Search

Begin New Search Political Geography United States of America

201. Outlook 2030 Brief: The U.S. and International Education

Author:
Allan E. Goodman and Mirka Martel
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute of International Education (IIE)
Abstract:
For over a century, the United States has been the leading destination for international students. Unlike higher education systems elsewhere, the U.S. maintains a decentralized public and private tertiary education system where international students may apply and enroll at the state, city, and local levels. This annual brief presents key trends in academic mobility to the United States, comparing annual findings to our projections, and suggestions for campus planning to accommodate the anticipated growth in international students.
Topic:
Education, Higher Education, Students, and International Exchange
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

202. Spring 2024 Snapshot on International Educational Exchange

Author:
Mirka Martel
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute of International Education (IIE)
Abstract:
The Spring 2024 Snapshot on International Educational Exchange continues the commitment of the Institute of International Education (IIE) to map the current state of international educational exchange to and from the United States. The report presents data from 662 U.S. higher education institutions in two sections: (1) current trends in international students studying at U.S. institutions in spring 2024 and recruitment patterns for prospective students and (2) the realities of U.S. study abroad ahead of academic year 2024/25.
Topic:
Education, Students, International Exchange, and Academic Exchange
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

203. Taiwan Strait’s Echo in Korean Peninsula Security and the US-ROK Alliance

Author:
Yerin Yoon
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
In recent years, the geopolitical landscape of East Asia has undergone significant shifts, with the Taiwan Strait emerging as a pivotal point of great power competition and regional instability. This paper delves into the intricate dynamics in this evolving scenario, examining the multifaceted implications of Taiwan contingencies and their ripple effects on the security of the Korean Peninsula and the longstanding US-ROK alliance. This study highlights the need for Korea to build strategic plans for a Taiwan contingency by examining the correlation between plausible scenarios and the security challenges of the Korean Peninsula. This paper explores the broader implications of a Taiwan contingency within the context of great power rivalry and international relations. Moreover, it analyzes specific scenarios related to the Korean Peninsula that could unfold around Taiwan, such as maritime blockades and potential Chinese armed attacks on Taiwanese territory. It then emphasizes the influence of these scenarios on the Korean Peninsula, revealing a complex web of economic security, diplomatic, and military challenges. The article thereafter turns its attention to the US-ROK alliance essential to regional security in East Asia. This analysis examines the strategic ramifications of the relocation of US Forces Korea (USFK) and the possible engagement of the ROK military to assess the potential responses by the US-ROK alliance to the Taiwan crisis. It also highlights how crucial it is to comprehend each of the points of view held by the US and the ROK, underscoring the complex intricacies of the alliance. Finally, the paper proposes strategic policy recommendations to enhance Korea’s role in regional security. This includes strategies for maritime security, military readiness against conventional threats, and the strengthening of trilateral relationships with the US and Japan, providing a proactive roadmap for Korea’s foreign and defense policy.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Geopolitics, Alliance, Strategic Competition, and Regional Security
Political Geography:
Taiwan, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, and United States of America

204. Enhancing the Cooperation between the US and Its Allies in the Mekong Subregion

Author:
Sach Nguyen
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
The Mekong subregion is experiencing heightened geopolitical competition between the US and China, representing a clash between the international rules-based order and a China-led order. While the US and its allies advocate for the rules-based order, China’s intentions for its own order in the region are debated. China’s increased presence and influence in the Mekong subregion, particularly through upstream control of the Mekong water, reflect its pursuit of this order. In response, the US and its allies, such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia, have strengthened cooperation with one another to promote a rules-based system. Despite existing coordination, there is potential for further collaboration to enhance their role in mainland Southeast Asia. Stability and prosperity in the Mekong subregion are being challenged. Weakening international norms in governing transboundary waters threaten downstream countries’ security and livelihoods, exacerbated by climate change-induced droughts. China’s growing engagement in the region aims to establish its sphere of influence, primarily through economic development projects like dams and railways, raising concerns over environmental impacts and expanding Chinese influence. Additionally, non-traditional security threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic, cyber security, and human trafficking further complicate the region’s situation. The engagement of the US and its allies in the Mekong subregion is multifaceted, driven by various interests but united in countering China’s growing influence. The US, through initiatives like the Lower Mekong Initiative (LMI) and later the Mekong-US Partnership, seeks to maintain its relevance and preeminence in the region. Japan, South Korea, and Australia also engage with the subregion, for economic interests and to counterbalance China. Japan, for instance, aims to establish production bases and balance China’s influence through high-standard infrastructure projects. South Korea focuses on economic development and diversification of trade amid US-China tensions, while Australia prioritizes promoting a rules-based order and addressing non-traditional security threats. Despite differences in approach, the US and its allies collaborate through platforms like the Friends of the Mekong and initiatives such as the Trilateral Partnership for Infrastructure Investment in the Indo-Pacific, aimed at countering China’s Belt and Road Initiative. However, challenges remain in realizing these initiatives, particularly in engaging the private sector and ensuring concrete outcomes amidst competing interests and complex negotiations. Recommendations for enhancing cooperation between the US and its allies in the Mekong subregion include strengthening international norms and rules, expanding economic infrastructure projects, focusing on non-traditional security issues, and fostering track 1.5 and track 2 diplomacy to promote mutual understanding and collaboration among all stakeholders, including governments, academia, businesses, and civil society organizations. These efforts, facilitated by the US and its allies, can contribute to a more stable and prosperous Mekong subregion.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, Geopolitics, International Order, and Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, United States of America, and Mekong River

