Search

You searched for: Political Geography America Remove constraint Political Geography: America Journal The Journal of International Security Affairs Remove constraint Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: David P. Goldmann
  • Publication Date: 06-2012
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: A year after the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's economic crisis has become a uniquely severe event. Markets are now forecasting a devaluation of Egypt's currency by about two-thirds, as capital flight and an enormous structural trade deficit exhaust the country's foreign exchange reserves. With perhaps half of Egypt's population living on $2 per day, a major devaluation would price basic necessities out of the reach of tens of millions of people, despite the country's extensive (if inefficient) system of subsidies. The crisis seems uncontainable; Egypt's central bank appears to have exhausted its capacity to borrow from the domestic market, and is at odds with prospective foreign donors. As a result, Egypt now faces a financial collapse similar to those in over-indebted Latin American countries during the 1980s and 1990s, except with a crucial difference: the Latin Americans are all food exporters, while Egypt imports half its domestically consumed foodstuffs. The difference between Egypt and a Latin American banana republic is the bananas. This is an unprecedented state of affairs, a perfect economic storm. Egypt imports half its caloric consumption and is the world's largest importer of wheat. Economic collapse will “transform a peaceful revolution into a hunger revolution,” the second-in-command of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood warned on February 3rd.1 After months of refusing to bargain with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Egypt's government has begun negotiations for a $3.2 billion loan, or less than the amount of capital flight in December alone. But the involvement of the IMF has done little to reassure Egyptian investors. And on February 11, 2012, Egypt's Finance Minister said that his country would need $11 billion in external aid.2 Moreover, as of this writing, Egypt's insistence on prosecuting American democracy activists threatens to shut off American aid at a critical moment. It is possible that Egypt's leaders have abandoned hope of forestalling the crisis and are directing their energies instead toward finding a foreign entity to blame. Even under the most benign political conditions, though, it is unlikely that the West or the Gulf States would offer Egypt aid on the scale required to prevent a crisis. Unlike other countries threatened by famine, Egypt's requirements simply are too great for the rest of the world to shoulder for an extended period of time. Its governance, moreover, is so corrupt that its capacity to use foreign aid is in doubt. The most likely outcome is a humanitarian catastrophe too large for the rest of the world to ameliorate, and a political outcome too chaotic to permit large-scale humanitarian intervention, like Somalia. An implicit assumption of public policy is that all problems have solutions. Egypt appears to be an outstanding exception, a major nation in existential crisis for which no solution will be found.
  • Topic: Markets
  • Political Geography: America, Latin America, Egypt, Somalia
  • Author: Gordon G. Chang
  • Publication Date: 06-2012
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: We hope we can convey a positive message that China and the U.S. will stick to the principle of showing mutual support to people in the same boat and strengthen cooperation,” said Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping to his American counterpart, Joe Biden, during a phone conversation on the eve of his February get-to-know-you tour of the United States. Xi, expected to become China's next leader at the end of this year, undoubtedly used the boat analogy because he saw that Washington was reassessing the assumptions that have underpinned America's relations with Beijing for the last forty years. The policies of today are the same as the ones President Nixon envisioned four decades ago, but only in broad outline. Chinese leaders, for good reason, are worried about recent American moves in their region. When he made his groundbreaking trip to Beijing in 1972, Nixon knew that both China and the United States shared the same principal adversary, so he traveled halfway around the world to enlist Mao Zedong as an informal partner in the Cold War against the Soviets. The successful conclusion of that global struggle, which meant America no longer needed China, did not break the ties between two countries that then had little in common. And the horrible slaughter of Chinese citizens by their own government in their capital in June 1989 only interrupted close cooperation between Washington and Beijing; it did not end it. Since Nixon's visit to Beijing, the U.S. has sought to “engage” the Chinese and bring them into the liberal international system. This policy proved durable, despite tumultuous change over the course of decades, precisely because it was consistent with America's conception of its global role. Chris Nelson of the daily Washington report bearing his name maintains that today's China policies resemble those that produced the Marshall Plan because in both cases the United States was engineering, for the sake of the world, its