Search

You searched for: Content Type Working Paper Remove constraint Content Type: Working Paper Publishing Institution Institute for National Strategic Studies Remove constraint Publishing Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies Political Geography United States Remove constraint Political Geography: United States Publication Year within 25 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 25 Years Topic Foreign Policy Remove constraint Topic: Foreign Policy
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: Phillip C. Saunders
  • Publication Date: 08-2013
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: Upon taking office in January 2009, Obama administration officials proclaimed a U.S. “return to Asia.” This pronouncement was backed with more frequent travel to the region by senior officials (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's first trip was to Asia) and increased U.S. participation in regional multilateral meetings, culminating in the decision to sign the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and to participate in the East Asia Summit (EAS) at the head-of-state level. The strategic “rebalance to Asia” announced in November 2011 builds on these earlier actions to deepen and institutionalize U.S. commitment to the Asia-Pacific region.
  • Topic: Security, Foreign Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Economics, Bilateral Relations
  • Political Geography: United States, Israel, Asia
  • Author: John W. Parker, Michael Kofman
  • Publication Date: 03-2013
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: Russia's institution of a ban on American adoptions of Russian orphans, an appalling response by the Duma to U.S. sanctions against officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case,1 was a clear indicator that bilateral relations will assume a lower priority in the next 4 years for both capitals. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the measure despite open misgivings by some of his own key aides and against the opposition of most of Russia's civil society. The Russian Internet response was scathing, producing an instant winner for best sick joke of 2012: “An educated American family has decided to adopt a developmentally disabled Duma deputy.”.
  • Topic: Security, Foreign Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Islam, Nuclear Weapons, Bilateral Relations
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Europe, Middle East
  • Author: Stefano Santamato, Marie-Theres Beumler
  • Publication Date: 02-2013
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: The history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will say that the first, and so far only, time NATO has called upon its Article 5 collective defense clause was on September 12, 2001, following a terrorist attack on one of its members. Yet, until the agreement by NATO Heads of State and Government on the new policy guidelines on counterterrorism on May 20, 2012, NATO did not have an agreed policy to define its role and mandate in countering terrorism.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, NATO, Cold War, International Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, Counterinsurgency
  • Political Geography: United States
  • Author: T.X. Hammes
  • Publication Date: 06-2012
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: As America ends its military commitment to Iraq and continues its drawdown in Afghanistan, a lively discussion has emerged on what future challenges the Nation faces. High on every list is the requirement to deal with a rising China. In his remarks to the Australian Parliament on November 17, 2011, President Barack Obama stated, “As we end today's wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority.” As part of this re-balancing to Asia, the administration has stated that it seeks “to identify and expand areas of common interest, to work with China to build mutual trust, and to encourage China's active efforts in global problem-solving.” Clearly, the United States seeks prudent and coordinated political, economic, and military actions to further integrate China into the international system.
  • Topic: Conflict Prevention, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation
  • Political Geography: United States, China, Asia
  • Author: Nicholas Rostow
  • Publication Date: 04-2012
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: U.S. grand strategy, the calculated relationship between means and large ends, needs to be developed and implemented in an international legal context because of the nature of U.S. society and values, and the overriding requirement to prevent nuclear war. Since World War II, successive administrations have conceived of U.S. alliances, partnerships, arms control agreements, and international actions more generally as grand strategy. A central component of U.S. success has been creating, leading, and sustaining a minimum world order that all states have come to see as representing their core interests. International law cannot be and has never been far from U.S. policymaking because Americans have believed that it is essential to the maintenance of the minimum world order necessary for peace and the prevention of nuclear war insofar as it is possible to achieve these goals.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, International Law, Nuclear Weapons
  • Political Geography: United States
  • Author: E. Richard Downes
  • Publication Date: 06-2012
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: On the eve of the January 1, 2011, inauguration of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, the State Department noted that the United States “is committed to deepening our relationship on a wide range of bilateral, regional and global issues with Brazil's government and people.” President Rousseff herself declared shortly thereafter, “We will preserve and deepen the relationship with the United States.” During President Barack Obama's March 2011 visit to Brazil, both leaders cited “the progress achieved on defense issues in 2010” and stated their commitment to “follow up on the established dialogue in this area, primarily on new opportunities for cooperation.” While these rhetorical commitments are important, will they lead to greater cooperation on defense issues and improve U.S.-Brazil ties?