205. Biden-Xi Woodside Summit and the Slow Rehabilitation of US-PRC Ties

Author:
Sourabh Gupta
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Comparative Connections
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
The “guardrails” that President Biden and President Xi envisaged in Bali in November 2022 began to be emplaced at their November 2023 summit in Woodside, California. In-person, leader-led communication was deepened, reassurances exchanged, and practical—albeit modest—“deliverables” locked down on several fronts, including restarting mil-mil communications, cracking down on fentanyl precursors, addressing the national security harms of artificial intelligence (AI), and increased people-to-people exchanges. The establishment of numerous bilateral working groups will ensure an almost full plate of across-the-board consultations in 2024 as well as the means to troubleshoot irritants on short notice. As stabilizing as the Woodside summit was, it failed to deflect the US-PRC relationship from its larger overall trajectory of “selective decoupling” across a range of advanced technologies and frontier industries (microelectronics; quantum; AI; biomanufacturing; clean energy). Strategic trade controls and other competitive actions were doubled down upon. With a pivotal US presidential election looming in 2024, questions abound on the longer-term durability of a rehabilitating US-PRC relationship.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Trade, Xi Jinping, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

206. Weathering the Crisis

Author:
Akhil Ramesh and Michael Rubin
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Comparative Connections
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
For the US-India bilateral relationship, the first four months of 2024 was a repeat of the quarters of the last three years. Differences in attitudes toward Cold-War era partnerships surfaced and upset the calm in bilateral relations. Still, there were significant strides in the economic and trade front. The dispute over the killing in Canada of a Khalistan separatist designated a terrorist by India marred the security partnership. Still, Washington continued diplomatically to support India vis-à-vis China’s provocations such as bestowing Chinese names on Indian towns. Visits by top American military brass underscored the growing security cooperation between the two democracies. The nature of electoral democracy, though, created some diplomatic tension. While heated rhetoric and polemical campaign statements in India provided fodder for the Western press to question the supposed “values-based” partnership with India, President Joe Biden’s suggestion that Japan and India were as xenophobic and anti-immigrant as Russia and China angered many in India. These episodes were minor squalls compared to the hurricanes the bilateral relationship has endured over the last 50 or 60 years. While elections and security divergences made headlines, the relationship continued to build on pillars of trade and technology cooperation.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Elections, and Trade
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, North America, and United States of America

207. Ties Stabilize While Negative Undercurrents Deepen

Author:
Sourabh Gupta
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Comparative Connections
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
US-China relations were marked by a paradox during the first trimester of 2024. On the one hand, a distinct stabilization was evident in ties. The two sides made concerted efforts to translate their leaders’ ‘San Francisco Vision’ into reality. Cabinet officials exchanged visits across the Pacific, working groups and dialogue mechanisms met in earnest and produced outcomes, functional cooperation was deepened, sensitive issues such as Taiwan were carefully managed, and effort was devoted to improving the relationship’s political optics. On the other hand, the negative tendencies in ties continued to deepen. Both sides introduced additional selective decoupling as well as cybersecurity measures in key information and communications technology and services sectors, with US actions bearing the signs of desinicization—rather than mere decoupling—of relevant supply chains. The chasm in strategic perception remained as wide as before. In sum, the “new normal” in US-China relations continued to take form, one piece at a time. What a difference a year makes. At this time in late-April last year, the US and China were barely communicating, still smarting from the balloon incident of February 2023. It was not until US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and CPC Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Wang Yi met in Vienna in mid-May 2023 that a semblance of normality began to be restored to the relationship. Twelve months on, there has been an almost across-the-board restoration of communication channels, a deepening of functional cooperation across issues areas, and a concerted effort to manage the political optics of the relationship for the better – this, despite deep differences in strategic perception between the two sides.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

208. America First: Foreign Aid in the Trump Administration

Author:
Luiza Rodrigues Mateo
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Contexto Internacional
Institution:
Institute of International Relations, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
Abstract:
The US has led the way building the international development cooperation system and been the largest single donor for the last seven decades. Foreign aid has gone through different phases during the post-World War II period and remains an important geopolitical and geo-economic tool for 21st century USA. The Bush and Obama administrations, despite different nuances in terms of discourse and aid practices, invested in reforms to modernise aid programmes, increased funding for USAID, and created new global health, food security, and climate change programmes. Contrary to the historical trend, the Trump administration submitted budget requisitions characterised by a 30% reduction for State Department and USAID allocations. It is noteworthy that the Trump administration questioned the costs of global leadership, criticised international organizations and the sectoral allocation of funds, and made threats of cuts in aid to countries that opposed Washington’s interests. The purpose of this article is to understand how the strategy of ‘America First’ changed the strategic tripod of defence, diplomacy, and development, by analysing changes in US foreign aid in terms of available resources, recipient countries, aid modalities, and multilateral engagement.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, International Cooperation, Foreign Aid, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

209. Operation Car Wash beyond Borders: The Making of a Transnational Policing Field

Author:
Priscila Villela
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Contexto Internacional
Institution:
Institute of International Relations, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
Abstract:
Investigations by the press have revealed that Operation Car Wash, an anti-corruption task force, received support from the FBI, the American federal agency of criminal investigation. This paper analyses the transnational connections between Brazilian and American law enforcement officers, which led to the formulation and conduction of Operation Car Wash, reconstituting its transnational dimensions, which have yet to receive much attention in the specialised literature. To accomplish this, we have mobilised the field thinking tool developed by Pierre Bourdieu and his interpreters in International Relations, enabling us to reflect on the interactions between police within a specialised social space promoter of socialisation, competition, and cooperation. Beginning with documental research, we have identified the national and international actors involved in the operation, the power relationships between them, their patterns and spaces of interaction, and potential political impacts.
Topic:
International Relations, Corruption, Transnational Policing, FBI, and Operation Car Wash
Political Geography:
South America, United States of America, and North America

