Search

Begin New Search Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 10 Years Publication Year within 5 Years

1161. Can EU carbon border adjustment measures propel WTO climate talks?

Author:
Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Armen Hovakimian, and Jeffrey J. Schott
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
Reforms proposed in the European Union’s “Fit for 55” climate policy package are likely to sharply increase the cost paid by European firms for their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Recognizing that increased carbon prices would put European firms at a disadvantage in competing with imports from countries that produce without incurring these costs, the European Commission has proposed a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) requiring that the most carbon-intensive EU imports either incur comparable carbon charges as EU firms or pay the equivalent of a carbon-based tariff. The CBAM aims to deter carbon leakage, which could arise if firms shift carbon-intensive production out of Europe to facilities in countries that do not tax GHG emissions (or tax at a low rate) and then export the goods to Europe. European production and output would suffer and global climate efforts to reduce GHG emissions would be undercut. The loftier goal is to encourage other countries to follow the European example and strengthen their own national decarbonization policies, which in turn would exempt their goods from CBAM charges. The CBAM would cover five carbon-intensive industries: iron and steel, aluminum, fertilizer, electricity, and cement. Countries most affected by the CBAM include Russia, China, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, South Korea, and India. Some are likely to contest the policy, claiming that the CBAM is a unilateral measure that violates World Trade Organization rules and bolsters protectionism while hampering rather than encouraging efforts in other countries to tackle climate change. A better and more feasible approach would be adoption of a CBAM moratorium while negotiations are conducted to promote carbon abatement policies that comply with the rules-based global trading system.
Topic:
Climate Change, European Union, Economy, Carbon Emissions, and Imports
Political Geography:
Europe

1162. How the rest of the world responds to the US-China split

Author:
Hung Tran
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The election of Joe Biden as the forty-sixth US president is not expected to change the list of substantive issues dividing the United States and China, such as trade, investment, technology, geopolitical competition, national security, and human rights—except that the priority among them may change, with human rights concerns moving more to the forefront. However, the tone and modality of the unfolding of the US-China competition will change from Donald Trump’s unilateralism to Biden’s efforts to build alliances with “likeminded” countries in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere to deal with the challenges China has posed. In a way, Biden’s alliance-building approach may intensify pressure on the rest of the world to take sides. How countries respond to this challenge, unwelcome by most, depends on whether they see themselves as competitors to China, or as “price takers” in the international economic system.
Topic:
Global Markets, Regulation, Finance, Economy, Trade, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

1163. Biden and Belarus: A strategy for the new administration

Author:
Anders Åslund, Melinda Haring, John Herbst, and Alexander Vershbow
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
United States President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has an historic opportunity to bring Europe together and reverse the tide of dictatorship by building an international coalition to support democracy in Belarus. In 2020, Belarusians unexpectedly called Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s legitimacy into question in the country’s August presidential election. Lukashenka brazenly rigged the results, claiming that he took 80 percent of the vote, but neither the United States nor the European Union (EU) recognizes his victory. A months-long protest movement has coalesced that demands new elections under the supervision of the international community. Recent years have seen no better chance for US leadership to facilitate lasting positive change in Europe than the crisis in Belarus. But how to secure democratic change in Belarus is not simple given internal resistance and Moscow’s determination to prevent another “color revolution.” Lukashenka is likely finished, unable to restore any authority or legitimacy. But he is seeking to hang on despite Moscow’s efforts to arrange a pliable replacement who would preserve Minsk’s pro-Russian orientation. Managing Moscow’s efforts to prevent an aroused citizenry from choosing their own leader is no easy task. Russia remains the key geopolitical player in Belarus, often plays the long game, and may be willing to countenance military options that the United States cannot. Perhaps the key fact is that Belarusians have made it amply clear that they want accountable leaders that they can choose and dismiss for themselves. More than thirty thousand peaceful protesters have been detained since August, more than three hundred and fifty police officers have defected, and ordinary Belarusians are no longer afraid to voice their opposition to the regime. Kremlin support for the ongoing repression risks turning the Belarusian people—historically friendly toward Russia—in a pro-European direction. These changes in Belarus are something that Moscow cannot ignore, and the United States and its allies must nourish and strengthen them in consistent ways that avoid and deter a Kremlin overreaction. Biden, with his long experience promoting US values and interests and his determination to strengthen transatlantic relations, is ideally situated to promote clear support for the people of Belarus that does not directly challenge Moscow’s security interests.
Topic:
Economics, Human Rights, Sanctions, and Democracy
Political Geography:
Europe, Belarus, and United States of America

