Number of results to display per page
Search Results
42. The Diplomatic Character(s) of the Early Republic
- Author:
- Katrina Ponti
- Publication Date:
- 04-2019
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- The Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR)
- Abstract:
- I n its early years the United States, a nation attempting to distinguish itself from the monarchal norms of Europe, sought to arrange its own rules of foreign engagement. What was the diplomacy of a republic supposed to look like? Who would conduct the activities of foreign affairs? Thanks to the formidable digital project Founders Online a cooperative effort from the National Archives and the University of Virginia Press, one can begin to trace the development of American diplomacy through its first thirty fragile years, 1783–1812.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Foreign Policy, History, and Diplomatic History
- Political Geography:
- United States
43. A Roundtable on Grant Madsen, Sovereign Soldiers: How the U.S. Military Transformed the Global Economy After World War II
- Author:
- Laura Hein, Michael J. Hogan, Aaron O'Connell, Carolyn Eisenberg, Curt Cardwell, and Grant Madsen
- Publication Date:
- 01-2019
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- The Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR)
- Abstract:
- A Roundtable on Grant Madsen, Sovereign Soldiers: How the U.S. Military Transformed the Global Economy After World War II
- Topic:
- International Relations, Foreign Policy, History, World War II, and Diplomatic History
- Political Geography:
- United States
44. Rescuing multilateralism
- Author:
- Anthony Dworkin and Richard Gowan
- Publication Date:
- 06-2019
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
- Abstract:
- Multilateralism is core to Europe’s approach to foreign policy, but in recent years this has weakened as EU countries disagree among themselves. The US, China, and Russia have each sought to challenge or disrupt the existing, post-1945 world order; and each seeks to divide Europeans from one another. The turmoil in the current system represents an opportunity for Europeans to shape a new order that meets their strategic needs. In addition to the fight against climate change, European interests include: increasing stability on its troubled periphery; managing migration more effectively; and defending the open world trading system. European countries will need to transform EU foreign policy decision-making processes, deepen their cooperation in multilateral settings, and set multilateral standards for emerging technologies.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Migration, Political stability, and Multilateralism
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, China, and Europe
45. The United States-Iran standoff: Recent tensions are symptomatic of President Trump’s broader foreign-policy approach
- Author:
- Ville Sinkkonen
- Publication Date:
- 06-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Finnish Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- The heightened tensions between the United States and Iran should be understood in the context of the Trump administration’s broader foreign policy approach. Even if neither side wants a military confrontation, the “maximum pressure” campaign by the US has raised the risk of a potential miscalculation.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iran, Middle East, and North America
46. US foreign policy tools in the era of disinformation: Deficiencies prevent effective response to malign information operations
- Author:
- Deborah A. McCarthy
- Publication Date:
- 10-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Finnish Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- Russia, China, Iran and ISIS use information operations to undermine the national security objectives of the United States and its allies. However, the US’s international response has been weak. Internal constraints have limited more effective counter-measures. In particular, the lack of a coordinated White House-level strategy, dispersed authorities and little cooperation with private social media companies can be identified as causal factors. Additional steps by the Trump Administration to counter foreign disinformation will aim to protect the 2020 presidential elections rather than to push back on efforts to undermine US leadership abroad.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Science and Technology, ISIS, Social Media, and Disinformation
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, China, Europe, Iran, Middle East, Asia, and North America
47. The militarization of US foreign policy: Engagement with Europe increasingly about defense
- Author:
- Deborah A. McCarthy
- Publication Date:
- 11-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Finnish Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- The US Department of Defense is playing a predominant role in US foreign policy due to expanded mandates, large budgets and the disparagement of diplomacy by the Trump Administration. Defense relations may be the steadier foundation for transatlantic cooperation.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Budget, and Transatlantic Relations
- Political Geography:
- United States, Europe, and North America
48. How to Enlarge NATO: The Debate inside the Clinton Administration, 1993–95
- Author:
- M.E. Sarotte
- Publication Date:
- 07-2019
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- International Security
- Institution:
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
- Abstract:
- Newly available sources show how the 1993–95 debate over the best means of expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization unfolded inside the Clinton administration. This evidence comes from documents recently declassified by the Clinton Presidential Library, the Defense Department, and the State Department because of appeals by the author. As President Bill Clinton repeatedly remarked, the two key questions about enlargement were when and how. The sources make apparent that, during a critical decisionmaking period twenty-five years ago, supporters of a relatively swift conferral of full membership to a narrow range of countries outmaneuvered proponents of a slower, phased conferral of limited membership to a wide range of states. Pleas from Central and Eastern European leaders, missteps by Russian President Boris Yeltsin, and victory by the pro-expansion Republican Party in the 1994 U.S. congressional election all helped advocates of full-membership enlargement to win. The documents also reveal the surprising impact of Ukrainian politics on this debate and the complex roles played by both Strobe Talbott, a U.S. ambassador and later deputy secretary of state, and Andrei Kozyrev, the Russian foreign minister. Finally, the sources suggest ways in which the debate's outcome remains significant for transatlantic and U.S.-Russian relations today.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, NATO, International Security, and Clinton Administration
- Political Geography:
- Russia and United States
49. Poland, US bases and geopolitical games
- Author:
- Robert Barić
- Publication Date:
- 08-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
- Abstract:
- Recent Polish proposal for financing permanent US military presence in Poland isn't motivated only to counter current Russian aggressive posture. This offer is a part of a wider Poland strategy for achieving long term security. In pursuing this strategy, Warsaw risks not only to undermine NATO cohesion, but also to deepen growing East-West divide inside the EU.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, NATO, Diplomacy, Imperialism, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, Europe, Eastern Europe, and Poland
50. Midterm elections in the United States: A boost or a setback for President Donald Trump
- Author:
- Krševan Antun Dujmović
- Publication Date:
- 10-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
- Abstract:
- Eyes of America and of the entire international community are turning to the midterm elections in the United States due on 6 November 2018. The United States of America is a federal, both presidential and constitutional republic, and in the system of separation of powers the US President embodies the executive branch of the federal government. The President of the United States is often regarded as the most powerful person in the world, primarily as he is the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces, one of the largest military that consumes around 40% of the total military expenditures in the world. With growing tensions and uprising of new regional or global powers, the US is nonetheless the world’s biggest economy by nominal GDP and has the dominating in�luence in international political relations. The US President personi�ies American power andin�luenceglobally,andatthesametime the President has big powers in domestic policy. These include appointing diplomatic, federal executive and judicial of�icers, concluding treaties with foreign countries, enforcement and execution of federal laws, vetoing bills before they become laws in legislative procedure, convening and adjourning houses of the United States Congress, either or both, albeit in extraordinary circumstances. Notwithstanding, the system of checks and balances incorporated by the US Constitution ensures that the President’s powers do not expand out of control.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Elections, Political stability, and Domestic Politics
- Political Geography:
- United States, Washington, and D.C.
51. Consensus for Action: Towards a More Effective EU Sanctions Policy
- Author:
- Tom Keatinge and Emil Dall
- Publication Date:
- 11-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
- Abstract:
- Sanctions are a key tool of foreign policy but have taken on greater salience over the last 20 years as governments have reached for leverage in negotiations but foregone the use of force. During this period, the alignment of the design and implementation of sanctions by the European Union and the United States has, on the whole, been an article of faith as the transatlantic allies have pursued mutual foreign policy objectives. Yet despite the consistency of objectives, the bureaucratic structures, technical mechanisms, and processes by which the European Union and the United States design and implement sanctions differ significantly. These differences—always present—have been amplified by the current stresses in transatlantic relations and may be further exacerbated when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union in March 2019. The reasons behind these differences are myriad and touch upon both structural matters (such as the construction of the European Union and the manner in which its member states can enact policy) and more philosophical matters, as the focus on due process and human rights in EU sanctions policy demonstrates. But given the importance of transatlantic ties and cooperation in managing the sorts of problems that sanctions are usually developed to address, it is important for both the United States and the European Union to work through these differences. Toward that goal, this paper provides a European perspective on US sanctions activity, where there are differences in approach, in particular EU attitudes toward secondary sanctions put in place by the United States, and it explains the complications that may result from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The paper concludes with recommendations for how the European Union can address the challenges it faces in achieving an effective sanctions policy. In short, it recommends the following: The European Union should work through its structural issues to create a more decisive and effective EU sanctions policy. The implementation and enforcement of sanctions at the member state level must be improved, and a formal EU-level sanctions body is needed to independently monitor compliance with sanctions across the European Union. A clear mechanism for ensuring the coordination and effectiveness of EU-UK post-Brexit sanctions policy must be established. The global centrality of both the European Union’s economy and the United Kingdom’s financial sector combine to present a powerful sanctions force and must thus be closely coordinated to ensure maximum effectiveness. The European Union should directly address the matter of human rights exemptions by incorporating it as a key consideration of the EU-level sanctions body identified in the first recommendation. The European Union should establish a clear channel for human rights exemptions throughout the lifetime of sanctions regimes. The European Union should consider its options to address the ability of non-EU actors to abuse EU-originating supply chains and financial services, which represents a considerable sanctions implementation vulnerability. Finally, though US-EU misalignment on sanctions is growing, policy makers must stay seized of the necessity to maintain and improve communications and coordination to prevent current schisms from having serious long-term effects on international security.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Sanctions, European Union, and Brexit
- Political Geography:
- United States, United Kingdom, and Europe
52. Seven Chinas A Policy Framework
- Author:
- David Kelly
- Publication Date:
- 02-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- The debate about China’s changing role in global affairs is often framed as a dichotomous choice between a peacefully rising China that seeks to be a constructive stakeholder and an increasingly dangerous China that is challenging the status quo, both in terms of its norms and the place of the United States. The reality is more complicated. There are not only signs of both elements, but the foundations shaping Chinese behavior is multifold. Most international relations scholars examine China through one or another version of realism or liberalism. David Kelly, head of research at China Policy, offers an alternative approach that examines the nature of Chinese identity, or rather, Chinese identities, plural, and how they exhibit themselves in Chinese foreign policy. Using his renowned skills in reading Chinese-language official documents and the broader commentary, Kelly teases out seven narratives that Chinese tell themselves and the world, and he provides a codebook for explicating shifting Chinese behavior in different arenas. Kelly concludes that some of these narratives facilitate cooperation, but most point toward deep-seated tensions between China and the West in the years ahead.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Globalization, Imperialism, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, Asia, North America, and Asia-Pacific
53. Oversight and Accountability in U.S. Security Sector Assistance
- Author:
- Melissa Dalton and Hijab Shah
- Publication Date:
- 02-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- With the range of security challenges confronting the United States in the 21st century, characterized by competition by both state and nonstate actors, the importance of working with allies and partners to address common challenges is paramount. Deeper examination of the relative effectiveness of U.S. security sector assistance and how it must nest in a broader foreign policy strategy, including good governance, human rights, and rule of law principles, is required. Improving oversight and accountability in U.S. security sector assistance with partners are at the core of ongoing security assistance reform efforts to ensure that U.S. foreign policy objectives are met and in accordance with U.S. interests and values. This report examines key areas in security sector programming and oversight where the U.S. Departments of Defense and State employ accountability mechanisms, with the goal of identifying ways to sharpen and knit together mechanisms for improving accountability and professionalism into a coherent approach for partner countries.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, and Human Rights
- Political Geography:
- United States and North America
54. Perspectives on Taiwan Insights from the 2017 Taiwan-U.S. Policy Program
- Author:
- Bonnie S. Glaser and Matthew Funaiole
- Publication Date:
- 03-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- The papers in this compendium were written by the 10 members of the 2017 CSIS Taiwan-U.S. Policy Program (TUPP) delegation. TUPP provides a much-needed opportunity for future leaders to gain a better understanding of Taiwan through first-hand exposure to its politics, culture, and history. Each participant was asked to reflect on his or her in-country experience and produce a short article analyzing a policy issue related to Taiwan. These papers are a testament to the powerful impact that follows first-hand exposure to Taiwan.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Regional Cooperation
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, Taiwan, Asia, and Asia-Pacific
55. Security Implications of China’s Military Presence in the Indian Ocean
- Author:
- Zack Cooper
- Publication Date:
