Search

Begin New Search Topic Treaties and Agreements Political Geography Washington Content Type Working Paper

1. Clear-Eyed Diplomacy: Strategic Shifts Needed in the Iran Negotiations

Author:
Michael Singh
Publication Date:
02-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
If Washington is to secure an Iranian nuclear deal that is sustainable and advances American interests, it must make several adjustments to its diplomatic strategy. The Iran nuclear talks are set to resume in Vienna today, with the aim of reaching a long-term agreement to succeed the first-step "Joint Plan of Action" (JPOA). Negotiating an agreement that advances U.S. interests will require the Obama administration to deemphasize political battles in Washington and focus on the larger issues at stake, such as Iran's regional activities and the ultimate fate of the nuclear program. It should also endeavor to transform its fractious array of domestic and international allies from a weakness into a strength. Despite their tactical differences, these allies share an interest in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, as well as avoiding a military conflict and promoting regional stability and global nonproliferation.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, International Security, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
America, Iran, and Washington

2. The Key to Pressuring Assad Is UNSCR 2118

Author:
Andrew J. Tabler
Publication Date:
02-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
By focusing on the Syrian regime's faltering commitment to eliminate its chemical weapons, Washington can decisively push Damascus and Russia toward real progress on larger issues -- and also set the table for limited military strikes if they prove necessary.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, United Nations, and Armed Struggle
Political Geography:
Russia, Washington, Middle East, and Syria

3. Gambit or Endgame? The New State of Arms Control

Author:
Alexei Arbatov
Publication Date:
03-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The pursuit of nuclear arms control has enjoyed something of a renaissance recently, with the signing of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in spring 2010 in Prague. Whether that momentum will dissipate after New START or lead to further nuclear arms control agreements depends on several factors: The new U.S. and Russian nuclear doctrines. While there is always some distance between a state's declared policy and that policy's implementation, both documents show that, behind their more ambitious disarmament rhetoric, the United States and Russia maintain conservative nuclear policies that make radical nuclear disarmament unlikely—to say nothing of a nuclear-weapon-free world. The peculiarities of the recently signed and ratified New START agreement. Among these are the modest cuts stipulated by the treaty relative to its predecessors; the acrimonious ratification debates in both the U.S. and Russian legislatures; and the dim prospects for a follow-on agreement (in sharp contrast to the mood prevailing after past START agreements). The dynamics of obsolescence and modernization of U.S. and Russian strategic offensive forces. The United States should have little problem cutting its forces to get below New START's limits. Russia, however, will have problems, not in reducing its numbers, but in raising them to treaty ceilings, due to their removal of obsolete weapons from service and slow deployment of new systems. Either Russia can negotiate a New START follow-on treaty with even lower ceilings or it can accelerate the development and deployment of new systems. While the former is obviously a more attractive alternative, it would require the United States and Russia to resolve many thorny arms control issues, such as ballistic missile defense, conventional strategic weapons, and tactical nuclear weapons. Ballistic missile defense. President Obama's decision to modify the Bush administration's ballistic missile defense plans in Central Europe opened the way for New START and eased Russian concerns, even if they could never have been allayed entirely. Moscow believes that U.S. ballistic missile defense programs are ultimately designed to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent, and it is far from clear that U.S. proposals to jointly develop such capabilities with Russia would allay those concerns—or that the idea even makes any sense. Russia's perceptions of U.S. conventional strategic weapons. Russian officials are especially concerned about the U.S. Prompt Global Strike concept and do not trust American assurances that such capabilities are only directed at terrorists and rogue states. There has already been some progress made in dealing with these weapons in negotiations, and future progress on this issue will likely depend on legal agreements and confidence-building measures to scale U.S. capabilities in ways that would threaten Russia's (or China's) strategic deterrent. Joint development of ballistic missile defenses with Russia. This issue could seriously complicate Washington's and Moscow's strategic relations with China and India. Officials on both sides would do well to start small and proceed step-by-step, using incremental successes to build the momentum necessary to work through more difficult issues. Non-strategic—that is, tactical—nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, the United States and Europe relied on tactical nuclear weapons to counterbalance Warsaw Pact superiority in conventional forces in Europe; today, the situation is reversed, with Moscow relying on tactical nuclear weapons as a counterbalance not only to NATO conventional superiority but also to U.S. strategic nuclear superiority and long-range precision-guided weapons. No one now knows which weapons systems should be categorized as non-strategic, and how limits across regions could be accounted for and verified. In addition, reviving the moribund Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty is essential to dealing with the issue of tactical nuclear weapons.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, Europe, Washington, and Moscow

