Search

Begin New Search Publication Year within 5 Years Publication Year within 25 Years

16361. Twilight: The Erosion of US Control and the Multipolar Future

Author:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Abstract:
At the conclusion of World War II, with the European powers severely weakened, the United States – the most powerful of Europe’s settler colonies – took over the neo-colonial management of the planet. Now, almost eighty years later, the primacy of the United States has entered twilight. This dossier explores the emergence of a new cold war imposed by the United States on China and the forms of hybrid war that have been utilised against countries that it deems to be a threat.
Topic:
Imperialism, Hegemony, Conflict, and Hybrid Warfare
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

16362. The Legacy of Lekra: Organising Revolutionary Culture in Indonesia

Author:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Abstract:
In 1965, the Indonesian revolutionary cultural organisation, Lekra, had 200,000 members and one and half million supporters. This was followed by a coup and the killing of one million communists in the months that followed. On the seventieth anniversary since its founding, this dossier traces Lekra’s history and calls on the artists and militants of today to combine individual creativity with the wisdom of the masses, from whose struggles for emancipation we seek hope and direction.
Topic:
Culture, Revolution, and Mobilization
Political Geography:
Indonesia and Asia-Pacific

16363. Prospects for US-Russia Relations in the Context of the Biden-Putin Summit

Author:
Giorgio Bilanishvili
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Today, the main vector of Russia's foreign policy continues to go through a confrontation with the West in the international arena, especially with the United States. This fact is important for international politics and, even more so, for the context of Georgia's national security. As a whole, so far, the Biden administration's policy toward Russia is not different from that of its predecessors - the Trump administration and the Obama administration. Its main characteristics are poor bilateral relations and sanctions imposed on Russia, since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and launched a military intervention in eastern Ukraine. At the same time, the US expert community is inclined to say that balancing China's growing influence is a top foreign policy priority of the Biden administration and the realization of this policy could alter US foreign policy vis-à-vis Russia. The Biden-Putin summit held in Geneva on June 16 this year should be understood as a starting point of the US administration's relations with Moscow. Most probably, the parties have "tested the ground" on many different topics, including those where their positions differ the most. Although, this summit did not bring a drastic change between the two countries, which indeed was less expected, but it has relatively increased the dynamics of the relations between the two countries.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, National Security, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
Russia and United States of America

16364. AUKUS - A Harbinger of a New Geopolitical Reality

Author:
Giorgi Badridze
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
In September of this year, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States announced the creation of a new defense pact in the Asia-Pacific region called AUKUS (which is an abbreviation for the names of the member states: Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States). This paper will discuss the objectives of this new tripartite pact as well as the rationale behind the reactions thereto vis-à-vis leading international players and how it reflects the current balance of power and security prospects in the world. Ongoing processes in the world today, including the creation of AUKUS, indicate that China's power and influence have grown so much that the more or less stabile world order may be radically altered if this is not balanced within the security sphere. The main task of the United States (the dominant power of the existing world order) and its allies is to prevent irreversible changes in world order; in particular, those that will accelerate the formation of Chinese hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region and the world at large.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Alliance, and AUKUS
Political Geography:
China, United Kingdom, Australia, and United States of America

16365. The Platform of the 3+3 Format: A Review

Author:
Badri Belkania
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
The aftermath of the Nagorno-Karabakh war, which in Ankara and Baku was hailed as a triumphant victory for the Turkish-Azerbaijani alliance, significantly changed the political situation and the balance of power in the Caucasus region. The turn of the decades-long status quo in favor of Azerbaijan showed that a new phase has begun in the region, often pointed out so by the victorious side as well. 1 Against the backdrop of a significantly changed regional agenda and the growing Turkish-Azerbaijani influence in the Caucasus, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan introduced the idea of establishing a six-member regional cooperation platform. If the idea were to materialize, the members would include Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, Russia, Georgia, and Armenia.2 Erdogan's idea received a wide response in the region. The new platform for regional cooperation (Russia, Iran, Turkey + Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan) has become an important topic of discussion in all six countries, primarily due to its controversial format. The idea of geographically adjacent but politically different countries joining one platform is in direct conflict with the opposing interests of these countries. Despite this significant obstacle, the apologists for the idea, that seeks to replace the conflicts and tensions in the Caucasus with a "long-term peace," remain hopeful that the platform will have a future.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Conflict, and Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
Political Geography:
Turkey and Azerbaijan

16366. Religious Aspects of the Iran-Azerbaijan Conflict: Is There a Danger of a New Hybrid War?

Author:
Aleksandre Kvakhadze
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Relations between Iran and Azerbaijan have become unprecedentedly strained over the past month. Iranian military forces are mobilizing across the Iran-Azerbaijan border. At the same time, a new Turkish military contingent was deployed in Azerbaijan and joint military exercises were held in the territory of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic.1 Officials from both countries were engaged in an unfriendly rhetoric. It is unlikely that this tension between Iran and the Turkey-Azerbaijan military alliance will escalate into an open, large-scale military confrontation, but, nevertheless, there is the opinion that the Iranian state will continue hybrid warfare in Azerbaijan through the support of political and religious groups in the medium and long term based on the examples of other countries.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Religion, Alliance, and Hybrid Warfare
Political Geography:
Iran and Azerbaijan

