Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Political Geography North America Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 5 Years

1. Balance of Trade, Balance of Power: How the Trade Deficit Reflects U.S. Influence in the World

Author:
Daniel Griswold and Andreas Freytag
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
The U.S. trade deficit is a misunderstood symbol of U.S. economic strength and influence in the world. The deficit is not driven by unfair trade abroad or industrial weakness at home and, as the Trump years show, cannot be “fixed” through higher tariffs. Instead, the trade deficit is driven by a persistent net inflow of foreign capital, which reduces interest rates and fuels economic output. Contrary to myth, the trade deficit is not a cause of deindustrialization or a loss of manufacturing jobs. In fact, the current balance of trade points to America’s continuing influence in global affairs—as a haven for global investment, as a robust producer and buyer of global goods and services, and as the provider of a strong dollar that remains at the center of the global economy. Policymakers should reject measures that restrict trade and foreign investment and instead seek to expand America’s commercial ties to the rest of the world.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economy, Trade, and Trade Deficit
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. De-escalation Efforts: What Tehran wants from a prisoner swap deal with Washington?

Author:
FARAS
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:
US National Security Council Spokesperson Adrienne Waston, in a statement on August 10, 2023, affirmed that Iran has released from prison five Americans who were detained and has placed them on house arrest. US citizens Siamak Namazi, Morad Tahbaz, Emad Shargi, and two others were released from Tehran’s notorious Evin prison to house arrest. The US official described their release as “an encouraging step” and stressed that Washigton will continue efforts to bring them “all back home in the United States.”
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Sanctions, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

3. Competition Versus Exclusion in U.S.–China Relations: A Choice Between Stability and Conflict

Author:
Jake Werner
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
The Biden administration’s China policy is pulling in two different directions, but the tension is not widely recognized because every antagonistic measure aimed at China is filed under the heading of competition. As a result, Washington’s debate on China loses the crucial distinction between “competition” — a kind of connection with the potential to be carried on in healthy ways — and “exclusion,” an attempt to sever connection that necessarily leads to conflict if the domain is significant. Biden’s exclusion policies focus on cutting China out of the principal growth sectors in the global economy and the most lucrative and strategically important markets. Administration officials think their approach is sensible and moderate compared to more extreme voices in Washington calling for exclusion in all realms. Even so, the Biden approach is highly destabilizing because both countries consider the targeted areas vital to the future of global authority and economic prosperity, and because the attempt to trap China in a position of permanent subordination represents a serious threat to the legitimacy of China’s leaders. Healthy competition requires a shared stake in the future. In earlier periods, despite sharp tensions and mutual suspicions suffusing the relationship, U.S.–China ties were stabilized first by the joint project of containing Soviet power and then by a shared commitment to market–led globalization. Now that leaders on both sides are disenchanted with key facets of globalization, the two countries are caught in an escalatory cycle of exclusion and retaliation that risks hardening zero–sum pressures in the global system into a permanent structure of hostility. In such a scenario, each country would organize its own society and international partners to undermine the other, dramatically increasing the likelihood of violent conflict. The warning signs are already clear on both sides, as each increasingly interprets every action on the other side as part of a conspiracy to achieve domination. Notwithstanding widespread complacency about the risks of conflict after a tentative diplomatic opening in recent months, the rise of securitized thinking in both countries is steadily building institutional and ideological momentum for confrontation that can only be broken by a new and inclusive direction for the relationship.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Political stability, Conflict, Strategic Competition, and Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

