Search

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

1421. Achieving a Safer U.S. Nuclear Posture

Author:
Joseph Cirincione
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
• U.S. nuclear posture is on a dangerous path that imperils national security and expends far too many resources. It is not a rational response to external threats but is driven primarily by domestic factors including a hubristic strategy of nuclear supremacy, partisan politics, and entrenched arms lobbies with formidable influence in the Pentagon and Congress. • A safer nuclear policy entails, among other steps, reducing the number of deployed strategic warheads by one-third, to about 1,000, taking nuclear-armed missiles off hair-trigger alert, embracing no first use or sole purpose doctrines, and requiring an additional senior official to authorize launch. Pacts such as AUKUS that encourage the spread of nuclear weapons technology must also be rethought. • If implemented, these policies will greatly reduce risk while maintaining deterrence; they will also lead to significant savings in the national security budget. A majority of independent experts believe that U.S. national security objectives can be met at far lower levels and with a safer nuclear posture, saving hundreds of billions of dollars over the next few decades. • Many of these recommendations can be implemented even if the Biden administration’s upcoming Nuclear Posture Review proves disappointing. The president retains substantial policy and budgetary options for reducing the risk of nuclear war and the cost of nuclear deterrence.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, Nuclear Weapons, Budget, and Defense Spending
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

1422. Beyond Deterrence: A Peace Game Exercise for the Korean Peninsula

Author:
Frank Aum and Jessica J. Lee
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
This report describes a virtual role-playing peace game exercise conducted in October 2021 that simulated diplomatic negotiations aimed at making tangible progress toward improving relations, enhancing security, and building confidence on the Korean Peninsula. The exercise, hosted by the United States Institute of Peace, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington, and the Sejong Institute in Seoul, consisted of negotiating teams representing the United States, South Korea, North Korea, and China. The U.S. and North Korean teams emerged as the principal actors in the exercise, determining whether negotiations remained static or moved forward. However, these teams perceived potential losses in negotiations more acutely than potential gains, which resulted in diplomatic inertia. Both teams seemed open to negotiations as long as the other side took the first conciliatory step, but presidential leadership and political will were necessary to overcome inaction. The U.S. team also seemed more driven by the risks of North Korean aggression and duplicity in negotiations than the South Korean team, which led to divergent policy approaches between allies. In addition, the U.S.-China rivalry fueled a zero-sum mentality that hindered opportunities for progress and heightened misunderstandings between the U.S. and South Korean teams. These observations lead to the following policy recommendations for the actors involved: Advancing peace and denuclearization will require the highest level of executive leadership and intervention from all parties to build support for a final agreement. For the United States, that means greater presidential prioritization and increased coordination with Congress. All parties should start with smaller, more reversible measures; mitigate the risk of failure; and highlight potential gains. The United States should consider confidence-building measures that jump-start negotiations but do not undermine its security interests. Washington should strengthen coordination with Seoul on North Korea policy and other key alliance matters to harmonize strategies. To achieve progress, all parties should separate issues pertaining to the Korean Peninsula from the U.S.-China contestations.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Peace, Deterrence, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:
Asia, North Korea, Korean Peninsula, and United States of America

1423. Pathways to Pentagon Spending Reductions: Removing the Obstacles

Author:
William D. Hartung
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
• Despite the changing security landscape, in which nonmilitary challenges ranging from pandemics to climate change are the gravest threats to the American people, United States security spending continues to focus on the Pentagon at the expense of other agencies and other policy tools. • In December 2021 Congress authorized $768 billion in spending on the Pentagon and related work on nuclear warheads at the Department of Energy — $25 billion more than the Pentagon asked for, and higher in real terms than peak budgets during the Korean and Vietnam wars and the Reagan buildup of the 1980s. An additional $10 billion in mandatory spending drove the final figure to $778 billion. There are press reports — yet to be officially confirmed by the administration — that the comparable proposal for spending on national defense in the fiscal year 2023 budget could exceed $800 billion.1 • The three main drivers of excessive spending on the Department of Defense are strategic overreach, pork-barrel politics, and corporate lobbying. • An overly ambitious, “cover-the-globe” strategy that favors military primacy and endless war must be replaced with a strategy of restraint that would provide a more-than-sufficient defense while increasing investments in diplomacy, foreign economic development, and other nonmilitary tools of statecraft. • Measures to weaken the influence of the military-industrial complex in the budget process should include prohibiting the armed services from submitting “wish lists” for items that are not in the Pentagon’s official budget request; slowing the “revolving door” between government departments and the weapons industry, and reducing the economic dependence of key communities on Pentagon spending, along with alternative government investments in areas such as infrastructure, green technology, and scientific and public health research.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Defense Spending, and Military-Industrial Complex
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

1424. The Yemen War in Numbers: Saudi Escalation and U.S. Complicity

Author:
Annelle Sheline
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
• Yemen’s humanitarian crisis demonstrates the consequences and risks of the American decision to enable Saudi and Emirati military action against Yemen. This decision reflects a flawed calculus: the belief that by supporting Arab security partners, the U.S. can prevent them from moving into China’s or Russia’s orbit. As recent events have demonstrated, America’s partners in the Middle East are hedging despite the Biden administration’s extensive support: For example, when the U.N. Security Council voted in February to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the UAE abstained. America’s Gulf partners hope to strengthen their relationships with Moscow and Beijing while continuing to reap the benefits of Washington’s largesse. • American involvement in supporting Saudi-led military action against the Houthis in Yemen, rather than helping to resolve the conflict as the Biden administration claims, is prolonging and escalating the violence. By continuing to support Saudi and Emirati aggression, the U.S. not only deepens its complicity in the slaughter of Yemen’s civilian population; it also risks getting dragged into more active participation in the war on behalf of these two Arab security partners. • Biden committed to ending support for offensive operations in Yemen. His administration alleges that the support America provides to Saudi Arabia and the UAE is merely defensive. Yet by selling weapons it designates as defensive, as well as servicing contracts for spare parts and maintenance for the Saudi air force, the U.S. actively helps the coalition wage its war. Further, this position ignores the billions of dollars in offensive weapons the U.S. previously sold to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which they continue to use on Yemen. The administration asserts that the U.S. must help Saudi Arabia and the UAE defend against transborder attacks; yet the data show that Houthi transborder attacks pose a minor threat to the Saudis and Emiratis, especially compared with the scale of their attacks on Yemen. • Instead of escalating U.S. involvement in defending the Saudis and Emiratis from the consequences of their aggression, the Biden administration should suspend all arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE until they end their military intervention in Yemen.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, War, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Middle East, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America

1425. Ending Primacy to End U.S. Wars

Author:
Daniel Bessner
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
• If America’s decision-makers are to learn from the Iraq War (2003–11), they must recognize it not as an aberration or an isolated mistake, but as a direct consequence of the U.S. search for primacy in the Middle East. The Iraq War was overdetermined in that tensions between the U.S. and Iraq were rooted fundamentally in Iraq’s perceived challenge to U.S. regional dominance. Consequently, in the “unipolar moment,” a U.S. effort to change the regime in Baghdad was bound to occur after some spark, such as the September 11 attacks, set it in motion. • Today, a similar desire to sustain dominance in Asia places the U.S. on a collision course with China. To avoid war with China, policy elites must reconceive their commitment to primacy and recognize that the United States will not be able to dictate terms in its relations with others in an emergent multipolar world. • Some competition between the United States and China is probably inevitable. But this competition does not present an existential threat to the U.S. and therefore must not be allowed to prevent necessary cooperation to address the major threats of the 21st century: inequality, population movements, pandemics, and climate change.
Topic:
War, History, Hegemony, Military Intervention, and Gulf War
Political Geography:
China, Middle East, and United States of America

1426. The Folly of Pushing South Korea Toward a China Containment Strategy

Author:
Jessica J. Lee and Sarang Shidore
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
The narrow victory of conservative candidate Yoon Suk-yeol in the recent South Korean presidential election comes against the backdrop of an intensifying U.S.-China rivalry, now compounded by the Ukraine crisis. Washington would like South Korea to play a security role in its Indo-Pacific strategy — a strategy that effectively aims to contain China. However, South Korean elites (and the general public) are deeply ambivalent and internally divided on the question of containing China. Pushing South Korea — a robust democracy with major elite divisions — toward containing Beijing risks negative consequences for the United States. These include a reduction in U.S. influence in South Korea, erosion of the U.S.-South Korea alliance, a less-effective South Korean presence in the region, and, in the long run, the potential of South Korean neutrality with respect to China. To avoid these negative outcomes for the United States, Washington should: • Avoid pressuring South Korea to join its China-containment strategy, • Refrain from including Seoul in emerging, non-inclusive, bloc-like structures of U.S. allies in Asia, • Consider pulling back on its intended new Terminal High Altitude Area Defense deployments until a greater consensus is reached within South Korea on the issue, • See South Korea’s role as a bridge and an opportunity to stabilize Washington’s own relationship with Beijing. For example, both South Korea and China could be included in non-traditional security activities of the Quad such as infrastructure and climate change, and • More generally, demilitarize the Quad and open it to wider participation for strengthening U.S. influence in Asia, rather than see it as a zero-sum vehicle for containing China.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Containment, and Quad Alliance
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

