Search

Begin New Search Topic Geopolitics Content Type Special Report

61. Advancing a Liberal Digital Order in the Indo-Pacific

Author:
Lisa Curtis, Joshua Fitt, and Jacob Stokes
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
The United States and other regional democracies risk losing ground in the competition to shape Asia’s digital future. China is making rapid inroads in developing the region’s 5G infrastructure and is playing an increasingly expansive role in the broader digital ecosystems of Indo-Pacific countries. Beijing’s position at the center of Asia’s developing digital order poses a series of challenges to the interests of America and its democratic allies and partners—ranging from the potential compromise of critical networks to the development of new technology standards that favor Chinese companies and undermine civil liberties. Policymakers are scrambling to ascertain how to compete effectively with China in the digital space, when Chinese companies and technology are already interwoven into the digital landscape. These Chinese companies are obligated to assist China on national security, intelligence, and cyber security issues, raising the prospect that they could be employed to carry out espionage or sabotage in the service of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) geopolitical goals. In the case of 5G telecommunication network development, the United States will need to expand its campaign to promote additional trusted vendors who can supply safe, reliable, and cost-effective alternatives to Chinese offerings. Shaping the 5G ecosystem now will set the stage for how the broader U.S.-China technology competition will play out over the next decade. Undersea fiber-optic cables represent another area of technology infrastructure that is being contested between China and the United States. With nearly 95 percent of intercontinental internet data flowing through these undersea cables, it is imperative that they be treated and protected like other critical technologies and infrastructure. Washington must recognize that many issues in digital development remain ambiguous, and it must craft policies that account for the field’s complexity. For example, some countries will seek to maintain a relatively liberal political environment while embracing Chinese technology for economic development purposes. Others will seek out alternatives to Chinese suppliers as a means of maintaining their own security and independence but might still employ those technologies in illiberal ways in order to suppress dissent and maintain political control at home. Moreover, the fast-moving nature of innovation in digital technologies means that technological development will often outpace the creation of liberal political, legal, and regulatory regimes—even in the United States. The development of democratic norms and best practices to combat disinformation, restrict surveillance technologies, and give individuals the right to control their own data is still in a nascent stage. In other words, much of what constitutes a liberal digital order is still being defined. The challenges to ensuring a future liberal digital order are immense; to meet them, the United States must develop a multifaceted approach that prioritizes coordination with democratic allies and partners. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue between Australia, India, Japan, and the United States, or the Quad, will play a key role in ensuring protection of emerging and critical technologies through its newly formed working group, announced following the first-ever leaders-level Quad summit in mid-March. Working closely with other technologically advanced Indo-Pacific allies and partners such as South Korea and Taiwan on digital development initiatives will also be important. The degree to which the United States can work with democratic allies and partners to pool resources and capabilities, while also setting mutually agreed standards and guidelines for use of digital technologies, will determine whether those technologies are harnessed in a way that advances free and open societies or contributes to strengthening autocratic regimes.
Topic:
Infrastructure, Geopolitics, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

62. Hedging by Default: The Limits of EU “Strategic Autonomy” in a Binary World Order

Author:
Richard Higgott and Simon Reich
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
For some time, international relations has trended in the direction of an American and Chinese dominated binary world order. While the Trump administration has been an accelerator not a cause of this trend between 2016 and 2020, not coincidentally the post 2016 era has also seen key EU figures move to develop a strategy of greater "strategic autonomy". This interest in strategic autonomy was, in no small part, a reflection of growing European distrust in the reliability of both China and, increasingly, the USA. The paper shows, in contrast to the Cold War era during which the EU was unambiguously aligned, how the EU now appears to have embarked on a hedging strategy, albeit implemented more by default than design. In its desire to defend its core interests the EU appears to lean to one side or the other on an issue by issue basis in at least seven key policy domains identified in the paper. This approach is seen to be the outcome of its dual desire to articulate the values of its much touted “Geopolitical Commission" at the same time as it tries to continue its traditional institutional commitment to multilateralism. The paper concludes that the ambiguity present in this endeavour to straddle the realist-liberal fence only serves to expose the limitations of the strategy.
Topic:
International Relations, European Union, Geopolitics, and Strategic Autonomy
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and United States of America

63. Changing Dynamics of Pak-US Relations and the Challenge of Soft Power

Author:
Moonis Ahmar
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
There is a history of ups and downs in Pak-US relations since early 1950s till today. From the period of alliances to ostensible hostility and indifference, the changing dynamics of Pak-US relations must be analysed from a pragmatic point of view where power, national interests, security and sovereignty matter. Furthermore, mistrust, suspicions, ill-will and paranoia still influence the political, security, economic and power dynamics of relations between Pakistan and the United States. This research follows the theory of soft power due to two main reasons. First, instead of being a ‘patron-client’ relationship, PakUS relations could be transformed by focusing on diplomacy, trade and technology instead of threats and coercion. Second, President Obama’s policy of ‘do more’ for Pakistan in combating terrorism in Afghanistan proved to be counterproductive as anti-Americanism surged in Pakistan. Overcoming the bitterness of the past in Pak-US relations will be a major challenge to the Biden-Harris administration. Moving forward in Pak-US relations will require political will, determination, prudence and trust from both sides. It is up to the leadership from both countries to foster trust and take confidence building measures which can transform their relations from patron-client to partners in progress. Shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics will ensure a win-win situation for both sides in the years to come.
Topic:
Economics, Violent Extremism, Democracy, Geopolitics, and Soft Power
Political Geography:
Pakistan, South Asia, North America, and United States of America