210. Operationalizing the Chain of Harm: Co-design Workshop Guidance

Author:
Lisa Reppell and Matt Bailey
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES)
Abstract:
The methodological notes below provide guidance for the implementation of the International Foundation for Electoral System's (IFES's) Chain of Harm to enhance the responsiveness of information integrity programming to the needs and unique circumstances of traditionally marginalized communities. Organizations within the democratic, rights, and governance (DRG) community of practice will be able to consult these notes to replicate, build, and design programming. By following the recommendations outlined in this resource, organizations can plan and execute primary source research on information integrity issues, effectively facilitate program design workshops with relevant local partners, and implement and track new, research-based program interventions. This resource builds on and complements the methodology outlined in IFES's publication, The Chain of Harm: Designing Evidence-based, Locally Led Information Integrity Programming. It begins by describing how to collect the primary research that serves as the foundation of programming through surveys and focus group discussions. Guidance for practitioners to facilitate the Co-design Workshop follows before turning to best practices for program implementation and monitoring and evaluation. As the Chain of Harm centers the perspectives of traditionally marginalized groups, accessibility guidance is included in line with this ethos. This practical use guide is derived from IFES data collected during two pilot implementations of the Chain of Harm in Iraq and Guyana between 2021 and 2023 with support from the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. In both countries, IFES' Center for Applied Research and Learning implemented the approach in close collaboration with local partners. While these methodological notes may often reference collaborations between international and local partners, a local organization implementing directly may also leverage such an approach.
Topic:
Elections, Democracy, and Information Integrity
Political Geography:
Iraq, Guyana, and United States of America

211. Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy

Author:
Vuslat Nur Şahin Temel
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
Abstract:
Henry Kissinger examines six national leaders in his recent book, Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy. These leaders are Konrad Adenauer from West Germany, Charles de Gaulle from France, Richard Nixon from the United States of America (US), Anwar Sadat from Egypt, Lee Kuan Yew from Singapore, and Margaret Thatcher from the United Kingdom (UK). The book focuses on how the lives and political strategies of these influential leaders from the second half of the twentieth century redirected their nations and what made them effective in world politics. In addition, Kissinger’s anecdotes explain the difficulties these leaders faced while rebuilding their countries after World War II and the qualities that caused them to have long-lasting effects. Kissinger’s diplomatic experience is as significant as the content of the book. Although famous worldwide, he is one of the most controversial diplomats. Kissinger, who fled the Nazis as a child and sought refuge in the US, worked as a national security advisor and Secretary of State during the Richard Nixon administration. Kissinger, who survived the Watergate Scandal and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for his role in ending the Vietnam War, served as Gerald Ford’s Secretary of State. After completing these duties, he continued to advise many US presidents. Undoubtedly, critical assignments made him read world politics in depth. He has been a key figure in global politics since the Cold War. However, Kissinger has an approach that ignores human rights violations to keep the international balance and the vital interests of the US. He continues to place particular emphasis on power and national interest in politics.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Leadership, and Henry Kissinger
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

212. The New Cold War Is Sending Tremors through Northeast Asia

Author:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Abstract:
This dossier looks at how the US-led New Cold War against China is destabilising Northeast Asia, focusing on the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan Strait, and Japan.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, Strategic Competition, Destabilization, and Post-Cold War
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Taiwan, Asia, Korea, and United States of America

213. Freedom isn’t Free: A cost-benefit analysis of support for Ukraine

Author:
Bob Deen and Roman de Baedts
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
More than ten years after the Russian annexation of Crimea and two years after the large-scale invasion, Ukraine is still holding its own against Russia. This is not only due to the courage and efforts of the Ukrainians themselves, but also thanks to the extensive military, economic, and financial support packages from Europe and the US. For 2024, the government had allocated three billion euros for military support to Ukraine in the fight against Russian aggression and also pledged an additional three billion for 2025. Following the UK, France, and Germany, the Netherlands has entered into a ten-year security cooperation agreement with Ukraine to ensure long-term support. The recently released AIV briefing note and a recent parliamentary letter also advocate for sustained support. However, this Western support is no longer a certainty or uncontested. Particularly in the US, but also in some European NATO countries, calls to halt support to Ukraine are slowly gaining more traction. The American support package of sixty billion dollars was stuck in the House of Representatives for months, causing significant difficulties for the Ukrainian armed forces. President Biden has scaled back his rhetoric from “as long as it takes” to “as long as we can”. New commitments for new aid to Ukraine stalled at the end of 2023 (with a nearly ninety percent drop), while promised ammunition quantities fell far short. A warning from French President Macron that a Western military intervention should not be ruled out received little support from his foreign counterparts. Although the issue of Western ‘boots on the ground’ also requires further attention, it is not addressed within this memo, and ‘support’ encompasses both economic and material assistance, but without the deployment of Western troops in Ukraine. Following Putin’s ‘election victory’ in March, the Kremlin escalated its war rhetoric. Government officials are now openly discussing ‘war,’ whereas previously, using that word could land one in prison. This fits into the rhetoric where NATO, rather than Ukraine, is portrayed as the aggressor. Additionally, the Russian Ministry of Defence announced the formation of two new combined arms Army Corps and accelerated the recruitment of new military personnel. Meanwhile, the Russian war industry is gearing up, producing large quantities of ammunition and equipment for the Russian war effort. The extensive import of artillery ammunition from North Korea and drones from Iran, among other capabilities, further complements Russian stocks. The consequences on the battlefield are already noticeable, as seen in the loss of the city of Avdiivka in February, and developments along the front since. Meanwhile, pressure on Ukrainian troops at the front is mounting. In an interview at the end of March, President Zelensky stated that Ukraine will have to cede more land if Western material support continues to be lacking. The renewed Northern front after the second Russian Kharkiv offensive is likely to further stretch Ukrainian defences and resilience in the near future. Despite overwhelming support in the Dutch parliament for continued support for Ukraine, there are nonetheless questions about the duration and scope of future assistance. The question regarding the costs and benefits of providing political, economic, and military support by the Dutch government is extremely relevant in this context. This constitutes more than a simple calculation where profit or loss is expressed in Euros. It also involves security risks and geopolitical and moral costs and benefits that cannot always be quantified in one-dimensional figures. It is therefore essential to adopt a broader understanding of costs and benefits, reasoned from the perspective of Dutch national security interests and the impact of international support on the outcomes of the conflict. An important consideration here is the extent to which support for Ukraine contributes to a military victory, a military loss, or a protracted conflict.
Topic:
Armed Conflict, Military Aid, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and United States of America

214. UNDP’s stabilization programme in and around Mosul, 2017–2022

Author:
Hugo de Vries
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
Between 2014 and 2017, the occupation of northwestern Iraq by the Islamic State in the Levant and the military campaign to defeat it left chaos and destruction in its wake. Six million people were displaced and damages ran to an estimated USD 88 billion. At the time, the international community swiftly threw its support behind the Iraqi government to reconstruct the affected areas. This paper tells the story of a major programmatic contribution to the reconstruction effort by assessing the rollout, implementation and impact of UNDP’s USD 1,5 billion USD Funding Facility for Stabilization (FFS) with a focus on Mosul. Tracing the frontline as it advanced, the program worked via the private sector to rebuild thousands of houses, water treatment plants, electrical stations, hospitals, schools and other key infrastructure and provided thousands of temporary jobs to people. To accomplish this, it had to negotiate security arrangements, deal with the limited capacity of the Iraqi state and above all, anticipate corruption by different actors. While the FFS was a programmatic success in terms of its own original objectives, one can also argue that the program did not significantly increase trust in the Iraqi government, positively influence Iraq’s political economy or mitigate local conflict dynamics ‘beyond the numbers’ of its concrete deliverables. As the paper has been written by the FFS’s former program coordinator in Mosul, it provides an insider perspective into the operational dynamics of a major UN program.
Topic:
Humanitarian Aid, Infrastructure, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and Stabilization
Political Geography:
Iraq, United States of America, and Mosul

215. NATO Summits: Looking ahead from Washington to The Hague

Author:
Dick Zandee and Roman de Baedts
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
The July 2024 NATO Summit in Washington DC confirmed that the Alliance is ‘back to the future’. Upon its 75th anniversary NATO took important decisions to further strengthen its political-military power in response to a variety of security challenges, in particular to the threat posed by Russia. Increased defence spending is starting to deliver results in improving the military capabilities of European Allies. NATO’s partnerships with the EU and with countries in the Pacific have been reinforced. Yet, dark clouds are hanging above the Alliance on its way from Washington to its next Summit in The Hague (June 2025). First and foremost, the US presidential elections on 5 November cast a shadow over the transatlantic cooperation, or even worse, may result in a category 5 hurricane for NATO if Donald Trump re-enters the White House. American military support for Ukraine could stop completely, increasing the pressure on European Allies to do more, or to end their ‘whatever it takes’ rhetoric. To ensure the US contribution to NATO, European Allies will need to step up their defence efforts, even under Democratic President Kamala Harris. The American focus on the Indo-Pacific/China is raising questions about the European role and contribution to the Alliance as well as to the Asia-Pacific region. This policy brief will address these major issues for the Alliance on the road from Washington to The Hague.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Alliance, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Europe, Ukraine, and United States of America

216. The battle over shipping lanes tips toward the Houthis

Author:
Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Abstract:
The Houthis have succeeded throughout the period following the initiation of their military support for Gaza in disrupting commercial shipping passing through the Red Sea to countries they consider hostile; and the military operations of the US alliance inadvertently aided them in achieving their objective.
Topic:
Maritime Commerce, Houthis, Shipping, and 2023 Gaza War
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Yemen, Palestine, Gaza, United States of America, and Red Sea

217. The Lebanese Front: Assessing the Threat of All-Out War

Author:
Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Abstract:
Indicators point to a heightened risk of war between Israel and Hezbollah, with Israel leading efforts to restore security in its northern region for resident return and to deter Hezbollah from its borders. However, high war costs and US opposition could limit escalation.
Topic:
Hezbollah, Armed Conflict, Escalation, and 2023 Gaza War
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Lebanon, and United States of America

218. The US Presidential Election: Unprecedentedly High Stakes

Author:
Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Abstract:
A combination of unexpected factors has led to the nomination of Kamala Harris as a replacement for Joe Biden, ushering the US elections into a new phase. This development could enhance the mechanism of political integration, but it might also lead to further exclusion, which could cause extremism and chaos, and weaken institutions.
Topic:
Domestic Politics, Institutions, Donald Trump, Polarization, Presidential Elections, Kamala Harris, and Political Integration
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

219. Stabilization Policies After the Sahel Coups

Author:
Florence Schimmel and Armin Schäfer
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Abstract:
The Sahel is increasingly ruled by authoritarian military regimes; co-­operation with them towards goals such as stability and peace is becoming more and more difficult for Germany. Following the recent coups in Mali and Niger in particular, the question now is whether and how the previous stabilization policies can be continued. For around ten years, Germany, together with the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States, has been pursuing stabilization policies that focus on strengthening fragile governments. In the future, Germany must more clearly define which partners are considered legitimate and which fundamental principles should apply, notwithstanding the high degree of context-specificity.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Coup, and Stabilization
Political Geography:
Africa, United Kingdom, Germany, Sahel, and United States of America