1427. The Lobbying Battle Before the War: Russian and Ukrainian Influence in the U.S.

Author:
Ben Freeman
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
• Russian President Vladimir Putin’s fateful decision to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine has united much of the world in condemnation of this unprovoked assault on a sovereign nation. In Ukraine, the war has already caused rampant destruction, the deaths of thousands of civilians, and the displacement of millions, while tens of thousands of soldiers on both sides of the conflict have been killed or wounded. The U.S. has imposed crippling sanctions on Russia’s energy and financial sectors while providing tens of billions of dollars in military assistance to Ukraine. • Behind the headlines of these U.S. foreign policy decisions lies a major, but little-discussed, factor in foreign policy: lobbying. Nearly every action the government has taken regarding Russia and Ukraine has been the object of considerable attempts at influence by U.S.-based lobbyists for Ukraine and Russia. Based on an exhaustive analysis of all Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) documents filed by organizations registered to work on behalf of Ukrainian and Russian clients in 2021, this brief offers a number of key findings, including: ° Nine organizations were registered under FARA to work on behalf of Russian clients in 2021, while 11 were working for Ukrainian clients. ° Those organizations reported making just 21 contacts on behalf of their Russian clients and 13,541 contacts on behalf of their Ukrainian clients. ° Russian clients paid over $42 million to firms representing them, (although $38 million of this went to Russian state media), while Ukrainian clients paid just over $2 million to the firms working on their behalf. ° Ukrainian lobbying efforts add up to more than four times the amount of work the Saudi lobby (among the largest foreign lobbies in Washington) and other prominent groups have reported in any year—due in large part to a notable gap in transparency. ° The pro-Ukraine lobby appears to have achieved far more contacts than the pro-Russia lobby with less money spent, an anomaly that could be explained by the pro-Russia lobby using a less transparent statute—the LDA—for reporting its lobbying efforts and the greater zeal shown by some pro-Ukraine lobbyists.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Influence, Lobbying, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and United States of America

1428. The Humanitarian Paradox: Why Human Rights Require Restraint

Author:
Asli Bâli
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
For the United States to be “committed to a world in which human rights are protected, their defenders are celebrated, and those who commit human rights abuses are held accountable” requires more than rhetorical flourishes.1 To achieve the goal of protecting and promoting human rights, the United States must embrace a more restrained security posture together with a persistent diplomatic strategy that prioritizes engagement ahead of confrontation. Military force and economic coercion are the wrong tools for advancing human rights. As the cases of Iraq and Libya demonstrate, preventive or humanitarian wars have critically impaired human rights. Similarly, comprehensive sanctions regimes have imposed severe human rights costs while achieving few U.S. foreign policy goals, if any, in targeted countries. The United States should therefore incorporate the following policy approaches in the service of human rights: • Right-size its expectations of what American power can achieve to protect and advance human rights abroad. On balance, exaggerated and unrealistic confidence in American power has hurt rather than helped the cause of human rights. • Serve as a public advocate of human rights in multilateral settings, engaging with international institutions to pressure allies and adversaries alike on their human rights records. At the same time, the United States should raise human rights concerns directly in its bilateral dealings when abuses come to light, using private diplomacy to highlight specific issues or changes that are priorities. • Do much more to support the protection and promotion of human rights in areas under its direct control or influence. This would include, at a minimum, halting human rights abuses committed by the U.S. in its own counterterrorism operations, freezing military aid when U.S. arms are implicated in targeting civilians, building on the recent openness to Ukrainian refugees by strengthening and expanding U.S. asylum and refugee resettlement programs globally, and greatly increasing delivery of humanitarian aid, in the form of funding as well as medical and food assistance, to civilian populations deprived of their socioeconomic rights due to conflict, climate change, and the global food crisis.
Topic:
Human Rights, War, Humanitarian Intervention, and Coercion
Political Geography:
United States of America