4. First Joint Russian-U.S. report on Cyber Conflict

Author:
Karl Rauscher and Andrey Korotkov
Publication Date:
02-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
EastWest Institute
Abstract:
In the spirit of the reset of relations between Moscow and Washington, Russian and U.S. security and cyber experts undertook to model new cooperative behavior for dealing with the most challenging security topic of our age: cybersecurity. Until now, the conventional wisdom has been that setting the “rules of the road” for cyber conflict would be both tedious and extraordinarily difficult. In this first effort, the joint team demonstrated that progress can be and is being made. This paper presents five joint recommendations that are immediately actionable and, if implemented, would be effective in preserving key humanitarian principles of the Laws of War. The progress demonstrated here can serve as a catalyst for further progress to achieve that goal. This joint paper presents the consensus findings of the Russian and U.S. experts on the Rendering of the Geneva and Hague Conventions in Cyberspace. The work is a product of a Track 2 bilateral program that seeks to open dialogue, build sustainable trust and have a positive impact in the most difficult, most critical areas for international security. In recent history, Russia and the United States have had an outsized influence on international issues. When these two countries can agree on a common approach to any particular problem, other countries are prone to listen seriously. For that reason, top experts from Russia and the United States agreed to tackle the problem of cybersecurity together. The hope is that other countries will join in this process.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Treaties and Agreements, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, Washington, and Asia

5. U.S.-Mexico Homeland Defense: A Compatible Interface

Author:
Victor E. Renuart, Jr. and Biff Baker
Publication Date:
02-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The United States and Mexico share a common history shaped by military incursions during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The bond between the American and Mexican people, however, has continued to grow closer over time despite occasional negative rhetoric from politicians in Washington, DC, and Mexico City. At local and state levels, relations solidified through the closely knit fabric of our border towns, intermarriage between families on each side of the border, and the development of infrastructure (to include water, wastewater, and gas and electricity utilities) that serves communities to the north and south. At the national level, our relationship became closer due to economic growth resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which now accounts for almost $1 billion (U.S. dollars) in trade per day between the two countries.
Topic:
Security, International Trade and Finance, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
United States, America, Washington, Latin America, North America, and Mexico

6. Preparing For A Second Nuclear Age

Author:
Ian Johnstone, Christine Wing, Bruce Jones, Elsina Wainwright, and Fiona Simpson
Publication Date:
04-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation
Abstract:
At the time of finalizing this report, the US and Russia have signed an agreement on a replacement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), just days before the opening of a high-level Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, D.C. After years of divisiveness and lack of progress, it is tempting to conclude that the nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament regime is on the upswing.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Nuclear Weapons, Terrorism, Treaties and Agreements, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Russia and Washington

7. Managing Canada-U.S. Relations in the Post 9-11 Era: Do We Need a Big Idea?

Author:
Donald Barry
Publication Date:
11-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
The remarkable growth of Canadian-U.S. economic integration, combined with the security implications of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, have brought the management of Canada-U.S. relations into sharp focus. The most important challenge facing Canadian decisionmakers is how to respond to the new security environment while ensuring the uninterrupted flow of people and commerce across the 3, 989-mile common border. The dimensions of the challenge became apparent in the immediate aftermath of September 11 when the United States temporarily closed its borders in reaction to the attacks. Quick action by the Canadian government led to the “Smart Border Declaration” in December 2001, to secure the border while facilitating the flow of low-risk people and goods. Since then, Ottawa and Washington have been working to flesh out the principles contained in the declaration and to bolster other aspects of their cooperation.
Topic:
NATO and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
United States, Washington, Canada, and North America

8. Canada and the Future of Continental Defense - A View from Washington

Author:
Dwight N. Mason
Publication Date:
09-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
The United States and Canada have had a long and successful defense relationship. This relationship is based on a shared understanding that North America is a single military theater and that each country has an obligation to the other for its defense. Over time this basic understanding had led to a steady expansion and deepening of our defense relationship and the creation of a number of institutional arrangements to manage it. One product of these arrangements has been a partnership style of continental defense management that has proved to be successful despite the disparities in resources and responsibilities and, sometimes, the policy differences between our two countries. This structure is now beginning to be threatened by the decline in the resources and capabilities of the Canadian Forces. Nevertheless, there are things that both countries separately and together could do to improve the situation.
Topic:
Defense Policy and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
United States, Washington, Canada, and North America