- 04-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- The issue: China’s increased military presence in the Indian Ocean should not come as a surprise. China is following in the traditional path of other rising powers; it is expanding its military operations to match its interests abroad. The security implications of China’s push into the Indian Ocean region are mixed. In peacetime, these efforts will certainly expand Chinese regional influence. In wartime, however, China’s Indian Ocean presence will likely create more vulnerabilities than opportunities. China’s military forays into the Indian Ocean have triggered a series of warnings. The term “string of pearls” was first used to refer to Chinese basing access in the Indian Ocean by a 2004 report for the U.S. Department of Defense. That report suggested China’s growing regional presence could “deter the potential disruption of its energy supplies from potential threats, including the U.S. Navy, especially in the case of a conflict with Taiwan.” Other scholars have warned that Beijing seeks to “dominate” the Indian Ocean region. Others suggest that the Chinese government is simply following its expanding trading interests and seeking to secure its supply lines against disruption. Although China’s presence in the Indian Ocean may permit it to increase its regional influence, Chinese facilities and forces would be highly vulnerable in a major conflict. Thus, the security implications of China’s push into the Indian Ocean region are mixed. In peacetime, these efforts will certainly expand Chinese regional influence. In wartime, however, China’s Indian Ocean presence will likely create more vulnerabilities than opportunities.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Imperialism, Military Strategy, and Maritime
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, India, Taiwan, Asia, and Indian Ocean
56. Who’s Afraid of Russian Gas? Bridging the Transatlantic Divide
- Author:
- Nikos Tsafos
- Publication Date:
- 05-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- The Issue Russian energy has divided the transatlantic alliance for over 60 years. Tensions normally just simmer, but they flare up when a new project is proposed, especially after a political crisis. In the 1960s, it was the prospect of increased Soviet oil exports following the Cuban missile crisis. In the 1980s, it was more Soviet gas for Western Europe after the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan and martial law had been declared in Poland. Today, it is the proposed Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its war against Ukraine (among other actions). Disagreements are natural in a broad alliance with diverse interests and perspectives. But it is now almost impossible to discuss Russian gas with any sense of calm (increasingly true for all things related to Russia). Russian initiatives are infused with perceptions and fears that range from the simple and legitimate to the obscure and far-fetched. In reality, arguments about Russian gas are rarely about Russian gas; they are about history, strategy, and geopolitics. Gas is just the spark. The end result is confusion and discord at a time when the transatlantic alliance has enough problems—without needing to add gas to the fire. It is time to separate Russian gas from the broader Russia agenda. Doing so will boost energy security, protect and strengthen the transatlantic alliance, and allow us to focus where the West can resist Russian power more meaningfully. This argument rests on three propositions. First, that energy does not give Russia as much power as we usually assume; second, that an antagonistic strategy is unlikely to be sustained or succeed in bringing about change, whether in energy or geopolitics; and third, that the best response to Russian gas is a set of policies that Europe should pursue anyway and that are unrelated to Russia. In short, we need to radically rethink Russian gas; how much it matters; and what the United States and Europe should do about it.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Energy Policy, Natural Resources, Gas, and Transatlantic Relations
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, Europe, and North America
57. Australia and the United States An Alliance for the Twenty-first Century
- Author:
- Amy Searight and Michael J. Green
- Publication Date:
- 05-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- On August 21–22, 2017, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) organized a conference in Sydney, Australia—Australia and the United States: An Alliance for the 21st Century—in cooperation with the United States Studies Centre (USSC) at the University of Sydney and the Perth USAsia Centre at the University of Western Australia. The conference was generously supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of State. This conference gathered together key thinkers from both countries at an important time for the Australia-U.S. alliance. The scope of cooperation between Australia and the United States has never been greater—extending well beyond traditional defense, intelligence, and diplomatic engagement—and the alliance enjoys healthy support among policymakers and the wider public in both countries. Bilateral economic, social, and cultural ties are broad and deep. The two countries are working closely together to defeat the threat posed by ISIL and other terrorist networks in the Middle East and globally, and to ensure the Asia-Pacific region remains stable and prosperous. Yet the Australia-U.S. alliance faces growing external and internal challenges. The United States, Australia, and other allies confront rising threats in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, and globally from terrorism, financial instability, pandemic diseases, and other transnational challenges. Revisionist powers are seeking to reshape regional security dynamics and carve out spheres of influence, jeopardizing the liberal rules-based order that has supported American and Australian security and prosperity for more than half a century. The risks of miscalculation and conflict are growing, as is the prospect of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, allied resources available to meet these problems are constrained by slow economic growth across the developed world and the cost of supporting aging populations. Now, economic dislocation and stagnant wages are generating a wave of populist and protectionist sentiment in many parts of the world that risks undermining governance and a return to zero-sum, mercantilist economic policies—while U.S. political divisions and some policy choices are exacerbating allies’ concerns about the future of American global leadership. Many of these issues are playing out in the contemporary Australian debate, with a range of senior political figures and commentators calling for Australia to distance itself from the