4. Common Good Diplomacy: A Framework for Stable U.S.–China Relations

Author:
Jake Werner
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
One curious feature of the emerging U.S.–China conflict is that each side claims to be defending the existing international order against the threat the other poses to it. Hidden beneath this seemingly irreconcilable dispute is a crucial truth: both the United States and China are status quo powers, sharing a deep interest in a stable global security environment and an open global economy. At the same time, both countries are pursuing urgently needed reforms to a global system increasingly defined by zero–sum pressures. Yet both are prone to exclusionary impulses that threaten to ruin the possibility of a shared reform agenda and instead throw the world into conflict. Working with China to revitalize the international order would not only prevent such a conflict, it would also establish the conditions for healthy forms of both competition and cooperation in the U.S.–China relationship. But how can U.S. leaders pursue such a project without simply giving a pass to China’s sometimes undesirable behavior? The focus should be diplomacy to frame an inclusive global system, focusing on actions that would reduce zero–sum constraints. In the three key realms of global authority and security, the global economy, and climate change, China is currently engaged in counterproductive moves that exacerbate existing tensions but is also pursuing promising reforms that could expand the scope for positive–sum outcomes. Rather than seeking to counter every Chinese initiative, U.S. leaders should carefully distinguish between beneficial and damaging outcomes, affirming and building on China’s constructive proposals and managing differences through negotiation rather than polemics and confrontation. Some potentially fruitful areas for cooperation include joint action to limit climate change, development in the Global South, revising the global guidelines for economic statecraft, and reforming international institutions to create a more open and inclusive world order. Pursuing cooperative efforts in such areas would both create direct benefits and improve U.S. credibility as a responsible leader of the world order rather than simply a rival of China. It would also open space to pursue competition within a rules–based order rather than risk a slide into destructive zero–sum conflict.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Political stability, and International Order
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

5. A New Horizon in U.S. Trade Policy: Key Developments and Questions for the Biden Administration

Author:
Trevor Sutton and Mike Williams
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
This issue brief examines some of the key trade initiatives pursued by the Biden administration to date. It then sets out key questions facing U.S. trade policy in a global environment defined by volatility and renewed ambition to tackle the great challenges of the 21st century, such as climate change, inequality, and great power competition.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Treaties and Agreements, European Union, Inequality, Economy, Trade Policy, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific, United States of America, and Americas

6. The Fourteen Facts about US Aid to Ukraine

Author:
Luke Coffey
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
Since Russia invaded Ukraine for the second time in eight years, Russian troops have ravaged Ukraine’s cities, raped its women, and stolen its children. Russian missiles and Iranian drones strike Ukrainian cities daily, often hitting civilian targets. Russia is the aggressor. Ukraine is the victim. For Americans who believe in respect for national borders, the primacy of national sovereignty, and the right to self-defense, support for Ukraine is natural. Ukrainians are not asking for, nor do they want, US troops to help them fight Russia. All they ask for is the resources required to give them a fighting chance. Meanwhile, Russia is among America’s top geopolitical adversaries. As former Secretary of State and Hudson Distinguished Fellow Mike Pompeo said last week, a Russian victory “would be felt well beyond Ukraine’s borders, including by strengthening a Russia-China-Iran alliance that aims to weaken the US and our allies across the globe.” As Congress debates additional support for Ukraine, detractors will spread false and misleading information. It is important to understand the facts.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Military Aid, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Europe, Ukraine, North America, and United States of America