own “altruistic decline.” Whether the two policies can in fact be linked, America's policy of engagement of China has been enlightened, farsighted, and generous. And it has had an effect. Beijing, after Mao's death in 1976, reciprocated overtures from Washington and the West by dismantling the controls of a command economy, opening doors to foreign investment, and participating in international commerce. This economic restructuring caused, or at least accompanied, a transformation of the country's external policies. Beijing dropped its shrill and antagonistic talk about spreading Marxist revolution. In fact, the Chinese began to speak in pleasing tones as they opened their country to the world. “We are trying to make as many friends as possible,” said Li Zhaoxing, when he was foreign minister in 2004. “The more friends China has, the better.” And this was not just happy talk. Beijing did all it could to increase its friendships—and its clout. Once an outlander maintaining only one ambassador abroad, China is now close to the heart of world affairs, networked into almost every multilateral organization and virtually every other country. From its perches at the United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund, Beijing is considered an indispensable player on every continent. In fact, the Chinese have been so successful that the time we live in is considered to be their century. Consequently, Beijing's diplomats see themselves as representatives of history's next great power. In a sense, this is the logical conclusion to America's engagement. It was always more probable that this century, marked by accelerating globalization that is spreading wealth around the planet, would be named after the country with more than 19 percent of world population—China—than one with less than five—the U.S. The hope of the engagers was that enmeshment of China into global institutions would lead, if not to a democratic nation, then at least to a benign one. So there was a bet that China would become a true partner rather than another Soviet Union. It was the grandest wager of our time, if not of all time.
  • Political Geography: United States, China, America, Beijing
  • Author: Walter Lohman
  • Publication Date: 06-2012
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: In the course of two months in the fall of 2011, the President and his administration—particularly the Secretary of State—conducted a political and diplomatic offensive to prove American staying power in Asia. It marked a 180-degree turn from where the White House had begun three years earlier. The fall offensive began with the long-awaited passage of the Korea-U.S. FTA (KORUS), an agreement of major economic importance. After years of accumulated opportunity costs, in October, the administration finally pushed the agreement forward and arranged for South Korean President Lee Myun-bak to be in Washington for the occasion of its passage. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton framed the new approach in her November “America's Pacific Century” speech, wherein she declared the Administration's “Asia Pivot.”1 President Obama gave the approach authority and economic substance at APEC, where the U.S. secured a game-changing commitment from Japan to join the Transpacific Partnership trade pact (TPP). The President then embarked on his third visit to the Asia Pacific. In Australia, he announced new training rotations of up to 2,500 U.S. Marines through Australia's northern shore, a move with obvious implications for the security of our allies and sea lanes, and in Indonesia, he became the first American president to participate in the East Asian Summit (EAS). At the EAS meeting of 18 regional leaders, President Obama raised the importance of maritime security and freedom of navigation and “expressed strong opposition to the threat or use of force by any party to advance its territorial or maritime claims or interfere in legitimate economic activity”—thereby tying American interests to regional concerns about China. For her part, Secretary Clinton headed to Manila to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT)—and then on to America's other treaty ally in Southeast Asia, Thailand. In Manila Bay, she signed a reaffirmation of the U.S.-Philippines MDT on the deck of a U.S. Navy destroyer and essentially declared America ready to “fight” for the Philippines. She also announced the dispatch to Manila of the second (of what will likely be four) refurbished coast guard cutters. En route to Indonesia, President Obama phoned long-suffering Burmese human rights icon Aung San Suu Kyi to get her blessing for a Burma visit from Secretary Clinton. Clinton arrived in Burma by the end of November, meeting Suu Kyi and the Burmese president and beginning a careful, “action for action” process of normalization that could have major implications for the U.S. strategic position in the region. The Chinese have long taken advantage of Burma's isolation from the U.S. If Burmese political reform proves to be real, it will offer an opportunity for the U.S. to reassert itself there. It will also remove a roadblock in America's relationship with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with which it has long disagreed on Burma. A democratic Burma would tip the scales in ASEAN—a hodgepodge of governing systems—in favor of democracy, a state of play that improves the sustainability of American engagement.