64. Jordan’s Path in 2021: Trends and Scenarios

Author:
Zaid Eyadat
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic Studies (CSS)
Abstract:
In an increasingly complex region, Jordan, for decades an oasis of stability, has carved for itself a moderating and stabilizing role in a region that is often viewed as immoderate and unstable [1]. Jordan’s strategy lays with maintaining a leading and peace-making role that has enabled it to limit instability. The Middle East is not getting any simpler. In a region with a complicated history, and distinctive ideologies and sects, geopolitical shifts are inevitable, and predicting the future could be an unattainable goal. Nevertheless, accuracy in reading current geopolitical changes and key trends along with their implications will, and should, help Jordan mitigate risks, maintain stability, and preserve its regional role. The Center for Strategic Studies (CSS) at the University of Jordan, presents potential scenarios to anticipate the future of Jordan and the region, in an attempt to understand the geostrategic and political changes that have occurred or are expected to take place and their impact on Jordan in the years to come. This study, titled “Jordan’s Path in 2021: Trends and Scenarios” aims to reveal the underlying significance and future implications of major emerging internal and regional key trends. It ought to provide correct predictions for shifts in geopolitical power balance, which will help policymakers make informed and knowledgeable decisions. CSS is delighted to share the results of the January survey carried out in 2021 and wishes to thank the 174 experts who participated in it. The results include the experts’ assessment of key trends in Jordan, as well as key trends related to other countries, such as the GCC, Turkey, Israel, Iran, and Egypt. It will be interesting to monitor how the trends play out over the next few months and to assess its precautions on Jordan.
Topic:
Economics, Politics, Geopolitics, Strategic Stability, and Future
Political Geography:
Iran, Turkey, Middle East, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Gulf Cooperation Council

65. Making BIMSTEC a Regional Vehicle for Nepal’s Economic Growth

Author:
Sunil KC
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Recently, the government of Nepal, led by Nepal Communist Party Chairman KP Sharma Oli who ascended to power in 2018, came up with an integrated foreign policy that reflects rapid changes in both the domestic and geopolitical spheres. The new foreign policy has shifted from a traditional course to a modern one with “Economic Diplomacy” as the main driver. With the slogan of “Happy Nepali, Prosperous Nepal”, Foreign Minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali has prioritized engagement with regional groupings. It is in this context that the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation or (BIMSTEC), established in 1996, with a permanent secretariat in Dhaka, Bangladesh, could serve as an important platform in achieving Nepal’s foreign policy goals of development and prosperity. Nepal became a member of BIMSTEC in 2004.. BIMSTEC acts as a vital bridge for Nepal to connect with South and Southeast Asia to expand its trade, economy, business, investments, and cultural connections. However, due to an unstable domestic political environment, Nepal has not been utilizing regional forums in advancing the nation’s interest. Now, with a stable government in power, Nepal must look at regional forums as important gateways for conducting business and national development.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, Geopolitics, and Economic Growth
Political Geography:
South Asia, Nepal, and Southeast Asia

66. India’s Options in a Contested Environment: Constraints and Prospects

Author:
Prakash Gopal
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
The past year has witnessed tumultuous and unforeseen changes in the global geopolitical landscape due to the pandemic. While India struggles to contain its devastating second wave, it is simultaneously confronted with a significant national security challenge from across the disputed Himalayan border with China. A skirmish along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) that started in May 2020 escalated rapidly into a full-blown crisis, with clashes in Galwan on June 15, 2020, causing casualties on both sides. After multiple rounds of talks, the crisis remains unresolved and has starkly exposed India’s lack of credible deterrence that could either deny or punish China’s belligerence across the unsettled border. In response to the border crisis, the Indian government promoted and contributed to the rapid coalescence of the quadrilateral security dialogue (Quad)—a loose coalition of the United States, Japan, Australia, and India. Notable milestones in the Quad’s accelerated development include the addition of Australia in the Malabar series of naval exercises and several high-level meetings of officials from the four countries, the highest-profile of which being the first leaders’ summit in March 2021. The assumption that India’s sudden moves to consolidate the Quad were driven primarily by Chinese actions along the LAC may be debated. Nevertheless, if that is the case, it follows that India views its renewed efforts in coalition-building as part of a solution to its China problem. Though the Quad may be useful in tackling security threats in the larger Indo-Pacific region, in the near term, it is unlikely to meaningfully contribute to bolstering India’s ability to deter China along land borders or in the maritime domain.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Security, Geopolitics, Borders, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
China, South Asia, and India

