Number of results to display per page
Search Results
302. Freedom isn’t Free: A cost-benefit analysis of support for Ukraine
- Author:
- Bob Deen and Roman de Baedts
- Publication Date:
- 05-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
- Abstract:
- More than ten years after the Russian annexation of Crimea and two years after the large-scale invasion, Ukraine is still holding its own against Russia. This is not only due to the courage and efforts of the Ukrainians themselves, but also thanks to the extensive military, economic, and financial support packages from Europe and the US. For 2024, the government had allocated three billion euros for military support to Ukraine in the fight against Russian aggression and also pledged an additional three billion for 2025. Following the UK, France, and Germany, the Netherlands has entered into a ten-year security cooperation agreement with Ukraine to ensure long-term support. The recently released AIV briefing note and a recent parliamentary letter also advocate for sustained support. However, this Western support is no longer a certainty or uncontested. Particularly in the US, but also in some European NATO countries, calls to halt support to Ukraine are slowly gaining more traction. The American support package of sixty billion dollars was stuck in the House of Representatives for months, causing significant difficulties for the Ukrainian armed forces. President Biden has scaled back his rhetoric from “as long as it takes” to “as long as we can”. New commitments for new aid to Ukraine stalled at the end of 2023 (with a nearly ninety percent drop), while promised ammunition quantities fell far short. A warning from French President Macron that a Western military intervention should not be ruled out received little support from his foreign counterparts. Although the issue of Western ‘boots on the ground’ also requires further attention, it is not addressed within this memo, and ‘support’ encompasses both economic and material assistance, but without the deployment of Western troops in Ukraine. Following Putin’s ‘election victory’ in March, the Kremlin escalated its war rhetoric. Government officials are now openly discussing ‘war,’ whereas previously, using that word could land one in prison. This fits into the rhetoric where NATO, rather than Ukraine, is portrayed as the aggressor. Additionally, the Russian Ministry of Defence announced the formation of two new combined arms Army Corps and accelerated the recruitment of new military personnel. Meanwhile, the Russian war industry is gearing up, producing large quantities of ammunition and equipment for the Russian war effort. The extensive import of artillery ammunition from North Korea and drones from Iran, among other capabilities, further complements Russian stocks. The consequences on the battlefield are already noticeable, as seen in the loss of the city of Avdiivka in February, and developments along the front since. Meanwhile, pressure on Ukrainian troops at the front is mounting. In an interview at the end of March, President Zelensky stated that Ukraine will have to cede more land if Western material support continues to be lacking. The renewed Northern front after the second Russian Kharkiv offensive is likely to further stretch Ukrainian defences and resilience in the near future. Despite overwhelming support in the Dutch parliament for continued support for Ukraine, there are nonetheless questions about the duration and scope of future assistance. The question regarding the costs and benefits of providing political, economic, and military support by the Dutch government is extremely relevant in this context. This constitutes more than a simple calculation where profit or loss is expressed in Euros. It also involves security risks and geopolitical and moral costs and benefits that cannot always be quantified in one-dimensional figures. It is therefore essential to adopt a broader understanding of costs and benefits, reasoned from the perspective of Dutch national security interests and the impact of international support on the outcomes of the conflict. An important consideration here is the extent to which support for Ukraine contributes to a military victory, a military loss, or a protracted conflict.
- Topic:
- Armed Conflict, Military Aid, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and United States of America
303. UNDP’s stabilization programme in and around Mosul, 2017–2022
- Author:
- Hugo de Vries
- Publication Date:
- 08-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
- Abstract:
- Between 2014 and 2017, the occupation of northwestern Iraq by the Islamic State in the Levant and the military campaign to defeat it left chaos and destruction in its wake. Six million people were displaced and damages ran to an estimated USD 88 billion. At the time, the international community swiftly threw its support behind the Iraqi government to reconstruct the affected areas. This paper tells the story of a major programmatic contribution to the reconstruction effort by assessing the rollout, implementation and impact of UNDP’s USD 1,5 billion USD Funding Facility for Stabilization (FFS) with a focus on Mosul. Tracing the frontline as it advanced, the program worked via the private sector to rebuild thousands of houses, water treatment plants, electrical stations, hospitals, schools and other key infrastructure and provided thousands of temporary jobs to people. To accomplish this, it had to negotiate security arrangements, deal with the limited capacity of the Iraqi state and above all, anticipate corruption by different actors. While the FFS was a programmatic success in terms of its own original objectives, one can also argue that the program did not significantly increase trust in the Iraqi government, positively influence Iraq’s political economy or mitigate local conflict dynamics ‘beyond the numbers’ of its concrete deliverables. As the paper has been written by the FFS’s former program coordinator in Mosul, it provides an insider perspective into the operational dynamics of a major UN program.
- Topic:
- Humanitarian Aid, Infrastructure, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and Stabilization
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, United States of America, and Mosul
304. NATO Summits: Looking ahead from Washington to The Hague
- Author:
- Dick Zandee and Roman de Baedts
- Publication Date:
- 09-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
- Abstract:
- The July 2024 NATO Summit in Washington DC confirmed that the Alliance is ‘back to the future’. Upon its 75th anniversary NATO took important decisions to further strengthen its political-military power in response to a variety of security challenges, in particular to the threat posed by Russia. Increased defence spending is starting to deliver results in improving the military capabilities of European Allies. NATO’s partnerships with the EU and with countries in the Pacific have been reinforced. Yet, dark clouds are hanging above the Alliance on its way from Washington to its next Summit in The Hague (June 2025). First and foremost, the US presidential elections on 5 November cast a shadow over the transatlantic cooperation, or even worse, may result in a category 5 hurricane for NATO if Donald Trump re-enters the White House. American military support for Ukraine could stop completely, increasing the pressure on European Allies to do more, or to end their ‘whatever it takes’ rhetoric. To ensure the US contribution to NATO, European Allies will need to step up their defence efforts, even under Democratic President Kamala Harris. The American focus on the Indo-Pacific/China is raising questions about the European role and contribution to the Alliance as well as to the Asia-Pacific region. This policy brief will address these major issues for the Alliance on the road from Washington to The Hague.
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, Alliance, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Ukraine, and United States of America
305. The battle over shipping lanes tips toward the Houthis
- Author:
- Al Jazeera Center for Studies
- Publication Date:
- 03-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Al Jazeera Center for Studies
- Abstract:
- The Houthis have succeeded throughout the period following the initiation of their military support for Gaza in disrupting commercial shipping passing through the Red Sea to countries they consider hostile; and the military operations of the US alliance inadvertently aided them in achieving their objective.
- Topic:
- Maritime Commerce, Houthis, Shipping, and 2023 Gaza War
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Yemen, Palestine, Gaza, United States of America, and Red Sea
306. The Lebanese Front: Assessing the Threat of All-Out War
- Author:
- Al Jazeera Center for Studies
- Publication Date:
- 07-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Al Jazeera Center for Studies
- Abstract:
- Indicators point to a heightened risk of war between Israel and Hezbollah, with Israel leading efforts to restore security in its northern region for resident return and to deter Hezbollah from its borders. However, high war costs and US opposition could limit escalation.
- Topic:
- Hezbollah, Armed Conflict, Escalation, and 2023 Gaza War
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Lebanon, and United States of America
307. The US Presidential Election: Unprecedentedly High Stakes
- Author:
- Al Jazeera Center for Studies
- Publication Date:
- 08-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Al Jazeera Center for Studies
- Abstract:
- A combination of unexpected factors has led to the nomination of Kamala Harris as a replacement for Joe Biden, ushering the US elections into a new phase. This development could enhance the mechanism of political integration, but it might also lead to further exclusion, which could cause extremism and chaos, and weaken institutions.
- Topic:
- Domestic Politics, Institutions, Donald Trump, Polarization, Presidential Elections, Kamala Harris, and Political Integration
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
308. Stabilization Policies After the Sahel Coups
- Author:
- Florence Schimmel and Armin Schäfer
- Publication Date:
- 06-2024
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
- Abstract:
- The Sahel is increasingly ruled by authoritarian military regimes; co-operation with them towards goals such as stability and peace is becoming more and more difficult for Germany. Following the recent coups in Mali and Niger in particular, the question now is whether and how the previous stabilization policies can be continued. For around ten years, Germany, together with the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States, has been pursuing stabilization policies that focus on strengthening fragile governments. In the future, Germany must more clearly define which partners are considered legitimate and which fundamental principles should apply, notwithstanding the high degree of context-specificity.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Coup, and Stabilization
- Political Geography:
- Africa, United Kingdom, Germany, Sahel, and United States of America
309. The US Presidential Election 2024 – Two Outcomes, One Set of Challenges
- Author:
- Andrew A. Michta
- Publication Date:
- 06-2024
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
- Abstract:
- Germany as Europe’s leading economy and the host country to the majority of US legacy military installations on the Continent, continues to lag behind NATO’s eastern flank allies when it comes to rearmament. Berlin’s long-term relations with Washington, as well as its overall ability to influence the direction of Europe’s evolution and the future of NATO will ultimately depend on how it responds to the challenge of rearmament.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, Donald Trump, Presidential Elections, and Joe Biden
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Germany, North America, and United States of America
310. A Renewed Philippine-United States Alliance
- Author:
- Julio S. Amador III and Lisa Marie Palma
- Publication Date:
- 01-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- The Biden administration should keep in mind that domestic politics bears considerable implications for the alliance. Regarding economic relations, the United States needs to remain committed to policies that diversify supply chains and create opportunities for business and investment projects in the Philippines.
- Topic:
- Economics, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, and Investment
- Political Geography:
- Philippines, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America
311. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: ASEAN Amid Sino-US Competition
- Author:
- William Choong
- Publication Date:
- 02-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- An area in which the United States has gained traction—at China’s expense—are emerging formal and ad hoc plurilateral collaborations between Quad members and Southeast Asian countries.
- Topic:
- Geopolitics, Multilateralism, Strategic Competition, ASEAN, and Quad Alliance
- Political Geography:
- China, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific
312. Indian Ocean Security Means More Will Be Asked of US Allies
- Author:
- Benjamin Reilly and Peter Dean
- Publication Date:
- 02-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Ongoing disruptions in the Gulf of Aden and the vulnerability of other key Indian Ocean bottlenecks in the Straits of Hormuz or Malacca... [H]ighlight an inconvenient truth: the country with the most to lose from a disruption of the Indian Ocean today is China...
- Topic:
- Security, Maritime Commerce, and Economy
- Political Geography:
- China, India, Australia, West Asia, United States of America, and Indian Ocean
313. The Open Gap in the “Free and Open” Indo-Pacific
- Author:
- Kenneth Gofigan Kuper
- Publication Date:
- 04-2024
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- "For many of us in Guam, a free and open Indo-Pacific cannot be fully accomplished without resolving the paradox of the United States maintaining a modern-day colony even though the local government has supported moving forward with a decolonization process."
- Topic:
- Politics, Decolonization, Strategy, and Colonization
- Political Geography:
- China, United States of America, Indo-Pacific, and Guam
314. Enhancing the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific through Sub-Regional Initiatives: The Case of the BIMP-EAGA Initiative
- Author:
- Hafiizh Hashim
- Publication Date:
- 04-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Dr. Hafiizh Hashim, Head Consultant at Sociable & Co. and Assistant Lecturer Universiti at Brunei Darussalam, explains that "[g]reater US engagement in the BIMP-EAGA [a subregional grouping encompassing states and subnational jurisdiction in eastern Southeast Asia] could deepen US-ASEAN relations" and "find convergence between US and ASEAN Indo-Pacific frameworks."
- Topic:
- International Relations, Climate Change, Economics, Environment, ASEAN, and Regional Politics
- Political Geography:
- Southeast Asia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America
315. Pacific Perspectives on the US Indo-Pacific Strategy
- Author:
- Joe-Silem Enlet
- Publication Date:
- 04-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Mr. Joe-Silem Enlet, former Consul General for the Federated States of Micronesia and current PhD Student at the University of Rhode Island, explains that "[t]he Pacific and its ocean people’s heritage need to be featured more prominently in the US Indo-Pacific strategy."
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Economics, and Heritage
- Political Geography:
- United States of America, Indo-Pacific, and Micronesia
316. Growing Foreign and Security Policy Challenges Face India’s Re-elected Modi Government
- Author:
- Frank O'Donnell
- Publication Date:
- 06-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Dr. Frank O'Donnell, Adjunct Fellow with the East-West Center in Washington and Nonresident Fellow in the Stimson Center South Asia Program, asserts that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi faces growing challenges in his third term, including Chinese hostilities in the Himalayas, pursuing more peaceful relations with Pakistan, and navigating turbulence in US-India affairs.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Elections, and Narendra Modi
- Political Geography:
- Pakistan, South Asia, India, and United States of America
317. The Role of the United States in Just Energy Transition Partnerships in Indonesia and Vietnam
- Author:
- Melinda Martinus
- Publication Date:
- 07-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Melinda Martinus, Lead Researcher focusing on Climate Change in Southeast Asia and sustainable development at ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, explores the Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) for Indonesia and Vietnam against the backdrop of the upcoming US presidential election.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Partnerships, Climate Finance, Energy, Climate Justice, and Energy Transition
- Political Geography:
- Indonesia, Vietnam, Southeast Asia, and United States of America
318. Japan, the Philippines, and the United States: A New Era of Partnership through Trilateral Defense and Security Cooperation
- Author:
- Miyoko Taniguchi
- Publication Date:
- 07-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Dr. Miyoko Taniguchi, Professor of International Relations and Peace Studies at Miyazaki Municipal University in Japan, explains that the “strengthening of trilateral cooperation [between the United States, Japan, and the Philippines is a significant strategic move to institutionalize the deterrence and response capabilities of US allies and partners, especially to protect the territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea and East China Sea.”
- Topic:
- International Relations, Security, Sovereignty, Partnerships, Deterrence, and Defense Cooperation
- Political Geography:
- Japan, Philippines, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America
319. Strategic Realignments: Assessing the Impact of Taiwan's 2024 Elections on US-China Relations and Indo-Pacific Stability
- Author:
- Yih-Jye Hwang
- Publication Date:
- 07-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Dr. Yih-Jye Hwang, an Assistant Professor of International Relations at Leiden University, details the transformation of US Asia-Pacific policy from strategic ambiguity to a more explicit stance, the Democratic Progressive Party’s Pro-US Stance, and the 'doubt America' theory prevalent among Taiwanese opposition parties.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Elections, Economy, and Domestic Politics
- Political Geography:
- Taiwan, Asia, and United States of America
320. Election 2024 in Pakistan - A Catalyst for Strengthening Global Health Security Partnerships
- Author:
- Saeed Ahmad
- Publication Date:
- 07-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Dr. Saeed Ahmad, a Public Health Coordinator with Pakistan’s Ministry of National Health Services, "explores the impact of Pakistan’s 2024 electoral outcomes on health policy formulation, resource allocation, and continued partnership and engagement with the United States on global health security and sustainable development."