United States and recent opinion polls suggesting doubts about U.S. staying power as well as growing affinity for China. This is broadly consistent with polling from the region that suggests that China’s growing economic clout and military capabilities are driving expectations that China will supplant the United States as the predominant power in the Asia Pacific. These trends raise new questions about the future of the alliance in domestic, bilateral, and international contexts that we must address. They also highlight: the increasingly complex challenges facing U.S. and Australian alliance managers; the importance of not taking the alliance for granted; a requirement for fresh ideas about the alliance; and the need to engage a broader range of stakeholders, including a new generation of strategic thinkers in Australia and the United States. The Sydney conference brought together a group of about 40 participants—including 10 young next-generation leaders from Australia—for a two-day discussion on the opportunities and challenges facing the Australia-U.S. alliance across geopolitical, security, and economic issues. It focused on identifying key takeaways and formulating practical recommendations to improve the Australia-U.S. alliance’s capacity to adapt to changing dynamics, both globally and in the Indo-Pacific region, and to ensure support for the alliance well into the twenty-first century. Participation was by invitation and the discussions were off the record.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Regional Cooperation, Counter-terrorism, and Global Political Economy
- Political Geography:
- United States, Australia, and Asia-Pacific
58. Structural Dissonance: The U.S.-PRC Defense Relationship, 1979-1989
- Author:
- Eric B. Setzekorn
- Publication Date:
- 10-2018
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
- Institution:
- Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies
- Abstract:
- In the decade between U.S. diplomatic recognition of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1979 and the Tiananmen Massacre in 1989, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) pursued a military engagement policy with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The 1979-1989 U.S.-PRC defense relationship was driven by a mutually shared fear of the USSR, but U.S. policymakers also sought to encourage the PRC to become a more deeply involved in the world community as a responsible power. Beginning in the late 1970s, the U.S. defense department conducted high level exchanges, allowed for the transfer of defense technology, promoted military to military cooperation and brokered foreign military sales (FMS). On the U.S. side, this program was strongly supported by National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretary of State Alexander Haig, who worked to push skeptical elements in the U.S. defense bureaucracy. By the mid-1980s, this hesitancy had been overcome and the defense relationship reached a high point in the 1984-1986 period, but structural problems arising from the division of authority within the PRC’s party-state-military structure ultimately proved insurmountable to long-term cooperation. The 1979-1989 U.S.-PRC defense relationship highlights the long-term challenges of pursuing military engagement with fundamentally dissimilar structures of political authority.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Cold War, Diplomacy, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, Europe, Asia, Soviet Union, and North America
59. Diplomacy in Defense of Democracy
- Author:
- Madeleine Albright
- Publication Date:
- 03-2018
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Ambassadors Review
- Institution:
- Council of American Ambassadors
- Abstract:
- I would like to share some reflections on the challenges facing democracy and democratization. But I would like to begin on a personal note. I received my master’s degree some 50 years ago this spring. Like today, it was an era of great turbulence. Our best and brightest civilian leaders had involved America in a distant war. Our soldiers were in an impossible position, bogged down inside an alien culture, unable to distinguish friend from foe. Here at home, America was divided along geographic, racial and cultural lines. Overseas, critics called our policies arrogant, imperialistic and doomed to fail.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Civil Society, Democracy, and Social Media
- Political Geography:
- United States and North America
60. Grooming the next Generation of Foreign Policymakers: Women, Peace and Security in Practice
- Publication Date:
- 04-2018
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Our Secure Future
- Abstract:
- The Problem: There is a need to groom the next generation of policymakers on the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. This is due to a rising demand in international affairs-related careers that require gender and WPS expertise, and the passage of the 2017 Women, Peace and Security Act which mandates enhanced professional training and education on Women, Peace and Security. However, trainings and educational programs on Women, Peace and Security (WPS) are created in silos such as academia, military, government, etc., and are often ad hoc. The Solution Strengthen the Women, Peace and Security community of educators and practitioners. Regular collaboration across sectors can help map the field, inventory strategies to professionalize the field, and encourage institutions to offer more training and educational programs on WPS on a regular basis. Key Takeaway from the Experts Policymakers, practitioners, and scholars identified a key first step: in order to professionalize the field, it is necessary to establish an agreed-upon set of “minimum core competencies” for Women, Peace and Security to groom the next generation of policymakers and leaders.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Gender Issues, Women, Peace, and WPS
- Political Geography:
- United States and Global Focus