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Emerging Markets, Bilateral Relations
  • Political Geography: United States, Brazil, Latin America
  • Author: James J. Przystup, Ferial Ara Saeed
  • Publication Date: 09-2011
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: There is no shortage of plausible scenarios describing North Korean regime collapse or how the United States and North Korea's neighbors might respond to such a challenge. Yet comparatively little attention has been paid to the strategic considerations that may shape the responses of the United States, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Japan, China, and Russia to a North Korean crisis. These states are most likely to take action of some kind in the event the North Korean regime collapses. For the ROK (South Korea), North Korean regime collapse presents the opportunity for Korean reunification. For the other states, the outcome in North Korea will affect their influence on the peninsula and their relative weight in Asia. This study identifies the interests and objectives of these principal state actors with respect to the Korean Peninsula. Applying their interests and objectives to a generic scenario of North Korean regime collapse, the study considers possible policies that the principal state actors might use to cope with such a crisis.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Communism, Diplomacy, Regime Change
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Israel, South Korea, North Korea
  • Author: Edward Marks, Christopher J. Lamb
  • Publication Date: 12-2010
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: The inability of the President of the United States to delegate executive authority for integrating the efforts of departments and agencies on priority missions is a major shortcoming in the way the national security system of the U.S. Government functions. Statutorily assigned missions combined with organizational cultures create “stovepipes” that militate against integrated operations. This obstacle to “unity of effort” has received great attention since 9/11 but continues to adversely affect government operations in an era of increasingly multidisciplinary challenges, from counterproliferation to counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. Presidents have tried various approaches to solving the problem: National Security Council committees, “lead agencies,” and “czars,” but none have proven effective.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Governance
  • Political Geography: United States
  • Author: Johnnie Carson
  • Publication Date: 09-2004
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: In the four decades since most African states achieved independence, the continent has never been a foreign policy priority for the United States. During the early years of American engagement with Africa, Washington focused its attention on preventing communist countries from gaining major military bases or monopolistic concessions over any of the continent's important strategic minerals. Although the United States provided large amounts of development assistance and food aid to a number of African states, most American interest and support was directed toward African countries and leaders who were regarded as Cold War allies. In those countries still struggling for independence, the United States usually supported African insurgents who were pro-Western and anticommunist in their orientation. In South Africa and Namibia, Washington generally professed great sympathy for eventual majority rule and independence but largely supported the status quo out of fear that liberation groups allied with the Soviet Union or China would win power in any political transition.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Defense Policy
  • Political Geography: Africa, United States, China, America, Washington, Soviet Union
  • Author: Richard Kugler
  • Publication Date: 12-2002
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: Some analysts want to downplay dissuasion or set it aside entirely because of its ambiguity. But ignoring this emerging idea would be short sighted. Despite its haziness, the term goes to the heart of new-era geopolitics in several key regions, including Asia. If the United States can learn how to dissuade skillfully, its strategic effectiveness in troubled regions will improve significantly. When the idea of deterrence first appeared 50 years ago, it too was ambiguous. During the Cold War, however, it acquired a role of central importance once it was equipped with a full-fledged strategic theory. The same may hold true for dissuasion in the early 21st century—but only if it too is equipped with the full set of analyses and calculations needed to bring it to life.
  • Topic: International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy
  • Political Geography: United States, Asia
  • Author: John A. Cope
  • Publication Date: 10-2002
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: Colombia's new president, Alvaro Uribe, is confronting a protracted internal war and moving to assert national political authority. Hopes are being pinned on Uribe, the new “law and order” president who took office on August 7, 2002, with an overwhelming mandate to end violence, narcotics, and official corruption.
  • Topic: Security, Foreign Policy
  • Political Geography: United States, Colombia, Latin America
  • Author: Eugene B. Rumer, Richard D. Sokolsky
  • Publication Date: 05-2002
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: In 2001, President Vladimir Putin made a strategic choice for Russia's integration with the West. Indicators of this decision include Putin's quest for better relations with the United States and Europe, his stated commitment to Russian membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), his pursuit of a new relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and his almost casual dismissal of the potential major irritants in the relationship with the United States and its allies—U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the likelihood of Baltic membership in NATO, sizeable U.S. military deployments to Central Asia, and a growing U.S. military presence in Georgia. Putin has unequivocally crossed these once-insurmountable red lines despite opposition from his closest advisers and the unease of the Russian public over the American presence in Russia's backyard.
  • Topic: Security, Foreign Policy
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Europe, Georgia
  • Author: Judith S. Yaphe
  • Publication Date: 01-2002
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, the United States has tried to find a framework for understanding this enigmatic country. America defended its commitments to help an ailing Shah in exile but was ill prepared to deal with the crises that raged in and around Iran in the 1980s: U.S. diplomats were held hostage in Tehran for 444 days, militant clerics tried to export revolutionary Islamic governance across the Gulf, and Iraq invaded Iran, ostensibly to stave off a Shiah Islamist tidal wave.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy
  • Political Geography: United States, Iraq, Iran, Middle East, Tehran
  • Author: Joseph McMillan
  • Publication Date: 11-2001
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: The preponderance of Saudi citizens among the September 11 terrorists and President George Bush's ensuing announcement of a war against global terrorism have again placed the spotlight on the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. Even before September 11, U.S.-Saudi relations were approaching a crossroads. Despite long odds, America forged a successful military and political coalition with the Saudis during the Gulf war, but over the last several years bilateral ties have been seriously strained. Both sides have been inclined—and for the most part able—to keep these strains hidden from public view, but in the process the United States seems to have lost sight of the unique problems the Saudis face in working with America.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy
  • Political Geography: United States, Middle East, Saudi Arabia
  • Author: Eugene B. Rumer, Richard D. Sokolsky
  • Publication Date: 04-2001
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: Ten years after the end of the Cold War, mutual hopes that a comprehensive partnership would replace containment as the major organizing theme in U.S.-Russian relations have not been realized. The record of the 1990s has left both Russia and the United States unsatisfied. Russia looks back at the decade with bitterness and a feeling of being marginalized and slighted by the world's sole remaining superpower. It is also disappointed by its experience with Western-style reforms and mistrustful of American intentions. The United States is equally disappointed with Russia's lack of focus, inability to engage effectively abroad, and failure to implement major reforms at home. A comprehensive partnership is out of the question. Renewed competition or active containment are also not credible as organizing principles. Russia's economic, military and political/ideological weakness makes it an unlikely target of either U.S. competition or containment. Not only is Russia no longer a superpower, but its status as a regional power is in doubt.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States