- Topic:
- Security, Development, Elections, Partnerships, and Public Health
- Political Geography:
- Pakistan, South Asia, and United States of America
321. The US Should Enhance Economic Engagement with Taiwan
- Author:
- Min-Hua Chiang
- Publication Date:
- 07-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Dr. Min-Hua Chiang, East-West Center Adjunct Fellow and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the University of Nottingham’s Taiwan Research Hub, explains "Further strengthening Taiwan’s economy will make it more capable of bearing the financial burden of defending the island against a Chinese invasion…," and this imperative is compounded as Taiwan is “a critical player in America’s competition with China in the global semiconductor industry.”
- Topic:
- International Relations, Economics, Science and Technology, Leadership, Regional Economy, and Economic Engagement
- Political Geography:
- China, Taiwan, Asia, and United States of America
322. Enhancing Military Diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific: A US Foreign Area Officer’s Perspective
- Author:
- Matthew House
- Publication Date:
- 08-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Lt. Col. Matthew House, US Army Foreign Area Officer and EWC Adjunct Fellow, underscores “the pivotal role of military diplomacy in orchestrating significant global events...” and highlights “the invaluable expertise of [Foreign Area Officers] in managing complex international relations."
- Topic:
- International Relations, Foreign Policy, Education, Politics, and Military Diplomacy
- Political Geography:
- North Korea, Vietnam, Southeast Asia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific
323. The US-India Clean Energy Partnership and Quad Provide Overlapping Pathways to Produce Clean Energy
- Author:
- Nischal Dhungel and Sethuram Senthil Kumar
- Publication Date:
- 08-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Mr. Nischal Dhungel and Mr. Sethuram Senthil Kumar, Consultant at the World Bank Group and Energy Engineer at both TRC Companies, Inc. and MCFA, respectfully, explain that "Robust partnerships with the United States, strategic cooperation within the Quad framework, and collective efforts across the Indo-Pacific region drive India's transformation in the energy sector."
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Economics, Science and Technology, Bilateral Relations, Governance, and Energy
- Political Geography:
- South Asia, India, Nepal, North America, and United States of America
324. US Perspectives on Sino-Russian Cooperation in the Arctic and Roles for Partners
- Author:
- Rebecca Pincus
- Publication Date:
- 08-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Dr. Rebecca Pincus, Director of the Polar Institute at the Wilson Center, explains that "The development of Russia’s Arctic hydrocarbons is dependent on foreign investment and advanced technologies; as the West has withdrawn from Russia, China is an important, if imperfect, substitute..."
- Topic:
- International Relations, Economics, Bilateral Relations, Sanctions, and Hydrocarbons
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Arctic, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific
325. United States, UNESCO, and International Relations through Cultural Heritage
- Author:
- Neel Kamal Chapagain
- Publication Date:
- 08-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Dr. Neel Kamal Chapagain, Professor at Ahmedabad University's Centre for Heritage Management, explains that "[c]ultural heritage is becoming a more prominent vehicle for building international ties" and "support for or opposition to global cultural heritage campaigns, like UNESCO, have been used [in US presidential campaigns] to make political statements."
- Topic:
- International Relations, Diplomacy, Culture, Heritage, UNESCO, and Emerging Powers
- Political Geography:
- Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America
326. Rise of Economic Nationalism in Emerging Economies and the Influence of Elections
- Author:
- Michio Ueda
- Publication Date:
- 08-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Mr. Michio Ueda, President of Geopolitics & Strategy and Visiting Lecturer University of Tokyo, examines "the intersection between economic nationalism and recent elections in Indonesia and India" and finds that "industrial policy is not a significant point of political contention" and elections "serve as an opportunity to gain legitimacy for policies supporting economic nationalism."
- Topic:
- Economics, Industrial Policy, Nationalism, and Elections
- Political Geography:
- China, Indonesia, India, Asia, and United States of America
327. US-Japan Alliance Resiliency Amid Risks
- Author:
- Daniel Aldrich and Lei Nishiuwatoko
- Publication Date:
- 08-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Dr. Daniel Aldrich and Ms. Lei Nishiuwatoko, Professor of Political Science at Northeastern University and M.S. Candidate at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, respectfully, explain that "[t]he United States and Japan are uniquely positioned to mitigate the existential risk of climate change" and explore how "further policy alignment on the possession and stockpile of nuclear materials... would further strengthen the alliance."
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Bilateral Relations, Nonproliferation, Alliance, Resilience, and Nuclear Energy
- Political Geography:
- Japan, Asia, and United States of America
328. Understated and Sometimes Contentious: A Perspective on the US-Australia Alliance in Southeast Asia
- Author:
- Ja Ian Chong
- Publication Date:
- 08-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Dr. Ja Ian Chong, Associate Professor of Political Science at National University of Singapore, explains that "[the] Australian-United States alliance is probably one of the most under-appreciated and misunderstood security partnerships in Southeast Asia," and it "helps undergird the status quo in Southeast Asia."
- Topic:
- International Relations, Security, Alliance, and Strategic Partnerships
- Political Geography:
- Australia, Southeast Asia, and United States of America
329. Strategic Partners or Fickle Friends? Indonesia’s Perceptions of the US-Australia Defense and Security Relationship
- Author:
- Lina Alexandra and Pieter Pandie
- Publication Date:
- 08-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Dr. Lina A. Alexndra and Mr. Pieter Pandie, Head of the International Relations Department and Researcher at Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Jakarta, respectfully, explain that "while [Indonesia] certainly considers Australia and the United States as key partners in navigating the region's security landscape... Indonesia has desired a more independent Australia, given its proximity"
- Topic:
- Security, Regional Security, Perception, Defense Cooperation, and Strategic Partnerships
- Political Geography:
- Indonesia, Australia, Southeast Asia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America
330. Vietnamese Perspective on the Significance of the US-Australia Alliance in Southeast Asian Security
- Author:
- Bich T. Tran
- Publication Date:
- 08-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Dr. Bich Tran, Postdoctoral Fellow at National University of Singapore and Adjunct Fellow Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., examines the implications of the alliance for Southeast Asian security from the perspective of Vietnam, a country that has long pursued a policy of non-alignment while actively engaging with both the United States and Australia.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, Regional Security, and Strategic Partnerships
- Political Geography:
- Vietnam, Australia, Southeast Asia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America
331. The Australia-US Alliance from a Thai Perspective: An Unbreakable or Unpinnable Partnership?
- Author:
- Jittipat Poonkham
- Publication Date:
- 08-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Dr. Jittipat Poonkham, Associate Professor of International Relations at Thammasat University, argues that "AUKUS, as well as the Australia-US alliance, seems to be an “unpinnable” alliance in the sense that it cannot be firmly pinned down in Thailand’s strategic mindset."