220. The US Presidential Election 2024 – Two Outcomes, One Set of Challenges

Author:
Andrew A. Michta
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Abstract:
Germany as Europe’s leading economy and the host country to the majority of US legacy military installations on the Continent, continues to lag behind ­NATO’s eastern flank allies when it comes to rearmament. Berlin’s long-term relations with Washington, as well as its overall ability to influence the direction of Europe’s evolution and the future of NATO will ultimately depend on how it responds to the challenge of rearmament.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, Donald Trump, Presidential Elections, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
Europe, Germany, North America, and United States of America

221. A Renewed Philippine-United States Alliance

Author:
Julio S. Amador III and Lisa Marie Palma
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
The Biden administration should keep in mind that domestic politics bears considerable implications for the alliance. Regarding economic relations, the United States needs to remain committed to policies that diversify supply chains and create opportunities for business and investment projects in the Philippines.
Topic:
Economics, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, and Investment
Political Geography:
Philippines, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

222. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: ASEAN Amid Sino-US Competition

Author:
William Choong
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
An area in which the United States has gained traction—at China’s expense—are emerging formal and ad hoc plurilateral collaborations between Quad members and Southeast Asian countries.
Topic:
Geopolitics, Multilateralism, Strategic Competition, ASEAN, and Quad Alliance
Political Geography:
China, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

223. Indian Ocean Security Means More Will Be Asked of US Allies

Author:
Benjamin Reilly and Peter Dean
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Ongoing disruptions in the Gulf of Aden and the vulnerability of other key Indian Ocean bottlenecks in the Straits of Hormuz or Malacca... [H]ighlight an inconvenient truth: the country with the most to lose from a disruption of the Indian Ocean today is China...
Topic:
Security, Maritime Commerce, and Economy
Political Geography:
China, India, Australia, West Asia, United States of America, and Indian Ocean

224. The Open Gap in the “Free and Open” Indo-Pacific

Author:
Kenneth Gofigan Kuper
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
"For many of us in Guam, a free and open Indo-Pacific cannot be fully accomplished without resolving the paradox of the United States maintaining a modern-day colony even though the local government has supported moving forward with a decolonization process."
Topic:
Politics, Decolonization, Strategy, and Colonization
Political Geography:
China, United States of America, Indo-Pacific, and Guam

225. Enhancing the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific through Sub-Regional Initiatives: The Case of the BIMP-EAGA Initiative

Author:
Hafiizh Hashim
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Hafiizh Hashim, Head Consultant at Sociable & Co. and Assistant Lecturer Universiti at Brunei Darussalam, explains that "[g]reater US engagement in the BIMP-EAGA [a subregional grouping encompassing states and subnational jurisdiction in eastern Southeast Asia] could deepen US-ASEAN relations" and "find convergence between US and ASEAN Indo-Pacific frameworks."
Topic:
International Relations, Climate Change, Economics, Environment, ASEAN, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:
Southeast Asia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

226. Pacific Perspectives on the US Indo-Pacific Strategy

Author:
Joe-Silem Enlet
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Mr. Joe-Silem Enlet, former Consul General for the Federated States of Micronesia and current PhD Student at the University of Rhode Island, explains that "[t]he Pacific and its ocean people’s heritage need to be featured more prominently in the US Indo-Pacific strategy."
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Economics, and Heritage
Political Geography:
United States of America, Indo-Pacific, and Micronesia

227. Growing Foreign and Security Policy Challenges Face India’s Re-elected Modi Government

Author:
Frank O'Donnell
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Frank O'Donnell, Adjunct Fellow with the East-West Center in Washington and Nonresident Fellow in the Stimson Center South Asia Program, asserts that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi faces growing challenges in his third term, including Chinese hostilities in the Himalayas, pursuing more peaceful relations with Pakistan, and navigating turbulence in US-India affairs.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Elections, and Narendra Modi
Political Geography:
Pakistan, South Asia, India, and United States of America

228. The Role of the United States in Just Energy Transition Partnerships in Indonesia and Vietnam

Author:
Melinda Martinus
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Melinda Martinus, Lead Researcher focusing on Climate Change in Southeast Asia and sustainable development at ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, explores the Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) for Indonesia and Vietnam against the backdrop of the upcoming US presidential election.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Partnerships, Climate Finance, Energy, Climate Justice, and Energy Transition
Political Geography:
Indonesia, Vietnam, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

229. Japan, the Philippines, and the United States: A New Era of Partnership through Trilateral Defense and Security Cooperation

Author:
Miyoko Taniguchi
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Miyoko Taniguchi, Professor of International Relations and Peace Studies at Miyazaki Municipal University in Japan, explains that the “strengthening of trilateral cooperation [between the United States, Japan, and the Philippines is a significant strategic move to institutionalize the deterrence and response capabilities of US allies and partners, especially to protect the territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea and East China Sea.”
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Sovereignty, Partnerships, Deterrence, and Defense Cooperation
Political Geography:
Japan, Philippines, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

230. Strategic Realignments: Assessing the Impact of Taiwan's 2024 Elections on US-China Relations and Indo-Pacific Stability

Author:
Yih-Jye Hwang
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Yih-Jye Hwang, an Assistant Professor of International Relations at Leiden University, details the transformation of US Asia-Pacific policy from strategic ambiguity to a more explicit stance, the Democratic Progressive Party’s Pro-US Stance, and the 'doubt America' theory prevalent among Taiwanese opposition parties.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Elections, Economy, and Domestic Politics
Political Geography:
Taiwan, Asia, and United States of America

231. Election 2024 in Pakistan - A Catalyst for Strengthening Global Health Security Partnerships

Author:
Saeed Ahmad
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Saeed Ahmad, a Public Health Coordinator with Pakistan’s Ministry of National Health Services, "explores the impact of Pakistan’s 2024 electoral outcomes on health policy formulation, resource allocation, and continued partnership and engagement with the United States on global health security and sustainable development."
Topic:
Security, Development, Elections, Partnerships, and Public Health
Political Geography:
Pakistan, South Asia, and United States of America

232. The US Should Enhance Economic Engagement with Taiwan

Author:
Min-Hua Chiang
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Min-Hua Chiang, East-West Center Adjunct Fellow and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the University of Nottingham’s Taiwan Research Hub, explains "Further strengthening Taiwan’s economy will make it more capable of bearing the financial burden of defending the island against a Chinese invasion…," and this imperative is compounded as Taiwan is “a critical player in America’s competition with China in the global semiconductor industry.”
Topic:
International Relations, Economics, Science and Technology, Leadership, Regional Economy, and Economic Engagement
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, and United States of America

233. Enhancing Military Diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific: A US Foreign Area Officer’s Perspective

Author:
Matthew House
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Lt. Col. Matthew House, US Army Foreign Area Officer and EWC Adjunct Fellow, underscores “the pivotal role of military diplomacy in orchestrating significant global events...” and highlights “the invaluable expertise of [Foreign Area Officers] in managing complex international relations."
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Education, Politics, and Military Diplomacy
Political Geography:
North Korea, Vietnam, Southeast Asia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

234. The US-India Clean Energy Partnership and Quad Provide Overlapping Pathways to Produce Clean Energy

Author:
Nischal Dhungel and Sethuram Senthil Kumar
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Mr. Nischal Dhungel and Mr. Sethuram Senthil Kumar, Consultant at the World Bank Group and Energy Engineer at both TRC Companies, Inc. and MCFA, respectfully, explain that "Robust partnerships with the United States, strategic cooperation within the Quad framework, and collective efforts across the Indo-Pacific region drive India's transformation in the energy sector."
Topic:
Climate Change, Economics, Science and Technology, Bilateral Relations, Governance, and Energy
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, Nepal, North America, and United States of America

235. US Perspectives on Sino-Russian Cooperation in the Arctic and Roles for Partners

Author:
Rebecca Pincus
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Rebecca Pincus, Director of the Polar Institute at the Wilson Center, explains that "The development of Russia’s Arctic hydrocarbons is dependent on foreign investment and advanced technologies; as the West has withdrawn from Russia, China is an important, if imperfect, substitute..."
Topic:
International Relations, Economics, Bilateral Relations, Sanctions, and Hydrocarbons
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Arctic, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

236. United States, UNESCO, and International Relations through Cultural Heritage

Author:
Neel Kamal Chapagain
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Neel Kamal Chapagain, Professor at Ahmedabad University's Centre for Heritage Management, explains that "[c]ultural heritage is becoming a more prominent vehicle for building international ties" and "support for or opposition to global cultural heritage campaigns, like UNESCO, have been used [in US presidential campaigns] to make political statements."
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, Culture, Heritage, UNESCO, and Emerging Powers
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

237. Rise of Economic Nationalism in Emerging Economies and the Influence of Elections

Author:
Michio Ueda
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Mr. Michio Ueda, President of Geopolitics & Strategy and Visiting Lecturer University of Tokyo, examines "the intersection between economic nationalism and recent elections in Indonesia and India" and finds that "industrial policy is not a significant point of political contention" and elections "serve as an opportunity to gain legitimacy for policies supporting economic nationalism."
Topic:
Economics, Industrial Policy, Nationalism, and Elections
Political Geography:
China, Indonesia, India, Asia, and United States of America

238. US-Japan Alliance Resiliency Amid Risks

Author:
Daniel Aldrich and Lei Nishiuwatoko
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Daniel Aldrich and Ms. Lei Nishiuwatoko, Professor of Political Science at Northeastern University and M.S. Candidate at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, respectfully, explain that "[t]he United States and Japan are uniquely positioned to mitigate the existential risk of climate change" and explore how "further policy alignment on the possession and stockpile of nuclear materials... would further strengthen the alliance."
Topic:
Climate Change, Bilateral Relations, Nonproliferation, Alliance, Resilience, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, and United States of America

239. Understated and Sometimes Contentious: A Perspective on the US-Australia Alliance in Southeast Asia

Author:
Ja Ian Chong
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Ja Ian Chong, Associate Professor of Political Science at National University of Singapore, explains that "[the] Australian-United States alliance is probably one of the most under-appreciated and misunderstood security partnerships in Southeast Asia," and it "helps undergird the status quo in Southeast Asia."
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Alliance, and Strategic Partnerships
Political Geography:
Australia, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

240. Strategic Partners or Fickle Friends? Indonesia’s Perceptions of the US-Australia Defense and Security Relationship

Author:
Lina Alexandra and Pieter Pandie
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Lina A. Alexndra and Mr. Pieter Pandie, Head of the International Relations Department and Researcher at Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Jakarta, respectfully, explain that "while [Indonesia] certainly considers Australia and the United States as key partners in navigating the region's security landscape... Indonesia has desired a more independent Australia, given its proximity"
Topic:
Security, Regional Security, Perception, Defense Cooperation, and Strategic Partnerships
Political Geography:
Indonesia, Australia, Southeast Asia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

241. ​​Vietnamese Perspective on the Significance of the US-Australia Alliance in Southeast Asian Security​