7. Time to Recalibrate America’s Middle East Policy

Author:
Raphael BenLevi and Michael Doran
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
Our understanding of reality in the Middle East has changed significantly in the last seven years. At a conference on US-Israel relations in 2016, then Secretary of State John Kerry highlighted, now famously, the impossibility of Israel making peace with the Gulf states. In an obvious reference to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his associates, Kerry said, “I’ve heard several prominent politicians in Israel sometimes saying, ‘Well, the Arab world is in a different place now. We just have to reach out to them. We can work some things with the Arab world, and we’ll deal with the Palestinians.’” Kerry dismissed Netanyahu’s thesis with total certainty: “No. No, no, and no. I can tell you that I’ve talked to the leaders of the Arab community. There will be no advanced and separate peace with the Arab world without the Palestinian process and Palestinian peace. Everybody needs to understand that. That is a hard reality.” Just two years later, Netanyahu refuted Kerry’s view of reality by, with the help of President Donald Trump, signing the Abraham Accords with Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al-Zayani and Emirati Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan. But the flaws that Trump and Netanyahu revealed were not Kerry’s alone. Nor were the flaws limited to thinking about Arab-Israeli relations. Trump and Netanyahu were attacking the entire strategic belief system of the Obama administration, which had identified reconciling with Iran and brokering a Palestinian-Israeli peace as the two top priorities of the United States in the Middle East. In the Trump-Netanyahu conception, the Abraham Accords were the cornerstone of a regional alliance that aimed not just to improve relations between Israel and its neighbors but also to contain Iran militarily and to prevent it, through the application of hard power, from acquiring a nuclear weapon. With a Middle East staff consisting almost entirely of veterans of the Obama administration, the Biden administration intended to prove the utility of Obama’s effort to reconcile with Iran. It therefore rejected the Trump-Netanyahu view of the accords as a key component of an Iran-containment strategy. However, the accords have fashioned a new “hard reality” of Arab-Israeli coordination that the administration cannot ignore. That reality includes formal Israeli representation at US Central Command, the military’s combatant operations command responsible for, among other things, deterring Iran. In other words, beneath the umbrella of the United States military, the Israeli military and its Arab counterparts are now liaising daily. Weren’t Trump and Netanyahu pursuing this outcome? The simple answer is no. To prevent trilateral military cooperation among the Arab states, Israel, and the United States from turning into a coalition designed to pressure Iran regarding the aggression of its proxy forces and the expansion of its nuclear weapons program, the Biden administration instructed CENTCOM to focus exclusively on defensive measures and integrated missile defense, and to avoid any offensive countermeasures against Iran. But defending against an aggressor with only a shield is impossible. Arming oneself with a sword is also necessary. Enter Raphael BenLevi, the director of the Churchill Program for Strategy, Statesmanship and National Security at the Argaman Institute of Tikvah Fund Israel. BenLevi is at the forefront of a new generation of foreign policy strategists in Israel who have come of age in an era when what seemed like a “hard reality” to the generation of John Kerry is now obviously history. In this article, he lays out a strong case for the potential of the kind of trilateral cooperation to which the Biden administration, under the weight of stale ideas, has turned a blind eye.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Middle East, North America, and United States of America

8. Why a Ukrainian Victory Matters to Americans

Author:
Peter Rough and Luke Coffey
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
Ukraine aid is a good investment for the US. The United States has given Ukraine $43.7 billion in military assistance since Russia’s full-scale invasion last year. This is about 5 percent of America’s fiscal year 2023 defense budget, or less than two-tenths of 1 percent of its gross domestic product. Ukraine is degrading one of America’s two major adversaries. Ukraine has destroyed more than 11,350 pieces of Russian military equipment, including 2,164 main battle tanks, 2,566 infantry fighting vehicles, more than 500 pieces of towed artillery and multiple rocket launchers, 84 aircraft, 99 helicopters, and 12 naval ships—all without shedding a single drop of US blood. President Zelensky: “Ukraine never asked American soldiers to fight on our land instead of us.” Ukraine matters to the US economy. In 2021, Europe accounted for $3.19 trillion of foreign capital investment in the US (out of a total of $4.98 trillion). In 2022, 45 out of 50 states—including the largest single-state economy, California—exported more goods to Europe than to China. Ukraine shapes global commodities markets. Ukraine ranks in the top ten in the production of corn, wheat, barley, sunflower, sunflower oil, sunflower meal, and canola. It has reserves of 117 of the 120 most widely used minerals and metals in the world, including titanium, iron, lithium, coal, and other energy deposits. At present, Russia occupies Ukrainian territory containing at least $12.4 trillion worth of raw materials.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Military Aid, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Europe, Ukraine, and North America

9. Helping the Afghan Allies America Left Behind

Author:
Luke Coffey
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
In February 2020, President Donald Trump agreed to a deal with the Taliban that would have seen the phased withdrawal of United States forces from Afghanistan by May 2021. This agreement served as the starting point that eventually led to the Afghan government’s collapse and the Taliban’s return to power. In January 2021, President Joe Biden entered office. Instead of canceling the flawed agreement with the Taliban—something that was in his power to do—he merely delayed America’s withdrawal date from May to September. By July, almost all US and international forces had left. On August 15, the Taliban took Kabul. By September 11, 2021, the twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban controlled more of Afghanistan than it did on September 11, 2001. During the chaotic retreat, the US left an estimated $7 billion in military equipment in Afghanistan, most of which has now fallen into the hands of the Taliban or ended up on the black market around the region. However, this hefty price tag pales in comparison to the moral cost of leaving behind tens of thousands of Afghan allies who sacrificed so much for the United States over 20 years. In the weeks leading up to the final withdrawal, the US and its international partners attempted to evacuate Afghans who helped the international coalition over the years. By any objective measurement, this effort was a failure. The evidence of this failure was clear for the world to see during the final chaotic weeks at Kabul International Airport.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Taliban, and Refugees
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, South Asia, North America, and United States of America