- Topic:
- International Relations, Economics, Partnerships, Alliance, and AUKUS
- Political Geography:
- Australia, Thailand, Southeast Asia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America
332. Race Politics and Colonial Legacies: France, Africa and the Middle East
- Author:
- Hisham Aïdi, Marc Lynch, Zachariah Mampilly, Baba Adou, and Oumar Ba
- Publication Date:
- 05-2024
- Content Type:
- Research Paper
- Institution:
- Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS)
- Abstract:
- In February 2020 – the eve of the COVID-19 pandemic – the Project on Middle East Political Science held a preliminary meeting at Columbia University in New York to explore the origins of the Africa-Middle East divides that treat North Africa as part of the Middle East and neglect states such as Sudan and Mauritania. Columbia was an appropriate place to begin such a dialogue. Two decades ago, when two of us (Aidi and Mampilly) were graduate students at Columbia, the Institute of African Studies was in serious crisis. The Ugandan political theorist Mahmood Mamdani arrived and launched an initiative to decolonize the study of Africa to counter Hegel’s partition of Africa by transcending the Saharan and red Sea divides, and by underscoring Africa’s links to Arabia, Asia and the New World. To that end, we co-organized a second conference on racial formations in Africa and the Middle East looking at race-making across these two regions comparatively, including the border zones often left out of both African and Middle Eastern Studies: the Sudans, Amazigh-speaking areas in the Sahel, Arabic speaking areas on the Swahili coast and Zanzibar. This workshop represents the third in our series of transregional studies across the Africa-Middle East divide.
- Topic:
- Politics, Post Colonialism, Race, History, Colonialism, Islamophobia, and Racialization
- Political Geography:
- Uganda, Africa, Europe, Sudan, Middle East, France, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia, Mauritania, and United States of America
333. Inside the ICBM Lobby: Special Interests or the Public Interest?
- Author:
- William D. Hartung
- Publication Date:
- 08-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- The nuclear weapons lobby is one of the most powerful forces in the military industrial complex. 1 The lobby’s current priority is advocating for the $315 billion Sentinel program to build a new Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). The program has faced controversy over both its utility and its cost, including a cost increase of a whopping 81 percent since 2020. The key champions of the Sentinel program are the Senators from Montana, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming — states that are home to major ICBM bases or host major work on the Sentinel program. The group — known as the Senate ICBM Coalition — stresses the Sentinel’s purported role in strengthening nuclear deterrence as well as its creation of jobs in the states they represent. However, other members of Congress and ex–defense officials have raised urgent concerns about the Sentinel program, questioning the deterrence rationale that undergirds it and raising the alarm over the risk of accidental nuclear usage. Despite claims about Sentinel’s economic benefits, it remains unclear how many jobs the program will actually create. Weapons contractors — led by the Sentinel’s prime contractor, Northrop Grumman — play a central role in the ICBM lobby. Since 2018, members of the strategic forces subcommittees of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have received $3.8 million from the 11 major Sentinel contractors. In total, ICBM contractors have donated $87 million to members of Congress in the last four election cycles alone. Contractors’ influence efforts are aided by the fact that senior government officials and members of Congress often secure jobs in the arms industry when they leave government; this provides them the opportunity to lobby former colleagues. In all, the 11 ICBM contractors have spent $226 million on lobbying in the past four election cycles. They currently employ 275 lobbyists, the vast majority of whom have passed through the revolving door from influential positions in government. The Sentinel program should be scrutinized as part of a larger reassessment of U.S. nuclear policy. The 2023 report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States endorses the program and calls for a comprehensive nuclear weapons build-up, including the possible placement of multiple nuclear warheads on ICBMs — a highly aggressive strategic posture that has not been in place since the Cold War. A high number of Commission members have ties to the nuclear weapons industry, including its co–chair Jon Kyl, who was once a lobbyist for Sentinel prime contractor Northrop Grumman. Congress must weigh the dubious benefits of the Commission’s proposals against the significant risks and costs its recommendations would entail if carried out.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Grand Strategy, Military-Industrial Complex, Militarism, and Sentinel Program
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Asia, and United States of America
334. A Saudi Accord: Implications for Israel-Palestine Relations
- Author:
- Jeremy Pressman
- Publication Date:
- 07-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- The Biden administration and Israel’s Netanyahu government have both expressed support for the idea of a trilateral agreement in which Saudi Arabia would normalize diplomatic relations with Israel in exchange for the United States providing significant benefits to Saudi Arabia, such as security guarantees. A major selling point has been the claim that such an agreement could pave the way to settling the bitter Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has again erupted into a central threat to peace in the Middle East. However, given the experience of the Trump administration’s Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between four Arab states and Israel with the hope of moving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a resolution, deep skepticism is warranted. The Abraham Accords did nothing to advance Palestinian-Israeli conflict resolution. Even before October 7, there was no hint of Israeli moderation in response to the accords. Since October 7, we have witnessed the largest Palestinian terrorist attack in Israeli history, followed by Israel’s destruction of Gaza and the killing of thousands of Palestinians in response. This conflict risks destabilizing the entire Middle East. This brief reviews the relevant history and incentives around the claimed relationship between Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution and Israeli-Arab normalization agreements. It concludes that a U.S.-brokered normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia would be counterproductive to Israeli-Palestinian peace. Indeed, recent history suggests that Saudi Arabia and the United States would be wasting potential leverage for influencing Israeli policy and that the regional approach unhelpfully diverts attention away from the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. Rather than pursue the already failed approach of seeking peace through the normalization of relations between Israel and third-party countries, a better route would include using U.S. leverage to directly drive Israeli-Palestinian peace. To do this, the U.S. should: 1.) Use its leverage through military aid to secure a permanent ceasefire in Gaza as a matter of urgency; 2.) Refocus on the core issues of Israeli-Palestinian peace, such as occupation, and demand genuine, substantive concessions from the Israeli government; and 3.) Fully integrate the use of U.S. leverage, such as arms sales and military assistance, into the pursuit of these goals.
- Topic:
- Conflict Resolution, National Security, Hegemony, Conflict, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Administration
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, United States of America, and UAE
335. Right-Sizing the Russian Threat to Europe
- Author:
- George Beebe, Mark Episkopos, and Anatol Lieven
- Publication Date:
- 07-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- Western leaders, including U.S. President Joe Biden, have frequently framed the invasion of Ukraine as the first step in a Russian plan of broader European conquest. However, a close examination of Russian intent and military capabilities shows this view is dangerously mistaken. Russia likely has neither the capability nor the intent to launch a war of aggression against NATO members — but the ongoing brinkmanship between Russia and the West still poses serious risks of military escalation that can only be defused by supplementing military deterrence with a diplomatic effort to address tensions. An analysis of Russian security thinking demonstrates that Putin’s stated views align with long-standing Russian fears about Western encroachment, given Russia’s lack of natural barriers to invasion. As Putin has come to view NATO as increasingly hostile to Russia, aggressive Russian action in defense of its claimed “sphere of influence” has become a factor in European security. However, contrary to many Western analyses, this does not mean that Russia views future wars of aggression against NATO member states as in its security interest. This does not imply naivete about the danger of Russian aggression, as reflected most recently in its illegal invasion of Ukraine. But it highlights the fundamental differences between Russia’s perceptions of Ukraine, which it has long regarded as both critical to its national security and integral to its history and culture, and its views of NATO countries, where the cost-benefit balance of aggression for Russia would be very different. Understanding Russian incentives also requires assessing Russia’s actual military capabilities compared to NATO. As frequently reiterated by NATO leadership, such an assessment shows that Russia is at a decisive conventional military disadvantage against the NATO alliance. While Russia would do damage in a conventional war with NATO, it would almost certainly suffer a devastating defeat in such a conflict absent nuclear escalation. NATO has a greater than three-to-one advantage over Russia in active-duty ground forces. NATO also has even greater advantages in the air and at sea. The alliance has a ten-to-one lead in military aircraft and a large qualitative edge as well, raising the probability of total air superiority. At sea, NATO would likely have the capacity to impose a naval blockade on Russian shipping, whose costs would dwarf current economic sanctions. While Russia has clear military superiority over individual NATO states, especially in the Baltics, it is extremely unlikely it could exercise this advantage without triggering a broader war with the entire NATO alliance. However, NATO’s powerful military deterrent alone cannot create stability in Europe. Paradoxically, an excessive reliance on military deterrence is likely to increase instability by inducing Russia to rely increasingly on its nuclear force as its primary basis for deterrence. Unlike conventional forces, Russia and NATO possess roughly the same amount of nuclear weapons. Washington must work to defuse this increasingly unstable dynamic by restoring diplomatic lines of communication between Russia and the West.