67. How to Recalibrate U.S. Policy in the Middle East

Author:
Douglas A. Ollivant
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Foreign Policy Research Institute
Abstract:
Changes in the Middle East have not been sufficiently accounted for in U.S. policy towards the region. Instead, policy has lagged, grounded in anachronism. This report provides five policy recommendations to fix this problem: focus Middle East policy on Chinese influence, empower the State Department, re-evaluate the purpose and location of military basing and forces, prioritize business interests, and acknowledge the reality of interacting with authoritarian states. In doing so, the United States can shift resources away from the region and still protect key interests and partners.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Military Affairs, Authoritarianism, Geopolitics, and Strategic Encirclement
Political Geography:
Middle East and United States of America

68. Reconceptualizing Lithuania’s Importance for U.S. Foreign Policy

Author:
Nikolas Gvosdev
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Foreign Policy Research Institute
Abstract:
During the immediate post-Cold War period, the importance of Lithuania, along with other Central-Eastern European countries, to U.S. foreign policy increased. Lithuania became one of the jumping-off points for further “democratic enlargement” in Europe, Eurasia, and the Greater Middle East. Today, U.S. policy is focused on retrenchment and consolidation—defined by a shift in attention and resources away from the Euro-Atlantic region and the Greater Middle East towards the Indo-Pacific region—as well as the growing priority of climate change and the environment as central organizing principles. U.S. foreign policy is also increasingly subordinated to domestic political considerations about the costs and benefits of overseas action for constituencies within the United States. In the 2020s, Lithuania’s importance will rest less on the Russia dimension and further Euro-Atlantic enlargement into the post-Soviet space, and more on its ability to play a greater role in European affairs, to assist in the rebalance to Asian affairs more generally, and to contribute to energy, supply chain, and environmental security.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Energy Policy, Geopolitics, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
Europe, Eurasia, Lithuania, and United States of America

69. Zapad 2021 and Russia’s Potential for Warfighting

Author:
Johan Norberg and Natalie Simpson
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Foreign Policy Research Institute
Abstract:
According to press information, on 10 September 2021, the Russian Armed Forces plan to start the one-week-long active phase of this year’s annual strategic-level exercise (STRATEX), Zapad (West) 2021, a bilateral large-scale Russo-Belorussian strategic-level exercise, primarily in Belarus and Russia’s Western Military District (MD, see map 1). Large-scale Russian exercises understandably attract much attention and speculation both in Russia and abroad. Most Western comments about Zapad 2017 addressed Russian and international political aspects and detailed several capabilities employed in the exercise and its scenarios or steps and phases. Few, if any, addressed what it meant for the potential of Russian forces to fight wars, which these exercises are all about actually. Russia’s warfighting potential is important for the West writ large for several reasons. Tensions between Russia and NATO are increasing. Russia perceives a growing military threat in its west. Russian strategic documents re-emphasise the importance of military power. Russia actually uses military force to achieve its geopolitical goals, such as in Eastern Ukraine and in Syria.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Armed Forces, Military Affairs, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, and Belarus

70. Cooperation, Competition, and Compartmentalization: Russian-Turkish Relations and Their Implications for the West

Author:
Robert E. Hamilton and Anna Mikulska
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Foreign Policy Research Institute
Abstract:
The relationship between the Russian Federation and Republic of Turkey is one of the most important bilateral relationships in Eurasia today. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) original adversary and one of its earliest members have in recent times veered sharply between cooperation—often against NATO’s interests—and competition so intense that it seemed war between them was possible. Politically, their leaders and their systems of government share a basic compatibility predicated on authoritarianism and resistance to what they claim is Western meddling in internal affairs. Militarily, Moscow and Ankara have at times cooperated closely. For instance, the two have worked to marginalize the U.S. military’s influence in Syria, and Turkey has purchased and deployed Russian S-400 air defense systems, putting its defense relationship with the United States in jeopardy. At other times, such as in the military escalation in Idlib (Syria), the Libyan Civil War, and the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict, the two have found themselves backing different sides and had to work assiduously to prevent a direct military clash. Economically, the relationship has been historically unbalanced in Russia’s favor, but Turkey’s increasing trade in services and emergence as an important energy storage and transport hub may change this. The two economies share a basic complementarity, with few areas where they compete in the production of goods and services. This dynamic may increase the ability of their economic relationship to act as a “shock absorber” and minimize the impact of disruptions in other facets of their ties. Overall, Moscow and Ankara have worked to emphasize areas of cooperation and “compartmentalize” areas of difference. Policymakers in Western capitals will need to develop an understanding of the drivers of the Russian-Turkish relationship and their effects on Western interests.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, Geopolitics, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, Turkey, Middle East, and Syria