10. Brace yourself: How the 2024 US presidential election could affect Europe

Author:
Célia Belin, Majda Ruge, and Jeremy Shapiro
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
A profound debate is taking place among US political parties about America’s future foreign policy orientation. Democrats and Republicans are aligned on some issues, such as the strategic rivalry with China, protecting domestic manufacturing, and access to strategic technologies. But the parties also disagree on subjects of crucial importance to Europeans such as climate action, the war in Ukraine, and the United States’ relationship with its allies. Within both the Democratic and Republican parties, three tribes exert influence over party foreign policy and will shape the stance of future administrations. On America’s global posture and military presence abroad, the parties are split between those who believe in limited international US engagement, others who argue for prioritising the Indo-Pacific, and advocates of continued US global leadership or even primacy. Europeans must not simply hope they can accommodate potentially dramatic shifts in US policy in the coming years, but should instead take steps now to enhance and protect their own position in the world.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Elections, Domestic Politics, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

11. A Strategy for US Public Diplomacy in the Age of Disinformation

Author:
Bret Schafer, Rachael Dean Wilson, and Jessica Brandt
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
“Would you rather have the bitter truth or more sweet lies?” This is the question posed by an assertive series of videos produced by the State Department in recent months, targeting Russian audiences, that juxtapose statements by Russian President Vladimir Putin with evidence that he is lying about the course of the war in Ukraine. DOWNLOAD PDF The effort, alongside revelations laid bare by Washington and its allies at the start of the war, reflects a new understanding: that the information domain is perhaps the most consequential terrain that Putin is contesting and that it is an essential theater of the broader, emerging, persistent, asymmetric competition between liberal democracies and their authoritarian challengers. As part of this competition, autocrats—in Moscow and Beijing, but also elsewhere—have leveraged multiple asymmetries. Both Russia and China operate vast propaganda networks that use multiple modes of communication—from state media websites to popular social media accounts to leading search engines—to disseminate their preferred, often slanted, versions of events. Both have spread multiple, sometimes conflicting, conspiracy theories designed to deflect blame for their own malfeasance, undermine the soft power of the United States, and erode the idea that there is such a thing as objective truth. Both also deploy proxy influencers to agitate anti-American sentiment and frequently engage in “whataboutism” to cast US policy as hypocritical to audiences around the world. Some of this content is targeted at broad swaths of the public within Western societies—in Russia’s case with the goal of polarizing them, and in so doing, weakening Europe and the United States from within. Other content is targeted at the global south, with the goal of eroding popular support for Western policies and, in China’s case, promoting alternatives to the Western model. For the United States, like other democracies, an open information environment confers enormous long-term advantages, but it also creates vulnerabilities that can be exploited using low-cost tools and tactics, often with plausible deniability. Where democracies depend on the idea that the truth is knowable and citizens can discern it to govern themselves, autocracies have no such need for a vibrant, open, trusted information environment. In fact, autocrats benefit from widespread public skepticism in the notion of objective truth. Because autocratic regimes tightly control their own information environments, they are more insulated from criticism than democratic ones. Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping effectively ban many Western social media platforms from operating within their borders in order to close space for dissent, all the while using them quite effectively to target audiences abroad. In doing so, unlike their democratic competitors, autocrats face few normative constraints on lying—a dynamic they freely exploit. As a result, autocrats have made remarkable advances in the contest that is now underway in the information domain. To push back on these advances, the United States should leverage its own asymmetric advantages—including its economic might, cyber capabilities, soft power, and the legitimacy that comes from democratic governance—recognizing that successful competitors play to their strengths. A focal point of US strategy should be to harness truthful information to contest the information domain, recognizing that competition in this realm is ongoing and there is a first mover advantage to setting the terms of the debate. Such an approach should entail simultaneously highlighting the strengths of liberal democracies (such as their openness to new information and ability to course correct, innovate, and improve) and the failures and false promises of authoritarian regimes (like kleptocracy and repression). It must do so not just to reach those who live in closed spaces, such as Russia and China, but to reach those who live in countries that are backsliding or where democracy is not fully consolidated. This paper—which is based on conversations with more than a dozen subject-matter experts, including current and former diplomats—offers recommendations for updating US public diplomacy to compete successfully with Russia and China. The focus, however, is limited to US international broadcasting and strategic communication activities and does not include recommendations to improve other elements of US public diplomacy, including but not limited to cultural diplomacy and people-to-people exchanges. The authors recognize that public diplomacy is not merely about crafting a winning message and that an effective US approach must include activities that lie outside of the information domain. This paper should therefore be viewed as an attempt at improving a piece of, but not the whole, public diplomacy puzzle.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Democracy, Media, and Disinformation
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