- Topic:
- Conflict Resolution, NATO, National Security, Bilateral Relations, Military, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Eurasia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and United States of America
336. Implications of a Security Pact with Saudi Arabia
- Author:
- Paul R. Pillar
- Publication Date:
- 06-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- The Biden administration is seeking a deal in which Saudi Arabia would extend full diplomatic recognition to Israel in exchange for the United States providing Saudi Arabia a security guarantee, assistance in developing a nuclear program, and more unrestricted arms sales. Such an arrangement would further enmesh the United States in Middle Eastern disputes and intensify regional divisions. It would work against a favorable pattern of regional states working out their differences when the United States leaves them on their own — illustrated by the Chinese-brokered détente between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Besides being an authoritarian state lacking shared values with the United States, Saudi Arabia under Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has aggressively pursued regional dominance, most notably with its highly destructive war in Yemen. A U.S. security guarantee could motivate MBS to engage in even riskier behavior and draw the United States into conflicts in which it has no stake, such as the sectarian dispute that had led Saudi Arabia to break relations with Iran. An expanded Saudi nuclear program would have a military as well as an energy dimension, with MBS having openly expressed interest in nuclear weapons. Granting the Saudi demand for help in enriching uranium would be a blow to the global nonproliferation regime as well as a reversal of longstanding U.S. policy. A race in nuclear capabilities between Iran and Saudi Arabia may result. Meeting MBS’ demands would not curb Saudi relations with China, which are rooted in strong economic and other interests. The United States could compete more effectively with China in the region not by taking on additional security commitments but instead by emulating the Chinese in engaging all regional states in the interest of reducing tensions. Normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia would not be a peace agreement, given the already extensive security cooperation between them. Even the gift of normalization with Riyadh would be unlikely to soften Israel’s hard-line positions regarding the war in Gaza and the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and instead would only reduce further Israeli motivation to resolve that conflict.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, National Security, Conflict, Normalization, Joe Biden, and Military
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America
337. Private Finance and the Quest to Remake Modern Warfare
- Author:
- Michael Brenes and William D. Hartung
- Publication Date:
- 06-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- Official Washington is all in on promoting a new type of warfare based on military applications of AI and other emerging technologies. This determination was on full display last year when the Biden administration unveiled the “Replicator” initiative, an attempt to develop swarms of high-tech weapons systems at relatively low cost, and in numbers capable of overwhelming any potential adversary. But the history of so-called miracle weapons offers ample reasons to doubt Replicator’s supposedly transformative potential. Previous innovations, from the “electronic battlefield” in Vietnam to drone warfare in the Global War on Terrorism, did not, in fact, revolutionize war as we know it. Cutting-edge technology is no substitute for sound strategy or a realistic assessment of what military force can achieve. Unfortunately, so far, at least, these lessons from history have been no match for the boosterism of venture capital (VC) firms that pride themselves on disrupting industries and overturning conventional wisdom. While estimates of total VC funding of emerging military technology vary widely, it is clear that private investments in emerging weapons technologies are large and growing, driven by a handful of major Silicon Valley players, including Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund and Andreessen-Horowitz. Companies backed by these firms, including Palantir, Anduril, and SpaceX, have already landed major contracts for weapons systems that incorporate next-generation technology. These firms and their allies in the Pentagon and Congress are determined to move full speed ahead on the development and deployment of weapons based on AI and other technological innovations, despite many unanswered questions about the costs and risks involved. While the bulk of Pentagon funding still goes to the “big five” contractors — Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon), Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman — VC-backed startups aspire to become the future of military contracting, and they hope that AI and other emerging technologies will be their ticket. These startups may prove to be more nimble and innovative than the bloated, top-heavy firms that currently dominate the arms industry, but they should not be allowed to operate with impunity. Congress must establish ground rules that prevent military startups from exploiting the procurement process in ways that pad their bottom lines while providing flawed systems — outcomes that we have seen all too often from their traditional rivals. What is most important, the rush to profit from emerging military tech cannot be allowed to short-circuit the careful scrutiny and wide-ranging public debate that must precede any move toward a brave new world of autonomous warfare in which human intervention in the kill chain is significantly reduced, if not eliminated. This brief offers policymakers a framework for ensuring that unsupported promises to “reinvent” warfare don’t exacerbate the cycle of corruption and waste that has all too often plagued the Pentagon’s procurement process, to the detriment of our safety and security.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Finance, Grand Strategy, and Warfare
- Political Geography:
- North America, Global Focus, and United States of America
338. Rethinking the U.S.–Belarus Relationship
- Author:
- Mark Episkopos
- Publication Date:
- 05-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- Belarus is commonly seen as a Russian outpost on NATO’s eastern flank, with its president, Aleksandr Lukashenko, cast as a categorical opponent of Western interests. This narrative became ascendant in the West after Russia’s full–scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. However, a fuller examination of Belarusian foreign policy under President Lukashenko reveals a more nuanced picture of a country that, despite its historic ties to Russia, has consistently demonstrated a willingness to engage with the West. Lukashenko has sought to pursue what he calls a “multi–vector foreign policy,” straddling the great powers to best safeguard Belarus’s national sovereignty and its interests. This multi–pronged approach has shifted decidedly in recent years, however, with Lukashenko drifting into the Russian camp, as evidenced by Minsk providing logistical support and safe passage to Russian troops in its war on Ukraine, and allowing Russian tactical nuclear weapons on Belarussian soil. But these policies did not occur in a vacuum. They were, rather, a direct result of American efforts to isolate Belarus through a maximum pressure campaign which began in the aftermath of the 2020 re–election of Lukashenko. Western policies aimed at isolating Minsk have had the counterproductive effect of pushing Lukashenko closer to Moscow and Beijing, in an effort to counteract what he sees as a Western program of driving regime change in Belarus. Western governments, particularly Washington, should recognize that maximum pressure will backfire by pushing Belarus closer to Moscow. An alternative strategy based on resetting relations with Belarus and enabling the return of Lukashenko’s multi–vector foreign policy holds the promise of preventing the further integration of Belarus and Russia and possibly even reversing some of Putin’s moves to pull Belarus into the Russian orbit. To execute this strategy, the United States should: Explicitly disavow regime change and the training of anti–Lukashenko dissidents as U.S. policy goals in direct talks with Belarussian officials, conditioned on Belarussian assurance that it will not use its territory as a staging ground for attacks on NATO Establish a piecemeal approach for sanctions relief with Belarus as progress is made toward resetting relations Pursue bilateral cooperation with Belarus, including the resumption of energy trade, American investment, and other cultural arrangements. Pursuing the soft reset prescribed in this paper will not be easy, but the alternatives would leave the United States in a weaker strategic position by needlessly heightening Minsk’s dependence on its Russian neighbor. Steps toward reaching a new understanding with Belarus can instead bolster eastern European stability and enhance NATO’s eastern deterrent posture.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, NATO, National Security, Bilateral Relations, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Eastern Europe, Belarus, and United States of America
339. Subsidizing the Military-Industrial Complex: A Review of the Secretary of Defense Executive Fellows (SDEF) Program
- Author:
- Brett Heinz and Ben Freeman
- Publication Date:
- 04-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- For nearly 30 years, an obscure Department of Defense (DoD) program has given Pentagon contractors a taxpayer-subsidized opportunity to influence U.S. military policy, creating massive conflicts of interest — yet little scrutiny. This research brief offers a first of its kind look at the DoD’s Secretary of Defense Executive Fellows (SDEF) program, which sends U.S. military officers to work at major corporations for a year, and then return and provide recommendations to the DoD for how it might improve. Military contractors benefit disproportionately from the SDEF program. Twenty-nine percent of all SDEF fellows have gone to the nation’s top 50 government contractors, with 15 percent going to the “big five” military contractors alone. None of the 317 fellows in the program’s history has ever served at a public sector institution. Decades of SDEF recommendations have consistently focused on reforms that would both benefit corporations and bolster their influence over the DoD, including calls for a greater share of the agency’s budget to be given to military contractors, reduced oversight, greater private outsourcing of agency responsibilites, and the loosening of international arms trade regulations. SDEF also keeps the revolving door between public service and private profit spinning. Forty-three percent of SDEF fellows went on to work for a government contractor at some point in their post-military career. In consistently failing to distinguish between what’s best for corporate executives and what’s best for the American people, the SDEF program represents a dangerous embrace of the military-industrial complex. Whereas Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against the “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry” whose “total influence” can be seen in “every office of the Federal Government,” the SDEF program explicitly advocates for it. SDEF has become a reliable method for corporations to disguise self–interested policy aspirations as helpful recommendations for DoD. If this program is to continue, DoD must act forcefully to address and minimize the unsettling conflicts of interest embedded within SDEF by: Enforcing a “one defense contractor per year” rule; Barring fellows from working in “government relations” roles; Exploring post–employment restrictions for former fellows; Re–balancing orientations away from undue corporate influence and political bias; Rationalizing program size.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Military-Industrial Complex, and Militarism
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
340. The U.S.–Japan–South Korea Trilateral Partnership: Pursuing Regional Stability and Avoiding Military Escalation
- Author:
- James Park and Mike M. Mochizuki
- Publication Date:
- 04-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- A trilateral partnership is emerging in northeast Asia. Building off last August’s Camp David summit between the countries’ leaders, the United States, Japan, and South Korea are now engaging militarily in an unprecedented fashion, shaping an alignment aimed to counter North Korea and China. Efforts to discourage North Korean and Chinese aggression are necessary, particularly considering Japan and South Korea’s physical proximity to the two countries. But the emerging trilateral arrangement between the United States, Japan, and South Korea could backfire and increase the risk of conflict if it focuses exclusively on military deterrence. The United States, Japan, and South Korea should instead pursue a more balanced arrangement — one that promotes stability on the Korean peninsula, credibly reaffirms long standing policy over the Taiwan issue, and disincentivizes China from pursuing its own trilateral military partnership with North Korea and Russia. To deter North Korea, the United States, South Korea, and Japan are relying on strike capabilities and military coordination to retaliate against North Korean aggression. This approach, however, will likely induce North Korea to increase its nuclear weapons and upgrade its missile capabilities. With this in mind, the three countries should roll back policy rhetoric and joint military exercises that might further provoke rather than deter North Korea, especially anything geared towards regime destruction. At the same time, the United States, Japan, and South Korea have in recent years become more reluctant to endorse the original understandings they each reached with China about Taiwan. For the sake of reassurance, the three countries together should clearly confirm in official statements their One China policies and declare that they oppose unilateral changes to the status quo by any side, do not support Taiwan independence, and will accept any resolution of the Taiwan issue (including unification) achieved by peaceful and non–coercive means. Each country’s respective relationship with Taiwan should also remain strictly unofficial. Another concerning aspect associated with this trilateral is the possibility of a corresponding alliance formation of Russia, China, and North Korea. To disincentivize this development, the United States, Japan, and South Korea should leverage their blossoming relationship to assuage Chinese fears of strategic containment, particularly through economic and diplomatic engagement that rejects the creation of a broadly exclusionary bloc in the region.
- Topic:
- Bilateral Relations, Strategic Competition, Escalation, Regional Security, Great Powers, and Regional Stability
- Political Geography:
- Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America
341. Stabilizing the Growing Taiwan Crisis: New Messaging and Understandings are Urgently Needed
- Author:
- Michael D. Swaine
- Publication Date:
- 03-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- The U.S.–China relationship appears to have stabilized since the November 2023 meeting between U.S. president Joe Biden and China’s president Xi Jinping in San Francisco. The reality, however, is that the features and trends pushing both countries toward a confrontation over Taiwan persist, fueling a dangerous, interactive dynamic that could quickly overcome any diplomatic thaw between the world’s foremost powers. These underlying forces — increased levels of domestic threat inflation in both the United States and China, the worst–casing of the other side’s motives and intentions, and the resulting erosion in the confidence of the original understanding over Taiwan reached in the 1970s — threaten to push Beijing and Washington into a crisis over Taiwan that both sides say they want to avoid. To defuse this worrying dynamic, both the United States and China must reaffirm long standing policy on Taiwan, while also undertaking a set of specific actions to further stabilize the relationship between the two countries. The Biden administration should explicitly reject extreme rhetoric towards China and deviations from longstanding policy on Taiwan, such as the framing of Sino–American competition as a titanic struggle between democracy and authoritarianism, and the contention that an independent Taiwan is strategically crucial to overall Asian security. The administration can further inject stability into U.S.–China interactions over Taiwan by re–affirming and clarifying the One China policy through a series of statements, including: The United States opposes any Chinese effort to coerce Taiwan or compel unification through force. However, the United States would accept any resolution of the cross–Strait issue that is reached without coercion and that is endorsed by the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The United States recognizes that the defense of Taiwan is primarily the responsibility of the people of Taiwan. Relatedly, and in accordance with the U.S.–China normalization agreement, Washington is committed to maintaining only unofficial relations with Taiwan and has no desire to alter this commitment. The United States Government reiterates that it has no intention of infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China’s internal affairs, or pursuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan. These statements should be made in combination with actions that bolster cooperative engagement with China, such as the initiation of a combined civilian and military Track 1.5 dialogue with Beijing. We believe that this type of reassurance would lead to corresponding commitments from China that would improve stability in the Taiwan Strait, such as reductions in provocative military exercises and potentially high level Chinese declarations that reject coercive measures towards Taiwan and a specific timeline for reunification. The recent improvements to the Sino–American relationship shouldn’t go to waste. The United States and China should go beyond the mere appearance of stabilization and revitalize the original understanding over Taiwan. Otherwise, they risk a continuous spiral towards full–scale conflict.
- Topic:
- Conflict Resolution, Security, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Realism, Regional Stability, and Restraint
- Political Geography:
- China, Taiwan, Asia, and United States of America
342. Ukraine, Gaza, and the International Order
- Author:
- Faisal Devji
- Publication Date:
- 02-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- The ongoing crises in Ukraine and Gaza show the urgent need for a new internationalism that comes to grips with the increasing independence of middle and smaller powers around the world. Such a vision must reject the effort to re-impose a failed framework of unilateral U.S. primacy, or an effort to shoehorn multiplying regionally specific conflicts into an obsolete model of “great power competition” that recalls the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. In both Ukraine and the Middle East, the United States has been unable to impose its will either militarily or diplomatically. Smaller nations have successfully defied American–backed military force. Even more concerning, a significant share of the global community has failed to follow the U.S. diplomatic lead and support the U.S. interpretation of international norms. But opposition to the United States has not been supported by a superpower peer competitor to the United States, along the lines of a Cold War model. The current emerging world order is instead characterized by “regionalization,” a situation where middle and even small powers around the world feel free to circumvent or even defy U.S. interpretations of global norms based on more local interests and regional security concerns. The stage was set for the current situation by the U.S. attempt to assert unilateral power during the War on Terror in ways that appeared to give the United States alone a de facto exemption from global norms and institutions. These actions reduced the legitimacy of the post–World War Two international order that the United States had helped to create, and led many in the international community to seek alternatives to a system that seemed to grant the United States almost arbitrary power to define the rules. The U.S. foreign policy establishment must come to grips with the newly deglobalized and regionalized world order. A failure to do so poses a grave threat to U.S. power and influence, as relationships with key emerging powers such as India, or even traditional U.S. allies in Europe and Asia are not immune from the kind of de–globalizing and regionalizing forces seen in Ukraine and the Middle East.
- Topic:
- Cold War, International Law, National Security, Hegemony, Grand Strategy, Armed Conflict, International Order, Russia-Ukraine War, and 2023 Gaza War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Eastern Europe, Palestine, Gaza, and United States of America
343. Paths to Crisis and Conflict Over Taiwan
- Author:
- Michael D. Swaine and James Park
- Publication Date:
- 01-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- Taiwan is the most likely flashpoint for a U.S.–China conflict, unmatched in its combustible mix of conflicting interests, high stakes, and eroding trust and assurances. A full–blown war over Taiwan has become a startling possibility. Suspicion, threat inflation, zero–sum framing, and worst–casing are increasingly dominant factors in U.S.–China interactions over Taiwan, driven by preconceived ideas of the other’s intentions based on history and ideology, and domestic pressures in each country to prioritize military deterrence and even aggression. Amidst this emerging threat of direct conflict, numerous scholars, experts, and military strategists have focused on how to discourage China from invading Taiwan through military force alone — warfighting perspectives that typically share glaring and mutually reinforcing faults that, if overlooked, may only help to pave the path toward conflict. Analysts’ emphasis on military deterrence tends to obscure the utmost importance of political reassurances to avert conflict, particularly the United States reaffirming and recommitting to its original understanding of the One China Policy; this fixation on the military dimension feeds into the destabilization of the Taiwan issue, brought about by heightened suspicions of the other side’s intentions. Policymakers and pundits, in turn, tend to underestimate the possibility of inadvertent escalation, driven by an environment of distrust, pressure in Washington and Beijing to appear tough on the other, and a lack of comprehensive crisis management mechanisms. By examining the common analytical blindspots regarding a conflict over Taiwan, this report sheds new light on how the political and social dynamics fueling mutual hostility between Beijing and Washington could play a much more decisive role in a future crisis over Taiwan, rather than factors that earn far more attention, such as calculations about military capability and resolve. Averting a destructive crisis will require the United States and China to build off recent diplomatic progress to restore a deeper mutual understanding concerning Taiwan through policies and actions including: Mutual recognition of the interactive nature of the growing crisis over Taiwan, to which Beijing, Washington, and Taipei contribute. A clearer, more credible U.S. commitment to its successful, long–standing stance on Taiwan: the One China Policy and strategic ambiguity. Continued U.S. rejection of both unilateral Taiwan independence and any unambiguous commitment to Taiwan’s defense. A credible Chinese affirmation of its continued commitment to peaceful unification without any specific deadline. The development of a broad–based crisis communication mechanism that includes both military and civilian dialogue.
- Topic:
- Bilateral Relations, Crisis Management, Joe Biden, and Regional Security
- Political Geography:
- China, Taiwan, Asia, and United States of America
344. Responsibly Demilitarizing U.S.–Mexico Bilateral Security Relations
- Author:
- Aileen Teague
- Publication Date:
- 01-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- These are trying times for U.S.–Mexico relations. As America’s opioid epidemic reaches unprecedented proportions, U.S. politicians have begun to advocate unilateral military action against Mexican drug cartels in sovereign Mexican territory. This approach would not only do extraordinary damage to one of America’s most vital international relationships, but also carry a real risk of importing violence to the United States. The calls for military action have infuriated Mexico’s leaders, who in turn criticize America’s broken and inhumane border security and Washington’s inability to curb the seemingly insatiable demand for drugs in the United States. The basis for the neighboring nations’ security cooperation, the 2008 Mérida Initiative, seems to have failed, largely failing to stem the tide of violence and instability in Mexico, or to halt the cross border flow of migrants, guns, and drugs. The result is poor regional security and a deteriorating bilateral relationship. There is reason to hope that the Plan Mérida’s replacement, the U.S.–Mexico Bicentennial Framework for Security, Public Health, and Safe Communities, will strengthen bilateral cooperation and help put security relations on a path to demilitarization. However, since the State Department announced the framework in 2021, little progress has been made in developing the shape and contents of this program. The continued failure to articulate how the Bicentennial Framework will represent a meaningful break from failed policies in the past suggests militarized enforcement may still dominate security relations for years to come. This status quo poses grave risks to both countries. But through the Bicentennial Framework, U.S. policymakers have the potential to make meaningful changes in bilateral security relations by: Rejecting U.S. unilateralist measures against Mexico Developing more robust policies to halt U.S. arms flow to Mexico Reducing the military’s role in enforcement functions and redirecting military entities toward civil action and development Supporting Mexico–led development programs By decreasing the scope of militarization in regional security policies through an appropriately designed Bicentennial Framework, the United States and Mexico can achieve healthier and more balanced relations, and eliminate the risk of a worst-case scenario: unilateral U.S. military intervention next door.
- Topic:
- Bilateral Relations, Global South, Borders, Restraint, and Security Cooperation
- Political Geography:
- North America, Mexico, Global Focus, and United States of America
345. Imaging the Diaspora: Imperialism, Immigration, Individualism
- Author:
- K.J. Noh, Ashton Higgins, and Michelle Alas
- Publication Date:
- 03-2024
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Brown Journal of World Affairs
- Institution:
- Brown Journal of World Affairs
- Abstract:
- K.J. Noh is a political analyst, educator, and journalist focusing on the geopolitics and political economy of the Asia-Pacific. He has written for Dissident Voice, Black Agenda Report, Asia Times, Counterpunch, LA Progressive, MR Online, and People’s Daily. He also does frequent commentary and analysis on various news programs, including The Critical Hour, The Backstory, By Any Means Necessary. and Breakthrough News. He recently co-authored a study on the military transmission of infectious diseases and its implications for Covid transmission.