1164. Iraqi diaspora mobilization and the future development of Iraq

Author:
Oula Kadhum
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Iraqi diaspora mobilization and the future development of Iraq – authored by Dr. Oula Kadhum, explores Iraqi diaspora mobilization before and after the 2003 invasion and fall of the regime of Saddam Hussein. It looks at the ways members of the diaspora sought to help in the rebuilding of their country of origin, at both the elite and grassroots levels, as well as investigating changes over time. Importantly, it analyses the obstacles that have hindered diaspora mobilization since 2003 and argues that the Iraqi diaspora is a valuable, yet largely untapped resource for Iraq.
Topic:
Development, Diplomacy, Politics, Diaspora, Resilience, and Society
Political Geography:
Iraq and Middle East

1165. The Role of the Private Sector in Catalyzing Inclusive Economic Opportunities in the Northern Triangle

Author:
Maria Fernanda Bozmoski and Domingo Sadurní
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
As in every democratic country in the world, the private sector in Central America’s Northern Triangle (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) has a central role in generating employment, driving economic growth, and spurring innovation. But in a region plagued by one of the highest levels of economic informality, weak government institutions, and pervasive corruption, private enterprises—both decades-old industry behemoths and newer startups—can have a more positive influence in steering the Northern Triangle toward inclusive and sustainable economic development. This is not to say that business leaders in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have been absent in unlocking growth and innovation in the countries, especially since the end of the civil wars in the late 1990s. But in this unique moment of global crisis and renewed attention from the United States, the Northern Triangle’s private sector should seize the opportunity to further position itself as a committed, trusted partner and galvanizing force for positive change. Seeking to address the root causes of unauthorized migration to the United States—including lack of quality economic opportunities, weak rule of law, and violence—the Biden administration’s four-year, $4-billion plan for the Northern Triangle seeks to implement a whole-of-society approach to improve the living conditions of Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Salvadorans. The plan comes at a time when Central America, already reeling from structural institutional challenges to its ability to govern and improve its economies, grapples with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and two back-to-back hurricanes. As conditions deteriorate on the ground and create additional push factors for would-be migrants, the US government should devote special energy and attention to laying the groundwork for strategic partnerships with private sector actors who are positioned—despite contending with pandemic-induced burdens of their own—to catalyze economic opportunities for their fellow citizens. The business community can be a pivotal player in long-term change that seeks to improve the rule of law, tackle corruption, and open new opportunities for inclusive economic growth. This issue brief takes a deep dive to unpack why a lack of sustained and inclusive economic opportunities—among the three main drivers of unauthorized migration—have eluded the Northern Triangle and how the private sector can help reduce informality, invest in employment-generating sectors, resolve the human capital paradox, and catalyze greater infrastructure investment and digital connectivity.1 While there is an emphasis on high levels of informality causing economic insecurity, it is also true that economic insecurity and lack of investment in economic development also drives informality. This is the first of three issue briefs as part of the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center’s latest Central America initiative, in partnership with the DT Institute, to inform and mobilize key stakeholders at the national, regional, and international levels behind new policy solutions to tackle the Northern Triangle’s most pressing issues. This issue brief is the outcome of a meeting with the Center’s Northern Triangle Advisory Group, which met in February 2021, and will meet regularly during the first six months of 2021 to help inform the three issue briefs.
Topic:
Migration, Entrepreneurship, Economic Growth, Private Sector, and Inclusion
Political Geography:
Central America, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador

1166. Partnering for Africa’s digital future: Opportunities for the United States, South Korea, and India

Author:
Aleksandra Gadzala Tirziu
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Technological competition between the United States and China poses a special dilemma for African nations, whose prosperity depends on doing business with both Beijing and Washington. Although President Joe Biden is expected to assume a softer policy stance toward China—one couched in the language of human rights and liberal values, rather than power and strategic capabilities—competition will persist, driven by Beijing’s ambition to control the key technologies of the future. Rising US-China tensions may eventually force African nations to take sides. Speaking at the 2020 Munich Security Conference, then-US Defense Secretary Mark Esper warned allied nations that the use of Chinese company Huawei’s fifth-generation (5G) technology could compromise future intelligence cooperation with the United States. That’s a real problem for Africa because, together, Huawei and Chinese phone maker ZTE have built nearly 80 percent of Africa’s third-generation (3G) network infrastructure, while Huawei has built 70 percent of all fourth-generation (4G) networks and is competing to build all the future 5G networks in Africa. Chinese mobile-phone maker Transsion Holdings controls 64 percent of Africa’s feature phone market, and more than 40 percent of its smartphone market, and social media platforms such as TikTok and Vskit are fast becoming popular among Africa’s connected youth. For African leaders, disassociation from Beijing is becoming less and less feasible—or attractive. So too is closer alignment with the United States. Washington simply cannot match the large volumes of funding that Beijing extends to the continent. Recent conduct by leading US technology companies, including by Facebook and Google following the 2020 US presidential election, has additionally prompted a global pushback against US “big tech” that could make it harder for the US public and private sectors to compete and hold sway in African markets. Fortunately, there is a third way, both for African countries looking to avoid the crossfires of US-China competition, and for US policymakers seeking to bolster US competitiveness and influence in the region. The solution hinges on closer cooperation with emerging powers, notably South Korea and India, which have recently demonstrated their determination to better understand Africa’s challenges and prospects, and to figure out how their citizens could collaborate with African businesses and governments. For example, in his 2018 address to Uganda’s parliament, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi outlined “ten guiding principles for India-Africa engagement” that center on cooperation in digitalization, clean-energy technologies, and cybersecurity—a marked detour from the policies that have historically shaped India-Africa ties. South Korea-Africa relations under President Moon Jae-In have also entered a new phase, with an emphasis on commercial linkages and people-to-people collaboration. Both South Korea and India are rapidly expanding their technological capabilities, and their foreign policies also align well with US interests in the region, and vis-à-vis China. For Washington, cooperation with these emerging powers could keep the door open to US influence in Africa, and could help ensure that Beijing’s strategic foothold in the continent does not deepen. For African countries, such partnerships could help bypass the “either-or-ism” implicit in US-China competition, while encouraging greater diversity and agency in their foreign affairs. There is real opportunity for African states to realize the potential that such alliances could create, and to become significant multilateral actors, able to leverage their distinct assets and pursue their own interests. This report explores how.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Economy, Business, Space, and Innovation
Political Geography:
India, Korea, and Africa

1167. What choices remain for the United States in Syria?

Author:
Nate Rosenblatt and Jomana Qaddour
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Syria is home to one of the world’s most complex conflicts. The chaos caused by the Syrian regime and its allies — within Syria, across the Middle East, and beyond — poses immediate and enduring threats. Considering its foreign policy promise to defend democracy and human rights, the Biden administration does not have the luxury of ignoring what happens in Syria. Accepting that there are fewer options for the United States today than there were ten years ago does not mean normalizing the Assad regime or turning a blind eye to Russian and Iranian efforts to tip the balance of power in the region. In a new issue brief from the Atlantic Council’s Syria program, “What Choices Remain for the United States in Syria?,” Nate Rosenblatt and Jomana Qaddour describe the challenges the United States faces in Syria, including Russia’s attempt to expand the UN Strategic Framework as well the struggle to keep the UN humanitarian border crossings open in northern Syria. The memo then lays out the three potential strategies in Syria: one prioritizing the withdrawal of US forces, a second protecting humanitarian access and ensuring progress on limited, critical files, and a third maintaining US support for, as well as coordination with, partners to dial up the pressure on the Syrian government and its allies. The paper ultimately argues that the Biden administration should seize this opportunity to establish a clear strategy in Syria by aligning its defense, development, and diplomatic capabilities with those of its global allies and partners to shape a better outcome in Syria.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Human Rights, International Organization, Politics, United Nations, Syrian War, and Resilience
Political Geography:
Middle East, Syria, North America, and United States of America