12. Pariah or Partner? Clarifying the U.S. Approach to Cambodia

Author:
Gregory B. Poling, Charles Dunst, and Simon Tran Hudes
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
U.S. policy toward Cambodia is conflicted, contradictory, and unsustainable. Is Cambodia an authoritarian pariah to be punished until it undergoes systemic political change? Or is it a necessary partner on the front lines of great-power competition? The U.S. government has spent the last decade torn between righteous indignation over democratic backsliding and pragmatic engagement given U.S. interests in the region. For a while, muddling through was understandable, maybe even wise. The United States only recently cemented a bipartisan consensus on the importance of the wider Indo-Pacific in strategic competition with China. And without that consensus, it was unclear how much Cambodia really mattered to U.S. national interests. Plus, authoritarian shifts under Prime Minister Hun Sen were initially tempered by political compromises. But now it is time to stop muddling. Cambodia sits in a neighborhood too important to ignore. If political change comes to the country, it will be generational and have little or nothing to do with foreign pressure. In the meantime, Washington should not embrace Hun Sen’s regime but should be more strategic in working with it.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Hegemony, and Superpower
Political Geography:
Asia, Cambodia, North America, and United States of America

13. What do we know about cyber operations during militarized crises?

Author:
Michael Fischerkeller
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The Department of Defense (DoD) will soon kick off the drafting of its cyber strategy and cyber posture review to align US cyber capabilities and operating concepts with the foreign policy objectives of the Joseph Biden-Kamala Harris administration. Given that the administration describes China as the “pacing threat,” debates over the best use of cyber operations and campaigns will likely be framed by US-China interaction in day-to-day competition, and by a potential militarized crisis and war over the status of Taiwan. This essay focuses on how cyber operations employed during militarized crises are likely to impact escalation management. Policymakers may be attracted to the idea that cyber operations could serve as de-escalatory offramps in a crisis. Such expectations should be tempered, if not completely set aside, for two reasons. First, there is no experience with cyber operations employed during a militarized crisis between two nuclear-armed peers. Absent direct experience, all one can rely on is academic research. Yet, secondly, deductive and empirical academic research provides no basis for confidence that cyber operations are either de-escalatory or non-escalatory in the context of militarized crises.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cybersecurity, Crisis Management, and Militarization
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

14. The US strategies in Iraq: A policy debate with Amb. Matthew Tueller

Author:
Middle East Research Institute
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Middle East Research Institute (MERI)
Abstract:
“We are making good progress on constructing a permanent Consulate General in Erbil, the largest US Consulate facility anywhere in the world. And I see that as the nature of the long-term strategic commitment that the United States has to Iraq and to the Kurdistan Region”, said Matthew H. Tueller, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, in a MERI policy debate on 15 May 2022. In this special roundtable, Amb. Tueller outlined the US policies in Iraq and stressed that the strong and long-term strategic partnership between the two countries goes far beyond the military aspect of relationship. It intends to move towards a “shared goal of Iraq as an emerging strong, stable and sovereign state”, which can protect its borders and ensure that no armed forces outside of the government control can influence inside. These are “ongoing challenges” that Iraq faces and the US is trying to help in overcoming them.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Hegemony, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