  • Topic: Security, Economics, Human Rights
  • Political Geography: Afghanistan, Japan, America, Washington, Asia, Australia, Korea
  • Author: Adm. William H. McRaven
  • Publication Date: 12-2012
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: How America's elite warriors are adapting to new battlefields and new challenges.
  • Political Geography: America
  • Author: Mark B. Schneider
  • Publication Date: 12-2012
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: Strategic cuts and disarmament efforts have put American nuclear primacy in peril.
  • Political Geography: America
  • Author: Eric R. Sterner
  • Publication Date: 12-2012
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: Space is increasingly critical to our security and prosperity. Yet America still needs a strategy to compete there.
  • Topic: Security
  • Political Geography: America
  • Author: Andrew K. Davenport
  • Publication Date: 12-2012
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: Currently, America isn't seriously using economic warfare against our enemies. Here's how we can.
  • Topic: Economics
  • Political Geography: United States, America
  • Author: Ilan Berman
  • Publication Date: 09-2011
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: Ten years ago this Fall, al-Qaeda carried out the most devastating attacks on the U.S. homeland in our country's history. That brazen attack propelled the United States—and the world—into a qualitatively new kind of global conflict. Ten years on, the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks provides the opportunity to reflect upon where we are in this effort. To do so, The Journal convened a symposium of seventeen of the country's premier counterterrorism specialists. These experts—drawn from Congress, the U.S. military and the Beltway policy community—have shared their unique insights into how far we have come in the past decade in our struggle against terrorism, and how far the United States and its allies still need to go. From there, we turn to the other pressing topic of the day: the so-called “Arab Spring.” The past half-year has seen unprecedented change sweep over the Middle East and North Africa. Long-standing regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya have fallen. Others (such as Syria) continue to struggle against widespread domestic discontent. Still others—Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan and beyond—have felt their fair share of grassroots ferment. What does this geopolitical earthquake augur for the Middle East? What should America's role be in these changes? And how will the region change in the months ahead? We start to answer some of those questions with six cutting-edge articles. Barry Rubin, one of Israel's leading commentators on Mideast affairs, outlines in damning detail the misconceptions that animate the Obama administration's approach to the region—and explains how these flawed ideas have wreaked havoc on America's stature there. Indiana University's Jamsheed Choksy provides a tantalizing glimpse into the high-stakes political conflict now taking place between Iran's firebrand president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the country's entrenched clerical elite. Brent Talbot of the U.S. Air Force Academy then examines Israel's strategic options for dealing with Iran's persistent nuclear program, and argues that the Israeli government is likely to take decisive action in the not-too-distant future. The Henry Jackson Society's Julia Pettengill and Houriya Ahmed sketch the motivations behind—and implications of—the attempted “unity” deal between the Hamas movement and the Fatah faction of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Robert Freedman of Baltimore Hebrew University and Johns Hopkins University outlines how the Russian government of Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin has attempted to weather the changes taking place in the region so far. And Daniel Jackman and Daniel Wagner, two geopolitical risk experts with the consulting firm Country Risk Solutions, provide a masterful tour d'horizon of the economic and social ferment that has accompanied the region's revolutions. Also in this issue, we're delighted to have as our “Perspective” interviewee former Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey—who, as the U.S. government's long-standing point man on sanctions against Iran and al-Qaeda, spearheaded the “financial front” of the War on Terror for much of that conflict. We also have Dispatches from Russia, Belarus and Jordan, as well as book reviews covering U.S. and Israeli counterterrorism efforts, Pakistan's duplicitous relationship with radical Islam, and the high cost of terrorism on Israel and the Jews. Over the years, our readers have come to rely on The Journal as a leading source of cutting-edge analysis of the trends, developments and policies that shape our world. The contents of this issue are but the latest proof we live up to that promise.
  • Political Geography: Pakistan, United States, America, Middle East, Israel, North Africa, Syria, Jordan
  • Author: The Hon. Patrick Meehan
  • Publication Date: 09-2011
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: No abstract is available.