1168. Poland and the United States: What’s right, what’s not, and what’s next

Author:
Daniel Fried and Jakub Wiśniewski
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Around the time of President Joe Biden’s first trip to Europe in June 2021, US-Polish relations experienced a short, but intense, rough patch. Missteps on both sides caused the problems, including fears on the Polish side of a high-handed US attitude and a general lack of consultation on issues (like Nord Stream 2) that Poland regards as critical. Some Poles started questioning the good faith of their biggest ally. The US side, for its part, thought Poland was ignoring US overtures and assuming the worst of the United States. Draft legislation that would target the largest US investment in Poland (the TVN television network) generated US concerns about both the investment climate in Poland and political pressure on independent media. In short order, wiser counsel emerged on both sides, and top-level discussions may ease the sense of tension. 1 But, the episode suggests that problems have developed in what has been (and should remain) one of the closest transatlantic relations. Both the United States and Poland need to look hard at what this relationship can do for both countries and for the transatlantic relationship, and at the sources of problems.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Politics, Bilateral Relations, and Resilience
Political Geography:
Eastern Europe, Poland, North America, and United States of America

1169. A strategic framework for countering China’s human-rights violations in Xinjiang

Author:
Jeffrey Cimmino
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
China is engaged in a systematic campaign of repression against predominantly Muslim ethnic minorities in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) in northwest China. Through a combination of detention camps, mass surveillance, birth suppression, and other means, China is responsible for gross human-rights violations. In recent years, the international community has devoted an increasing amount of attention to China’s actions in Xinjiang. Earlier this year, the United States declared that Beijing’s behavior constituted genocide. More recently, the United States and several key partners announced multilateral sanctions on Chinese officials facilitating repression in the region. To build on these developments, the United States and its allies and partners should adopt a more strategic approach to addressing China’s human-rights abuses. This Issue Brief proposes a framework for such a strategy, articulating a multilateral approach for dealing with China’s repressive actions in Xinjiang. This Issue Brief argues that addressing China’s abuses in Xinjiang is of strategic importance. Ultimately, the goal of this strategy is to achieve an end state in which China has ceased its repressive activities; however, even if achieving this objective proves elusive, imposing costs on Beijing’s actions in Xinjiang can still serve broader strategic ends vis-a-vis China. China has chosen an assertive path to attaining global power and influence, and decades of economic growth and incorporation in the global economic system have not been enough to transform Beijing into a responsible stakeholder in a rules-based international system. The United States and its allies and partners will need to impose costs on Chinese behavior that violates international norms. Imposing costs on China’s human-rights violations in Xinjiang is a critical element of a broader strategy to dissuade Chinese Communist Party (CCP) behavior that undermines international norms and to push Beijing toward becoming a cooperative member of a rules-based international system.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Organization, Politics, Sanctions, Economy, and Uyghurs
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Xinjiang

1170. Trusted connectivity: A framework for a free, open, and connected world

Author:
Kaush Arha
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Global affairs are increasingly shaped by three important and overlapping trends: 1) the unprecedented and growing demand for trillions of dollars’ worth of global digital and physical infrastructure; 2) the ideological battle between democracy and autocracy for the best path forward to achieve peace and prosperity; and 3) the world’s response to changing climate. As democracies address the global demand for a free, open, and connected world while ensuring that local and global emissions targets are met, they need an organizing framework: the concept of “trusted connectivity.” Democratic governments and institutions function with intricate checks and balances to ensure public trust. Unchallenged aggregation of power is antithetical to democracies and instinctively distrusted by their citizens. While holding unimaginable promise, today’s advancements in digital and physical infrastructure also embody new opportunities for malign actors in general, and authoritarian governments in particular, to accumulate and wield this power. Malign influence or control over data, communications, trade routes, energy, and transportation, all of which becomes possible when countries accept infrastructure investments from authoritarian states, could open potential vectors for coercion, disruption, or attack in times of crisis or conflict. In order to deny malign actors this influence over other countries’ infrastructure, democracies need to work together to ensure that the benefits and terms for the host country in building a bridge, port, rail, road, or telecommunications network are equitable and transparent, thereby leading to greater trust and security in addition to economic prosperity. US President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., rallied the world’s leading democracies behind this cause at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in June 2021 in Cornwall, England. The G7 nations, comprising the world’s leading free economies and free societies, proclaimed that, as they aim to meet global infrastructure demand, among other goals, their efforts will be guided by shared democratic values. For China, the standard-bearer of an alternate, illiberal model, infrastructure investment serves a different purpose: to increase China’s global economic leverage for its political gain. To prevail in this competition, advance their values, and develop much-needed digital and physical infrastructure, the world’s leading democracies should adopt the principle of trusted connectivity.
Topic:
National Security, Infrastructure, Cybersecurity, and Connectivity
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and United States of America