1429. Strategic Patience: Sustainable Engagement with a Changed Afghanistan

Author:
Adam Weinstein
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
One year after the United States withdrew its military from Afghanistan, relations between the two countries are stuck in a holding pattern. The United States remains the single largest humanitarian donor to the people of Afghanistan, with over $774 million USD distributed since the Taliban takeover, but the United States maintains no diplomatic presence in the country — nor does it send official diplomatic envoys.1 U.S. sanctions have not altered the Taliban’s calculus on human rights or ties with al-Qaeda. The Taliban has proved intransigent and unrealistic in its relations not only with Washington but with neighboring countries like Pakistan. Its senior leaders lack a coherent vision for the country and its emir remains reclusive.2 Future U.S. policymakers might be tempted to disengage diplomatically and economically from Afghanistan and instead rely primarily on “over-the-horizon” counterterrorism.3 The most likely consequence of this approach would be a more isolated and unstable Afghanistan, which in turn could foster an even more permissive environment for transnational terrorists. Consistent diplomacy tied to long-term U.S. security objectives is likely to produce incremental results at best, but is still preferable to diplomatic disengagement or military intervention. This brief provides a concise background and analysis of the most pressing issues affecting U.S. interests in Afghanistan. It draws on open source data; interviews with government officials — including from the de facto Taliban government; and interviews with private analysts that were conducted remotely or in person — in the United States, Pakistan, and Qatar. Broad policy recommendations • The United States should work closely with regional countries, including Pakistan, India, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to ensure they are prepared to handle security challenges as they emerge. If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is revived, opportunities may emerge to engage Iran on Afghanistan. These should include routine dialogue, intelligence sharing, and capacity building, such as policing and border security. Washington should engage separately with India and Pakistan to bolster humanitarian aid and limited commerce to Afghanistan. • The United States should reiterate mutual responsibilities under the 2020 agreement it signed with the Taliban in Doha, but recognize that it lacks effective enforcement mechanisms and therefore is better understood as an aspirational framework. • Formal recognition of the de facto Taliban government should be withheld until it demonstrates a clear commitment to its counterterrorism responsibilities and respect for basic human rights, including for women. But Washington should place diplomats in Afghanistan either through the creation of an in-country Afghanistan affairs unit, whether based in the prior U.S. Embassy or inside a friendly third country’s diplomatic mission, or by sending temporary delegations to Kabul, as our allies have. This should be coupled with multilateral steps to remove the leadership’s travel privileges. It is important that U.S. officials interact with Taliban cabinet members in Kabul and other Taliban stakeholders based in Kandahar.4 Direct outreach by U.S. military officials and the intelligence community may have utility but it is not a replacement for a coherent civilian-led diplomatic strategy. • Sanctions intended to target the Taliban as a non-state actor now extend far beyond their original scope, since they became the de facto government of Afghanistan. If not yet determined, the U.S. government should communicate what steps the Taliban must take to be de-listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Group.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Sanctions, and Engagement
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Asia, India, and United States of America