15. 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

16. The Case for Inclusive Agricultural Development

Author:
Benjamin Allen, Jacqueline Ashby, John Coonrod, and Wawira Njiru
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
Amid shifts towards inclusive agricultural development, the Center for Global Food and Agriculture offers policy recommendations for further US government action. Reflecting both the development consensus and the challenges of transformational reform, USAID Administrator Samantha Power announced an ambitious new focus on inclusive development for the agency in 2021. Her announcement followed the publication of a draft policy on local capacity development, which provides a framework for shifting overall organizational approaches to development. The policy helps establish an agencywide understanding of what locally led development means and a unified system for building on local strengths to achieve local goals. Nevertheless, there are substantial and legitimate reasons why inclusive development assistance remains elusive. Recent research from the Brookings Institution provides an excellent summary of the legal and regulatory impediments, including budgetary rigidity, risk mitigation, and the limits of local organizational capacity.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Agriculture, Food, and International Development
Political Geography:
Africa, North America, and United States of America

17. Memo on an "Economic Article 5" to Counter Authoritarian Coercion

Author:
Ivo H. Daalder and Anders Fogh Rasmussen
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
The world's democracies need a way to fight back against coercive economic actions by authoritarian governments, argue Ivo Daalder and Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Increasingly, authoritarian countries are using economic coercion against democracies. In recent years, China’s economic coercion of Lithuania and Australia stands out as a prominent example. Russia uses economic levers to achieve geopolitical aims, notably by weaponizing its natural resources. The aim of such coercion is to bend the will of democratic countries. This is a test for the free world. In response, we propose an Economic Article 5 among democracies to counter authoritarian coercion.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Authoritarianism, Economy, Business, and Trade
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

18. Combating Global Hunger as an American Foreign Policy Priority

Author:
Gloria Dabek and Emily Sullivan
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
While not traditionally prioritized as a tool of foreign policy, combatting world hunger has high bipartisan support from the American public. Global hunger can often get lost in American foreign policy discussions amid concerns about military engagements, trade relationships, and international cooperation and competition. However, the 2021 Chicago Council Survey found that a majority of Americans believe that combating global hunger should be of some importance to US foreign policy.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Agriculture, Food, Public Opinion, and Hunger
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

19. Principled pragmatism: Europe’s place in a multipolar Middle East

Author:
Julien Barnes-Dacey and Hugh Lovatt
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
A multipolar Middle East is emerging as the US “right-sizes” its posture in the region – and as regional states and external powers, including Russia and China, become more assertive. Russia’s war on Ukraine is accelerating these dynamics, while also provoking destabilising price shocks and underscoring the region’s importance to energy markets. The Middle East’s geopolitical shifts pose huge challenges to Europe, but multipolarity could create space to promote European interests more effectively. A coherent European approach should be guided by principled pragmatism: acknowledging the region as it is rather than as Europeans want it to be, while staying focused on the principles needed to secure longer-term stability. Europeans need to enhance transatlantic complementarity and stop ceding leverage to their Middle Eastern partners. While they compete for influence with Russia and China, they should maintain room for coordination with both countries. Europe should tap into the opportunities created by stabilisation support, green energy, and economic diversification – areas that could provide an edge over China.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, Multipolarity, Strategic Interests, Pragmatism, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Ukraine, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

20. China's New Trade Strategy amid US-China Confrontation and Implications

Author:
Sang Baek Hyun, Wonho Yeon, Suyeob Na, Young Sun Kim, and Yunmi Oh
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
In 2021, China has reached the point of entering a new stage of socialist development by declaring the achievement of the goal of building ‘a comprehensive well-off society’. Since the reform and opening up of China, the paradigm of economic and social development is facing the greatest turning point from ‘getting rich first’ to ‘common prosperity’. As the US checks on China intensify during this period of economic transition in China, China is pursuing a new trade strategy to respond to it. In order to understand the changes in the global trade environment in the era of the US-China conflict, it is necessary to understand both the US checks with China and China's trade strategy to respond to them. Most of the recent US-China conflicts are analyzed from the perspective of the US checking in with China, but it is necessary to take a balanced look at what kind of countermeasures China is seeking in order to correctly forecast and prepare for changes in the global trade environment in the future.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Global Markets, Trade, and Economic Development
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America