- Topic:
- Imperialism, Diaspora, Immigration, Interview, and Individualism
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
346. The Evolution and Ethics of Accountability Sanctions
- Author:
- Mark Ferullo
- Publication Date:
- 03-2024
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Brown Journal of World Affairs
- Institution:
- Brown Journal of World Affairs
- Abstract:
- When Yahya Jammeh seized power in The Gambia in 1994 in a bloodless coup d’état, the young army colonel’s promise to eliminate corruption seemed disin- genuous. At the time, few Gambians could have anticipated how corrupt and cruel his rule would be. His Excellency Sheikh Professor Al-haji Dr. Yahya A.J.J. Jammeh Babili Mansa, as he titled himself, brutalized his country for over two decades. In 2022, The Gambia’s Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Com- mission exposed the extent of his violence, revealing that he commanded a hit squad that crushed dissent through murder, torture, and rape. His claim that he could cure AIDS with herbs might have been dismissed as the delusions of an out-of-touch autocrat were it not for the loss of life this lie caused during the medical trials.1 When the United States placed economic sanctions on Jammeh in 2017, most Gambians had little sympathy for their former leader, and few denied he deserved punishment.2 By then, Jammeh had fled the country, but the United States sanctioned him anyway. Jammeh joined 12 other individuals—including an organ-trafficking surgeon from Pakistan, a Guatemalan Congressman who ordered the killing of a journalist, and a Ukrainian police commander who oversaw the shooting of peaceful protestors in Kyiv during the Revolution of Dignity three years prior—as the first designations under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. “There is a steep price to pay for their mis- deeds,” said Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin at the time.3
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Sanctions, Economy, and Accountability
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus and United States of America
347. The Changing Priorities of the U.S. Empire and the Fate of Puerto Rico
- Author:
- Pedro Cabán
- Publication Date:
- 03-2024
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Brown Journal of World Affairs
- Institution:
- Brown Journal of World Affairs
- Abstract:
- Puerto Rico’s fate is captive to the changing priorities of the United States. In this essay I will explore how changes in U.S. colonial administration of Puerto Rico appear to closely correspond to changing U.S. national security concerns and geopolitical priorities. For the purposes of this work, I divide the history of Puerto Rico under American colonial rule into three periods: (1) 1898–1945: From the U.S. acquisition of Puerto Rico until the end of World War II. During this period, the United States’ colonial policy focused on using Puerto Rico to contain European expansion into the Caribbean and to protect the Panama Canal. (2) 1946–1991: From the start of the Cold War until the collapse of the Soviet Union. The United States used Puerto Rico as a propaganda tool in its ideological battles with the Soviet Union and its allies, especially Cuba. (3) 1992–Present: From the end of the Cold War to the present. During this most recent phase, Puerto Rico’s strategic importance to U.S. national security comes to an end. The U.S. domestic political and economic situations drive colonial policy.
- Topic:
- Imperialism, National Security, History, and Geopolitics
- Political Geography:
- Caribbean, North America, United States of America, and Puerto Rico
348. AI and the US Economy: Optimism, Pessimism, or Realism?
- Author:
- Fredrick Hernandez, Zach Moller, and Gabe Horwitz
- Publication Date:
- 01-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- There were 130 websites on the internet in 1993; today there are 1.1 billion.1 Over those 30 years, the US economy quadrupled in nominal size and tripled in per capita income.2 The digital age has been very good for America. But it has also concentrated wealth and opportunity. The richest American in 1993 would only be the 101st richest today in inflation-adjusted dollars.3 There are now 735 billionaires living in America today, compared to fewer than 75 in the world in 1993.4 Meanwhile, the gains for the middle class were not stellar. Real median household income grew a solid, but not spectacular, 32% during the internet age. Most of that gain accrued to the two-fifths of working age America with a college degree.5 “50% to 70% of the changes in the US wage structure are intimately linked to automation, particularly digital automation,” MIT economist Daron Acemoglu estimates.6 That was the digital age. What about the artificial intelligence age? Ask McKinsey partner Michael Chui about AI and he says “it can be great not only for companies but for humankind.”7 But Eliezer Yudkowsky, co-founder of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, said that if someone builds an over-powered AI, he expects “that every single member of the human species and all biological life on Earth dies shortly thereafter.”8 What seems clear is that whether we’re addressing the future of humankind or the well-being of the workforce, policymakers and industries must make intentional choices to get the best of AI and avoid the worst. Since AI will change the way we work and learn, this paper unpacks different economic projections to give policymakers a better read on what this technology will do to everything from American GDP to skill training. Broadly speaking, there are three distinct perspectives on AI and the economy. Optimists predict AI will elevate the working class, accelerate our national prosperity, and lower costs. Pessimists say AI will contribute to income inequality in the United States, jobs will be automated out of existence, and large corporations will gain far more than workers and families. Pragmatists accept AI will have positive benefits to the economy but acknowledge the mixed bag of how it will affect jobs and generally call for specific actions to mitigate harms and spread benefits. Below, we explore the key takeaways from each perspective. This is a product in a multi-year series to help educate policymakers on the implications and policy choices confronting Congress and the Administration on next generation Artificial Intelligence.
- Topic:
- Science and Technology, Economy, Artificial Intelligence, Digital Technologies, and Optimism
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
349. Washington's and Taiwan's Diverging Interests Doesn't Make War Imminent
- Author:
- Hargisl Shirley Martey
- Publication Date:
- 02-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- We are a month from the Taiwan 2024 election that sent shockwaves around the world. President-elect, Lai Ching-te (賴清德), dared to utter the world ‘independence” in a strike against the longstanding One China Policy (一个中国政策) in his successful campaign to lead the nation. The election was important enough for an increasingly assertive President Xi Jinping (习近平出席) to try (and fail) to influence the election’s outcome. Xi has been rattling cages for the last several years and has made no secret of his desire to bring Taiwan under Beijing’s thumb without explicitly ruling out the use of force. Meanwhile, a busy President Biden has had his hands full keeping allies committed to Ukraine, battling Putin-sympathetic members of Congress, while also dealing with cascading crises in Israel and the Middle East. With that as our backdrop, does Lai’s election, Xi’s frustration, and Biden’s preoccupation mean we are closer to conflict in the Taiwan Strait? In this brief analysis we argue that at present the answer is “no.” And we make this call by looking at the vantage points and early actions of each country. For America, the Taiwan election has put the country on alert. For Taiwan, domestic concerns are mainly driving voters – not cross-Strait policy. For the People’s Republic of China (PRC; 中华人民共和国), ignore the rhetoric because they’ve followed their Taiwan election disappointment by returning to their standard playbook.1 But stay tuned…. perhaps they’re saving the fireworks for Lai’s May 20 inauguration.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, National Security, Politics, Elections, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- China, Taiwan, North America, and United States of America
350. Competing Values Will Shape US-China AI Race
- Author:
- Valerie Shen and Jim Kessler
- Publication Date:
- 07-2024
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- President Biden’s AI executive order reflects a set of values recognizable to all Americans: Privacy, equal treatment and civil rights; free speech and expression; the rule of law; opportunity and free market capitalism; pluralism; and advancement of global leadership as the beacon of a free world. President Xi Jinping’s government has also issued AI regulations with values recognizable to China: Collectivism and obedience to authority; social harmony and homogeneity; market authoritarianism and rule of state; and digital world hegemony to restore China’s rightful place as the Middle Kingdom. The United States and China may share similar broad goals for “winning” AI along the lines of leading innovation and advancement, spurring broad-based economic growth and prosperity, achieving domestic social stability, and becoming the clear global influencer for the rest of the world—but they define those goals and seek to achieve those ends through very different values. Those values embedded in our respective AI policies and underlying technology carry high-stakes, long-term national and economic security implications as US and Chinese companies compete directly to become dominant in emerging global markets. They also share similar fears that reflect each country’s values. China worries that AI could cause social unrest if information to a sheltered population is too real and unfiltered. America fears that AI could cause social unrest if information Americans receive is too fake. And that massive disinformation and algorithms that rile the population could threaten our democratic system. Why do these value differences matter when it comes to the AI race? Below, we outline six contrasting values that we believe will be the most determinative in how the US-China AI competition plays out. We argue that understanding our different values-based approaches illuminates our respective advantages and disadvantages in this competition. It assesses who is currently set up to “win” across key metrics and determines how to lean into our democratic advantages or mitigate some practical disadvantages compared with the PRC, this will ultimately win the AI marathon.
- Topic:
- Science and Technology, Artificial Intelligence, and Strategic Competition
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America