Author:
Bich T. Tran
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
​Dr. Bich Tran​, ​Postdoctoral Fellow at National University of Singapore and Adjunct Fellow Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.​, ​examines the implications of the alliance for Southeast Asian security from the perspective of Vietnam, a country that has long pursued a policy of non-alignment while actively engaging with both the United States and Australia.​
Topic:
International Relations, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, Regional Security, and Strategic Partnerships
Political Geography:
Vietnam, Australia, Southeast Asia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

242. ​​The Australia-US Alliance from a Thai Perspective: An Unbreakable or Unpinnable Partnership?​

Author:
Jittipat Poonkham
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
​Dr. Jittipat Poonkham​, ​ Associate Professor of International Relations at Thammasat University​, ​argues that "AUKUS, as well as the Australia-US alliance, seems to be an “unpinnable” alliance in the sense that it cannot be firmly pinned down in Thailand’s strategic mindset."​
Topic:
International Relations, Economics, Partnerships, Alliance, and AUKUS
Political Geography:
Australia, Thailand, Southeast Asia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

243. Race Politics and Colonial Legacies: France, Africa and the Middle East

Author:
Hisham Aïdi, Marc Lynch, Zachariah Mampilly, Baba Adou, and Oumar Ba
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS)
Abstract:
In February 2020 – the eve of the COVID-19 pandemic – the Project on Middle East Political Science held a preliminary meeting at Columbia University in New York to explore the origins of the Africa-Middle East divides that treat North Africa as part of the Middle East and neglect states such as Sudan and Mauritania. Columbia was an appropriate place to begin such a dialogue. Two decades ago, when two of us (Aidi and Mampilly) were graduate students at Columbia, the Institute of African Studies was in serious crisis. The Ugandan political theorist Mahmood Mamdani arrived and launched an initiative to decolonize the study of Africa to counter Hegel’s partition of Africa by transcending the Saharan and red Sea divides, and by underscoring Africa’s links to Arabia, Asia and the New World. To that end, we co-organized a second conference on racial formations in Africa and the Middle East looking at race-making across these two regions comparatively, including the border zones often left out of both African and Middle Eastern Studies: the Sudans, Amazigh-speaking areas in the Sahel, Arabic speaking areas on the Swahili coast and Zanzibar. This workshop represents the third in our series of transregional studies across the Africa-Middle East divide.
Topic:
Politics, Post Colonialism, Race, History, Colonialism, Islamophobia, and Racialization
Political Geography:
Uganda, Africa, Europe, Sudan, Middle East, France, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia, Mauritania, and United States of America

244. Inside the ICBM Lobby: Special Interests or the Public Interest?

Author:
William D. Hartung
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
The nuclear weapons lobby is one of the most powerful forces in the military industrial complex. 1 The lobby’s current priority is advocating for the $315 billion Sentinel program to build a new Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). The program has faced controversy over both its utility and its cost, including a cost increase of a whopping 81 percent since 2020. The key champions of the Sentinel program are the Senators from Montana, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming — states that are home to major ICBM bases or host major work on the Sentinel program. The group — known as the Senate ICBM Coalition — stresses the Sentinel’s purported role in strengthening nuclear deterrence as well as its creation of jobs in the states they represent. However, other members of Congress and ex–defense officials have raised urgent concerns about the Sentinel program, questioning the deterrence rationale that undergirds it and raising the alarm over the risk of accidental nuclear usage. Despite claims about Sentinel’s economic benefits, it remains unclear how many jobs the program will actually create. Weapons contractors — led by the Sentinel’s prime contractor, Northrop Grumman — play a central role in the ICBM lobby. Since 2018, members of the strategic forces subcommittees of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have received $3.8 million from the 11 major Sentinel contractors. In total, ICBM contractors have donated $87 million to members of Congress in the last four election cycles alone. Contractors’ influence efforts are aided by the fact that senior government officials and members of Congress often secure jobs in the arms industry when they leave government; this provides them the opportunity to lobby former colleagues. In all, the 11 ICBM contractors have spent $226 million on lobbying in the past four election cycles. They currently employ 275 lobbyists, the vast majority of whom have passed through the revolving door from influential positions in government. The Sentinel program should be scrutinized as part of a larger reassessment of U.S. nuclear policy. The 2023 report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States endorses the program and calls for a comprehensive nuclear weapons build-up, including the possible placement of multiple nuclear warheads on ICBMs — a highly aggressive strategic posture that has not been in place since the Cold War. A high number of Commission members have ties to the nuclear weapons industry, including its co–chair Jon Kyl, who was once a lobbyist for Sentinel prime contractor Northrop Grumman. Congress must weigh the dubious benefits of the Commission’s proposals against the significant risks and costs its recommendations would entail if carried out.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Grand Strategy, Military-Industrial Complex, Militarism, and Sentinel Program
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Asia, and United States of America

245. A Saudi Accord: Implications for Israel-Palestine Relations

Author:
Jeremy Pressman
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
The Biden administration and Israel’s Netanyahu government have both expressed support for the idea of a trilateral agreement in which Saudi Arabia would normalize diplomatic relations with Israel in exchange for the United States providing significant benefits to Saudi Arabia, such as security guarantees. A major selling point has been the claim that such an agreement could pave the way to settling the bitter Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has again erupted into a central threat to peace in the Middle East. However, given the experience of the Trump administration’s Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between four Arab states and Israel with the hope of moving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a resolution, deep skepticism is warranted. The Abraham Accords did nothing to advance Palestinian-Israeli conflict resolution. Even before October 7, there was no hint of Israeli moderation in response to the accords. Since October 7, we have witnessed the largest Palestinian terrorist attack in Israeli history, followed by Israel’s destruction of Gaza and the killing of thousands of Palestinians in response. This conflict risks destabilizing the entire Middle East. This brief reviews the relevant history and incentives around the claimed relationship between Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution and Israeli-Arab normalization agreements. It concludes that a U.S.-brokered normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia would be counterproductive to Israeli-Palestinian peace. Indeed, recent history suggests that Saudi Arabia and the United States would be wasting potential leverage for influencing Israeli policy and that the regional approach unhelpfully diverts attention away from the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. Rather than pursue the already failed approach of seeking peace through the normalization of relations between Israel and third-party countries, a better route would include using U.S. leverage to directly drive Israeli-Palestinian peace. To do this, the U.S. should: 1.) Use its leverage through military aid to secure a permanent ceasefire in Gaza as a matter of urgency; 2.) Refocus on the core issues of Israeli-Palestinian peace, such as occupation, and demand genuine, substantive concessions from the Israeli government; and 3.) Fully integrate the use of U.S. leverage, such as arms sales and military assistance, into the pursuit of these goals.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, National Security, Hegemony, Conflict, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Administration
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, United States of America, and UAE