  • Political Geography: Africa, United States, America, Middle East, Yemen, Latin America
  • Author: Matthew Levitt
  • Publication Date: 09-2011
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: No abstract is available.
  • Political Geography: Pakistan, Afghanistan, New York, America
  • Author: Travis Sharp, Matthew Irvine
  • Publication Date: 09-2011
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: Dana Priest and William Arkin's misguided quest to stop “secret America”
  • Topic: Terrorism
  • Political Geography: America
  • Author: Ilan Berman
  • Publication Date: 04-2010
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants raided the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 53 Americans hostage. That siege lasted 444 days and changed history. Now, more than 30 years later, we see an Iran rotting from the inside out—a regime trying to silence a people crying out for freedom.
  • Political Geography: United States, America, Iran, Tehran
  • Author: Robert R. Reilly
  • Publication Date: 10-2009
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: No abstract is available.
  • Topic: Cold War, War
  • Political Geography: United States, America
  • Author: J. Michael Waller
  • Publication Date: 10-2009
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: No abstract is available.
  • Topic: Cold War
  • Political Geography: America
  • Author: Rafael Bardaji
  • Publication Date: 10-2009
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: MADRID-Spain was attacked by Islamists on March 11, 2004, but the new government that emerged from the polls three days later never learned the right lessons from that massacre. Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and his Socialist government argued that Spain had been attacked because of its presence in Iraq and because of the conservative government's cooperation with the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Based on this notion, they concluded that by pulling out of Iraq and distancing itself from America, Spain could insulate itself from Islamic terrorism.
  • Topic: Government, Islam, Terrorism
  • Political Geography: Iraq, America, Spain
  • Author: Ilan Berman
  • Publication Date: 03-2008
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: Over the past year, the American public has been treated to a chorus of critics and skeptics who have downplayed the seriousness of the threats we face in the post-September 11th world. Former government officials like Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski have accused the Bush administration of hyping the War on Terror in order to promote a culture of fear. Others deny that we are at war at all.
  • Political Geography: America
  • Author: Ilan Berman
  • Publication Date: 03-2008
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: Europe, it has long been said, is America's most important and enduring international partner. There is much to lend credence to this argument. After all, the political, cultural and military bonds between the United States and its allies across the Atlantic have persisted for centuries, reinforced by economic cooperation and strengthened by periods of shared conflict.
  • Political Geography: United States, America, Europe
  • Author: Michael Chertoff
  • Publication Date: 03-2008
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: Over the past year, the American public has been treated to a chorus of critics and skeptics who have downplayed the seriousness of the threats we face in the post-September 11th world. Former government officials like Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski have accused the Bush administration of hyping the War on Terror in order to promote a culture of fear. Others deny that we are at war at all.
  • Political Geography: America
  • Author: Sally McNamara
  • Publication Date: 03-2008
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: America has found its strongest, most enduring alliance in its Special Relationship with Great Britain. This relationship has been defined by consistent and recurring cooperation, systematic engagement, and enduring bilateral relations that emerged from common values and obvious interests. Mutual recognition of the value of democratic government, the rule of law, individual rights, and the market economy are combined with a single historical and cultural experience until 1776, continued cultural intermingling since then, and a common language. America and Britain, in other words, have a relationship of both “blood and philosophy.”
  • Political Geography: Britain, America
  • Author: Ulf Gartzke
  • Publication Date: 03-2008
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of International Security Affairs
  • Institution: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
  • Abstract: Since taking office in November 2005, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has racked up an impressive foreign policy record. First and foremost, Merkel moved quickly to repair transatlantic relations with Washington, which had been badly damaged over the Iraq war under former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Red-Green government. While European politicians on the Left have repeatedly resorted to anti-American rhetoric as a crucial element of successful election campaigns, Germany's conservative CDU/CSU parties firmly believe that strong political and security ties with the United States are an indispensable pillar of German foreign policy. And after Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac essentially turned 10 Downing Street and the Élysée Palace into lame-duck residencies, Chancellor Merkel's early effort to reach out to Washington paid off, with her emerging as President Bush's most important partner in Europe.
  • Political Geography: America, Europe, Germany