16367. Iran-Azerbaijan Confrontation: Threats and Challenges

Author:
Zurab Batiashvili
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Iran-Azerbaijan relations have never been easy but they became particularly tense in September-October 2021, attracting attention within the region and beyond. This confrontation between the parties escalated into large-scale military exercises and a war of statements but, fortunately, the tension did not reach a level of military confrontation. In the second half of October, the confrontation slowly subsided. However, the problem has not disappeared. Its causes still exist and have a great potential of reigniting the conflict. Such a situation creates a fertile ground for a number of threats and challenges for the entire region, including Georgia.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Military Affairs, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Iran, Azerbaijan, and Georgia

16368. The Interests of Turkey and Iran in Afghanistan: Threats and Challenges

Author:
Zurab Batiashvili
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
In the summer of 2021, as the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, the balance of power in the country changed rapidly, and by August 15, the Taliban was able to capture the capital, Kabul, almost without a fight. On September 7, the Taliban formed a new "government" steered by Sharia Law. The Taliban also renamed the country, and, according to them, Afghanistan is now called the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan." There are no women or members of the Shiite minority in the new government. Of the 33 members of the still-incomplete government, only three belong to ethnic minorities.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Taliban, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Iran, and Turkey

16369. European defence: Specialisation by capability groups

Author:
Dick Zandee
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
In many professions specialisation is regarded as a virtue. In a hospital the surgeon, the anaesthetist and the nurse have specialised skills. Together they engage in teamwork to cure patients. Yet, when it comes to defence, specialisation has a negative connotation. Contrary to the hospital’s operating theatre, dependency on each other’s armed forces is regarded as a serious, if not unacceptable risk, as a country has to be able to defend itself without relying on capabilities to be provided by other states. In reality, however, interdependence is a fact: European countries have relied on the nuclear deterrent of the United States since the 1950s and with regard to conventional forces, no single European country can provide all necessary capabilities. The question is how European interdependence can be made more effective. The answer must partly lie in specialisation. This Policy Brief addresses specialisation in security and defence from the perspective of the ‘Team Europe’ approach of distributing tasks and operating with varying coalitions of European countries in order to make the EU (and in this case also NATO) more effective. It presents a model of structuring European armed forces in specialised groups – an idea that has been proposed in a Clingendael report published earlier this year. First, the Policy Brief lays out the playing field by explaining the model of European capability groups. Next, several options for European capability groups will be proposed. It concludes with listing the implications for the Netherlands.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, European Union, and Specialization
Political Geography:
Europe

16370. The RRF as administrative subsidiarity

Author:
Adriaan Schout
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
When the corona crisis broke out, it was clear that eurozone economies were ill prepared for new setbacks. Put differently, the SGP had failed to produce convergence. The RRF offers an opportunity to reconsider the effectiveness of economic governance and to strengthen national ownership for sound economic policies. Despite its potential merits, the RRF was not designed to reinforce national institutions to monitor and correct their own economic policies. Creating the required ownership for sound economic policies would have demanded empowering the independent National Productivity Boards (NPBs) and Independent Fiscal Institutions (IFIs), and integrating them in a redesigned independent network-based European Fiscal Board (EFB). The failure in 2020 to include the NPBs, IFIs and the EFB also implies a major break with the Fiscal Compact, Two Pack and Six Pack that aimed at empowering national institutions. The RRF concerns a major financial commitment and could thus have been used as bargaining chip to strengthen the long-term reform measures by insisting on a subsidiarity-based European monitoring and enforcement system, including mutual inspections, and build around the nascent macroeconomic independent national and EU agencies. Such decentralized systems have proved their worth in successful European policy areas such as in monitoring the state of the environment in member states. This will have consequences for the organization of the EU Commission. Using the lessons from the RRF to (forget to) strengthen national institutions is also relevant for redesigning the SGP. Firstly, redesigning the NPBs, IFIs and EFB will offer a suitable model for monitoring national policies as a replacement of the current centralized control under the SGP by the Commission. Secondly, the future development of the RRF and NGEU can be used as bargaining chip in the negotiations on the SGP. The review of the SGP will involve adaptation of rules, reinstituting the ESM, and deciding on new emergency funds. The negotiations ahead offer opportunities and leverage for steering towards a pro-active and constructive role for the Netherlands in the elaboration of subsidiarity-based economic governance.
Topic:
Governance, Economy, Fiscal Policy, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe