense does this make? Finally, in its efforts to achieve net zero, the Biden Administration has joined 20 other nations in pledging to triple global nuclear generation by 2050. Again, how practical is this? This volume’s aim is to help provide answers. Of course, in light of how long our government has ignored Title V, demanding it be implemented now would be odd. Creating a clean energy Peace Corps, comparing the costs of different types of energy, and trying to determine what investments would reduce emissions quickest and cheapest, however, all should be discussed. It’s my hope that the release of Net-Zero and Nonproliferation: Assessing Nuclear Power and Its Alternatives today might prompt such discussion.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Nuclear Power, Nonproliferation, Legislation, Energy, and Net Zero
Political Geography:
China, Iran, Middle East, Taiwan, Asia, Saudi Arabia, North America, and United States of America

52. Power and Financial Interdependence

Author:
Brad Setser
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
The link between financial self-reliance and geopolitical power has long been debated. The unbalanced Sino-American trade relationship has created asymmetric financial ties which generate potential sources of leverage for both parties and will not quickly disappear. Absent a clarifying major crisis, it will be difficult to definitively determine which party has greater leverage. Many in the United States (US) are concerned about indebtedness to its primary strategic rival, and the risks posed by a sudden Chinese withdrawal from US financial markets. US policymakers actively sought to encourage China’s top leadership not to withdraw financing from the market for US Agency securities in the run-up to the global financial crisis. Yet China also sees risks in this unbalanced financial relationship. Chinese policymakers have expressed concern about the domestic political consequences of losses on either their Treasury or Agency holdings and actively have sought to diversify China’s reserves – including by substituting the risk of lending to developing economies for the visibility associated with large holdings of Treasuries in US custodians. China increasingly worries that its dollar holdings and the dollar’s global role increase its vulnerability to potential financial sanctions. Both parties thus worry about the possibility that financial interdependence can be weaponized yet find it hard to extricate themselves from the inevitability of financial interdependence absent a clean break from an entrenched pattern of trade imbalances.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Bilateral Relations, Finance, and Interdependence
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

53. The Future of Nuclear Proliferation after the War in Ukraine

Author:
Nicholas L. Miller
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
In the context of deep changes to the international security environment, especially the war in Ukraine, the risks of nuclear proliferation seem quite high, especially in the Middle East and East Asia. Four categories of factors have been identified that might trigger an escalation. Firstly, changes in the international security environment, including heightened competition among major powers, could increase pressure for proliferation in regions like Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Secondly, the declining ability of the United States to enforce non-proliferation regimes may lead allies to seek nuclear capabilities due to concerns over U.S. reliability. Thirdly, failures by nuclear powers to uphold disarmament commitments and the emergence of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons could undermine non-proliferation norms. Lastly, the war in Ukraine highlights the potential use of nuclear threats in conflicts, reinforcing the perception of nuclear weapons as crucial for national security. While there are reasons to anticipate growing proliferation risks, historical precedent suggests that these risks can be managed. Concerns over U.S. reliability and disarmament failures have been addressed through coercion and reassurance in the past. Additionally, the impact of conventional wars supported by nuclear deterrence has been contained. While some risk factors are novel, such as the decline of the U.S. nuclear industry and the emergence of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, their decisive impact remains uncertain. The implications for the Middle East and East Asia vary. Allies like Japan and South Korea may be convinced to remain non-nuclear due to U.S. security assurances, while adversaries like Iran could be incentivized to pursue nuclear capabilities amid declining effectiveness of U.S. sanctions. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it may pressure Saudi Arabia to follow suit, potentially leading to regional proliferation dynamics. Thus, great powers and the international community need to step in to manage proliferation triggers by maintaining a focus on nonproliferation in their statecraft.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, International Security, Deterrence, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America

54. Seeking Safer Shells: An Analysis of Interpretations, Justifications, and Rationales Behind Decisions on North Korean Defectors’ Right to Asylum

Author:
Megumi Faith Mallari and Saleh Naas
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
Despite their known and indisputable need for protection, North Koreans often have their applications for asylum rejected. This paper outlines the differing interpretations of North Koreans’ right to asylum and investigates the rationales and justifications behind them through the case studies of the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and China (PRC). The paper argues that the rationale of the European countries analyzed is based on their generally restrictive view on asylum, independent from their political positioning on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Contrastingly, the rationales of the United States and the PRC are grounded in interests directly related to the Korean peninsula and Cold War narratives.
Topic:
Geopolitics, Asylum, and Refugee Policy
Political Geography:
China, United Kingdom, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, France, Germany, Netherlands, and United States of America

55. Revising Organ Procurement Organization Guidelines to Obtaining Family Consent for Deceased Donation: An Anthropologically Informed Policy Proposal

Author:
Gillian Tisdale
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
Organ transplantation has become a widespread medical practice with public policy designed to increase rates of deceased donation. When individuals have not registered as organ donors, next-of-kin are called on to make donation decisions—requiring families to grapple with the often-confusing concept of ‘brain death’ and parse their understanding of what the deceased would have wanted. Current public policy is explicitly designed to promote high donation rates without clear regard to the experiences of donor-families; at best, these policies prime donation conversations to involve unethical practices, while at worst, the disregard of kin’s experiences may also diminish deceased donation rates. Anthropological literature has documented the often aggressive tactics used by transplant organizations that demonstrate a disregard for the emotional experiences of kin. In 2023, Congress passed the Securing the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Act, prompting the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reevaluate organ donation policies and solicit requests for proposal for a new federal contractor to take over the network responsible for overseeing all organ sharing. This article leverages the relevant anthropological literature to provide guiding principles and proposed language amending the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Interpretive Guidance that HHS could implement as part of its modernization initiative. These principles aim to improve experiences for kin without lowering donation rates. The article recommends that HHS and its contractors collect metrics to measure the quality of Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) interactions, counterbalancing current benchmarks focused on procurement rates. It also recommends improved protocols to empathically and systematically support kin’s understanding of brain death.
Topic:
Legislation, Public Policy, Procurement, and Organ Transplants
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

56. Guam in Washington, 1972-Present: The Overlooked Strategic Implications of Congressional Polarization

Author:
Mirabai Venkatesh
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
Contrary to the long-held logic that giving Guam a stronger, more autonomous voice will undermine U.S. strategic interests, failing to provide Guam with a stable pathway of interest advancement beyond Congress hinders its development and with it the federal government’s ability to achieve soft-power advantages and basic military readiness in the Indo-Pacific theater. Since the United States assumed responsibility for administering the territory of Guam in 1898, it has treated the prospect of Guam’s status improvement as detrimental to U.S. strategic interests. This has informed its chosen method of territorial administration, which places U.S. territories under the authority of the Department of the Interior. Each territory is then given only one formal representative in Congress, specifically the U.S. House of Representatives, but without full-voting rights. This paper will explore how Guam has managed to advance its interests in Washington since 1972, highlighting how congressional representation has become Guam’s most successful pathway of interest advancement with the federal government to date. However, the agency and success of Guam’s congressional delegates must be framed within a broader discussion of the fragility of the U.S. approach to territorial administration, which has relegated Guam to a pathway of interest advancement incredibly vulnerable to political sea change. Ultimately, this paper will illustrate how Guam’s main pathway of interest advancement in Washington is quickly narrowing at the expense of U.S. strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, History, Soft Power, Autonomy, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Asia-Pacific, United States of America, Indo-Pacific, and Guam

57. Emerging Powers and the Future of American Statecraft

Author:
Christopher S. Chivvis and Beatrix Geaghan-Breiner
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The structure of international politics is changing in ways that are not fully appreciated in Washington. The United States has paid a great deal of attention to the rise of China in the last decade but much less to emerging powers whose rise will also shape the operating environment for American statecraft. No single emerging power will have an impact tantamount to China’s, but they will have a significant impact collectively due to their geopolitical weight and diplomatic aspirations. America has limited ability to influence the trajectory of these emerging powers, identified in this report as Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, and Türkiye. They have taken stances that contrast or directly clash with U.S. positions on China and on Russia over the past few years. Nearly all have voiced concerns about Washington’s approach to the war in Ukraine, even as they criticized Moscow’s invasion. Almost none would line up with the United States in a confrontation with China. Instead, they are likely to pursue highly self-interested foreign policies. Washington should expect that they will increasingly challenge some of its policies, sustain relationships with its adversaries, and press their own agendas on the global stage. The emerging powers’ statecrafts are shaped in large part by their drive for economic security. But their geographies, different preferences for world order, domestic politics, and defense relationships also play a role. Concerns about the strength of democracy in other countries, which has played an animating role in U.S. foreign policy for decades, are a lower priority for them, no matter how democratic they are. It will be a mistake for the United States to frame its relations with these emerging powers primarily as part of a competition for influence with China and Russia, however tempting it may be to do so. These powers are not swing states that will tilt decisively toward either side in a global great power competition. Most will resist any efforts to bring them into a U.S.-led camp as in the Cold War. Trying to make them do so would also risk strategic overreach by embroiling the United States too deeply in the emerging powers’ domestic politics or by expending its resources in pursuit of building ties that never materialize. A better approach for the United States would be to focus on negotiating interest-based deals with emerging powers while cordoning off areas of disagreement. These might include tailored market access and investment agreements, agreements on technology manufacturing, energy transition initiatives, efforts to combat deforestation, efforts to build public health infrastructure, and infrastructure investments. It would be wasteful of the United States to offer these countries security guarantees, but in some cases providing security assistance can serve its interests. Washington should accept that most of these countries will maintain close diplomatic, economic, and sometimes security relationships with China and probably Russia. Over the longer term, it will serve U.S. interests to strengthen the sovereignty of emerging powers when possible and cost-effective to do so. This will provide a bulwark against the undue expansion of China’s power and influence and help ensure that, even if they do not side with the United States, they are not drawn closely into the orbit of its major geopolitical competitors. Strengthening emerging powers’ sovereignty will also help boost their development as constructive powers with a stake in sustaining a peaceful world order conducive to global economic growth.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Sovereignty, Strategic Competition, and Emerging Powers
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, China, Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and United States of America

58. Israel and Genocide: Not Only In Gaza

Author:
Mark Lewis Taylor
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA)
Abstract:
Israel and the United States share responsibility in perpetuating Guatemala's military-sponsored Silent Holocaust.
Topic:
Genocide, Counterinsurgency, and State Sponsored Terrorism
Political Geography:
Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Guatemala, and United States of America

59. Honduras: A Narco-State Made in the United States

Author:
Laura Blume
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA)
Abstract:
Although Juan Orlando Hernández was convicted of drug trafficking in a New York court, the United States has yet to own up to its role in fostering state-sponsored drug trafficking in Honduras.
Topic:
Conflict, Coup, Organized Crime, Drug Trafficking, and Narco-State
Political Geography:
Latin America, Honduras, and United States of America

60. Viva Palestina! NYC Student Encampments Spark National Rebellion

Author:
Mariana Navarrete Villegas
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA)
Abstract:
Latinx students are standing with Palestine. For them, the occupation and oppression of Palestine are inseparable from the U.S.- and Israel-backed militarization of Latin America.
Topic:
Genocide, Occupation, Protests, Political Movements, Students, and Militarization
Political Geography:
New York, Palestine, Gaza, Latin America, North America, and United States of America