1430. Managed Competition: A U.S. Grand Strategy for a Multipolar World

Author:
George Beebe
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has accelerated pre-existing momentum toward a multipolar global order. In response, the Biden administration effectively rallied NATO and ensured that Russian forces cannot resubjugate Ukraine. But it has not anchored its tactical moves in a broader strategy to safeguard America’s most critical interests. As a result, we are fast headed toward a two-front geopolitical faceoff in which a belligerent Russia and a rising China are cooperating closely with each other against the United States. In a world in which power is shifting from the West toward the East and Global South, the United States is enmeshed in a proxy war with the world’s largest nuclear power, and Americans face mounting political and social challenges at home, a dangerous gap has emerged between Washington’s global ambitions and its ability to achieve them. The United States had a large margin for strategic error during its era of post-Cold War global primacy, when it faced no significant great power challengers. It has no such cushion today. America needs to rethink its grand strategy. This should involve the following elements: • Recognize that attempts to isolate and weaken Russia and China are likely to fail. The combination of Russia’s vast natural resources and China’s economic heft and centrality to global commerce present a challenge far different from what we faced during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union posed a military and ideological threat but was economically feeble. • Avoid promoting regime change or otherwise undermining political and economic stability in Russia and China, which could have serious blowback effects in the United States. The United States’ economic health is to a great degree dependent on that of China. Information technology has made us vulnerable to external subversion at a time when American society is dangerously divided and mistrustful of key institutions. • Instead, pursue a strategy of managed competition, in which our rivals are not only counterbalanced by American power and alliances, but also are constrained by agreed rules of the game that are tailored to an era in which advances in precision weaponry, cyber technology, and artificial intelligence pose significant new threats to stability. • Be more selective about where the United States should focus its involvement. As a seapower dependent on trade and robust international partnerships, the United States must remain engaged with the world. But Washington can no longer afford to squander its resources on quixotic democratization crusades or on policing regions that are not central to America’s own well-being. Greater burden sharing by allies and partners is essential. • Aim to gain a breathing spell abroad so that we can focus on healing our domestic wounds and advancing prosperity at home. This also means that the United States should avoid framing its global challenges in terms of an existential battle between democracy and authoritarianism.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, Grand Strategy, Strategic Competition, and Multipolarity
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America

1431. A Dangerous Journey to the U.S. and a “New Deal” for Migrant Women and Girls

Author:
Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera and Michelle Keck
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
The U.S.-Mexico border has always experienced significant migration flows. Migration to the United States from Mexico increased significantly in 1900 due to political unrest in Mexico and the rise of agribusiness in the South- west, an increase that resulted in the creation of the United States Border Patrol in 1924.1 Initially, most migrants who crossed the border were single, adult males, primarily from Mexico. However, since the early 2010s, most migrants apprehended at the border have been families and unaccompanied minors, mainly from Central America, but also from other parts of the world. Many of these immigrants arrive seeking asylum at official ports of entry, as well as between ports of entry.2 Since 2010, approximately 463,773 minors have crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without their parents, with a notable increase from the Northern Triangle states of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, three of the most violent countries in the world.3 The number of women and girls crossing the U.S.-Mexico border has also increased. In 2011, 42,590 women and girls were apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol. That number rose to 119,415 in 2014, under the Obama administration, and surged further to 298,489 in 2019, under the Trump administration.4 The last several decades have seen a feminization of migration, with women making the conscious decision to migrate for better opportunities. Latin American states have been leading in having the highest proportion of women among international migrants.5
Topic:
Migration, Women, Borders, and Girls
Political Geography:
Mexico and United States of America

1432. Introducing Third Way’s US-China Digital World Order Initiative

Author:
Valerie Shen and Jayson Browder
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
If it wasn’t clear three months ago, it is clear now: the next global era will be defined by democracy versus autocracy. In this competition, a new and decisive divide pits America’s approach of “digital democracy” against China’s approach of “digital autocracy.” This great divide places the US and allies on one side and China's unfettered access to sensitive data on the other. China’s digital authoritarianism has been described as "one giant QAnon" and is ubiquitous among the 1.4 billion inhabitants of the country. Moreover, one of the greatest threats to American national security interests is if China prevails in exporting and normalizing its model of digital supremacy. China’s global network of surveillance systems is antithetical to liberal democratic values, as it monitors, punishes, and conditions citizens, as well as influences them through automated disinformation campaigns. China’s ambition for global digital supremacy is real and supported by aggressive diplomatic efforts and massive financial investments. The effort by the United States and like nations to maintain a peaceful and prosperous world order will require a level of sophistication and commitment unrivaled in our history. China is not only an adversary. It is sometimes a partner whose massive economy is deeply entwined with that of the US and other friendly nations. This is not the zero-sum game of the Cold War conflict, and the hope is that it never becomes so. Will liberal democracies strengthen and proliferate or weaken and dwindle in the 21st century? The Chinese state intends to shape the global digital order in its image by redrawing technological norms and standards. Ultimately, the US-China national security competition may hinge on who sets the digital world order.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Authoritarianism, Democracy, Digital Economy, Innovation, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

1433. Three Reasons Why CHIPS-plus is a Big Win for US National Security

Author:
Tom Klein
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
On August 9th, 2022, President Biden signed vital bipartisan legislation to compete with China. H.R. 4346, called the CHIPS and Science Act or “CHIPS-plus,” would pave the way for nearly $280 billion in incentives to boost US-based chip manufacturing, scientific research, technology standards setting, and STEM education. These initiatives directly protect our immediate security vulnerabilities in the US military and support our long-term national security competition with China by promoting democratic norms and spurring critical defense innovations.
Topic:
Security, National Security, Science and Technology, Military Strategy, Innovation, and CHIPS
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

1434. The Post-Truth Phenomenon Infiltrating the US Political System, Media, and Populace: The Critical Thinking Analysis about Donal Trump's Political Leadership

Author:
Aryati Arbay Evi and Santoso Widodo Ari
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:
Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:
Donald J. Trump, one of the 2016 US presidential candidates, is thought to have benefited from political fact-doctoring in his attempt to diminish his adversary's reputation using the post-truth phenomena. This research aimed to identify and analyze post-truth phenomena that infiltrated the political system, media, and the American people during Donald J. Trump's leadership. This study used a qualitative approach with a critical thinking analysis method. The findings found that individual rationality's post-truth disrupted and then directed to online information impulses, in which people tended to seek information that supported their own opinions, particularly on issues connected to Donald J. Trump's leadership in all sectors of policy, including irrelevant facts or reality and the use of language increasingly exploited by hyperbole without a clear basis reference.
Topic:
Media, Leadership, Post Truth Politics, Truth, and Partisanship
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

1435. The politicized pandemic: Ideological polarization and the behavioral response to COVID-19*

Author:
Gianluca Grimalda, David Pipke, Fabrice Murtin, and Louis Putterman
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
We investigate the relationship between political attitudes and prosociality in a survey of a representative sample of the U.S. population during the first summer of the COVID-19 pandemic. We find that an experimental measure of prosociality correlates positively with adherence to protective behaviors. Liberal political ideology predicts higher levels of protective behavior than conservative ideology, independently of the differences in prosociality across the two groups. Differences between liberals and conservatives are up to 4.4 times smaller in their behavior than in judging the government’s crisis management. This result suggests that U.S. Americans are more polarized on ideological than behavioral grounds.
Topic:
Politics, Ideology, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Protection
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

1436. Cutting through the Value Chain: The Long-Run Effects of Decoupling the East from the West

Author:
Gabriel Felbermayr, Alexander Sandkamp, and Hendrik Mahlkow
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
With ever-increasing political tensions between China and Russia on one side and the EU and the US on the other, it only seems a matter of time until protectionist policies cause a decoupling of global value chains. This paper uses a computable general equilibrium trade model calibrated with the latest version of the GTAP database to simulate the effect of doubling non-tariff barriers - both unilateral and reciprocal - between the two blocks on trade and welfare. Imposing trade barriers almost completely eliminates bilateral imports. In addition, changes in price levels lead to higher imports and lower exports of the imposing country group from and to the rest of the world. The targeted country group increases exports to the rest of the world and reduces imports. Welfare falls in all countries involved, suggesting that governments should strive to cooperate rather than turning away from each other. By imposing a trade war on Russia, the political West could inflict severe damage on the Russian economy because of the latter’s smaller relative size.
Topic:
International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, European Union, Conflict, Trade Wars, Protectionism, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America

1437. A Primer on the 2022 National Security Strategy

Author:
Peter Juul and Heba Malik
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The 2022 National Security Strategy introduces new ideas on navigating strategic competition with China and Russia, investing at home, and a renewed focus on the fight against climate change.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, National Security, Rivalry, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America

1438. How the Inflation Reduction Act Will Drive Global Climate Action

Author:
Frances Colon, Cassidy Childs, and Anne Christianson
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The Inflation Reduction Act puts the United States on track to meeting its Paris Agreement commitment and to reclaiming the mantle of global climate leadership.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, International Cooperation, and Inflation
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

1439. Will Viktor Orbán Bring His Racist Rhetoric to the United States this Week?

Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's embrace of far-right racism should prompt American conservatives to cut ties with the autocratic Hungarian leader.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Leadership, Discrimination, and Far Right
Political Geography:
Europe, Hungary, North America, and United States of America

1440. Rising Anti-China Sentiment in South Korea Offers Opportunities To Strengthen US-ROK Relations

Author:
Haneul Lee, Alan Yu, and Tobias Harris
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The Yoon administration’s posture toward China has important implications for the U.S.-ROK alliance and America’s strategic approach in the region
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Bilateral Relations, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America