246. Right-Sizing the Russian Threat to Europe

Author:
George Beebe, Mark Episkopos, and Anatol Lieven
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
Western leaders, including U.S. President Joe Biden, have frequently framed the invasion of Ukraine as the first step in a Russian plan of broader European conquest. However, a close examination of Russian intent and military capabilities shows this view is dangerously mistaken. Russia likely has neither the capability nor the intent to launch a war of aggression against NATO members — but the ongoing brinkmanship between Russia and the West still poses serious risks of military escalation that can only be defused by supplementing military deterrence with a diplomatic effort to address tensions. An analysis of Russian security thinking demonstrates that Putin’s stated views align with long-standing Russian fears about Western encroachment, given Russia’s lack of natural barriers to invasion. As Putin has come to view NATO as increasingly hostile to Russia, aggressive Russian action in defense of its claimed “sphere of influence” has become a factor in European security. However, contrary to many Western analyses, this does not mean that Russia views future wars of aggression against NATO member states as in its security interest. This does not imply naivete about the danger of Russian aggression, as reflected most recently in its illegal invasion of Ukraine. But it highlights the fundamental differences between Russia’s perceptions of Ukraine, which it has long regarded as both critical to its national security and integral to its history and culture, and its views of NATO countries, where the cost-benefit balance of aggression for Russia would be very different. Understanding Russian incentives also requires assessing Russia’s actual military capabilities compared to NATO. As frequently reiterated by NATO leadership, such an assessment shows that Russia is at a decisive conventional military disadvantage against the NATO alliance. While Russia would do damage in a conventional war with NATO, it would almost certainly suffer a devastating defeat in such a conflict absent nuclear escalation. NATO has a greater than three-to-one advantage over Russia in active-duty ground forces. NATO also has even greater advantages in the air and at sea. The alliance has a ten-to-one lead in military aircraft and a large qualitative edge as well, raising the probability of total air superiority. At sea, NATO would likely have the capacity to impose a naval blockade on Russian shipping, whose costs would dwarf current economic sanctions. While Russia has clear military superiority over individual NATO states, especially in the Baltics, it is extremely unlikely it could exercise this advantage without triggering a broader war with the entire NATO alliance. However, NATO’s powerful military deterrent alone cannot create stability in Europe. Paradoxically, an excessive reliance on military deterrence is likely to increase instability by inducing Russia to rely increasingly on its nuclear force as its primary basis for deterrence. Unlike conventional forces, Russia and NATO possess roughly the same amount of nuclear weapons. Washington must work to defuse this increasingly unstable dynamic by restoring diplomatic lines of communication between Russia and the West.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, NATO, National Security, Bilateral Relations, Military, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and United States of America

247. Implications of a Security Pact with Saudi Arabia

Author:
Paul R. Pillar
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
The Biden administration is seeking a deal in which Saudi Arabia would extend full diplomatic recognition to Israel in exchange for the United States providing Saudi Arabia a security guarantee, assistance in developing a nuclear program, and more unrestricted arms sales. Such an arrangement would further enmesh the United States in Middle Eastern disputes and intensify regional divisions. It would work against a favorable pattern of regional states working out their differences when the United States leaves them on their own — illustrated by the Chinese-brokered détente between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Besides being an authoritarian state lacking shared values with the United States, Saudi Arabia under Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has aggressively pursued regional dominance, most notably with its highly destructive war in Yemen. A U.S. security guarantee could motivate MBS to engage in even riskier behavior and draw the United States into conflicts in which it has no stake, such as the sectarian dispute that had led Saudi Arabia to break relations with Iran. An expanded Saudi nuclear program would have a military as well as an energy dimension, with MBS having openly expressed interest in nuclear weapons. Granting the Saudi demand for help in enriching uranium would be a blow to the global nonproliferation regime as well as a reversal of longstanding U.S. policy. A race in nuclear capabilities between Iran and Saudi Arabia may result. Meeting MBS’ demands would not curb Saudi relations with China, which are rooted in strong economic and other interests. The United States could compete more effectively with China in the region not by taking on additional security commitments but instead by emulating the Chinese in engaging all regional states in the interest of reducing tensions. Normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia would not be a peace agreement, given the already extensive security cooperation between them. Even the gift of normalization with Riyadh would be unlikely to soften Israel’s hard-line positions regarding the war in Gaza and the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and instead would only reduce further Israeli motivation to resolve that conflict.
Topic:
Diplomacy, National Security, Conflict, Normalization, Joe Biden, and Military
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America

248. Private Finance and the Quest to Remake Modern Warfare

Author:
Michael Brenes and William D. Hartung
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
Official Washington is all in on promoting a new type of warfare based on military applications of AI and other emerging technologies. This determination was on full display last year when the Biden administration unveiled the “Replicator” initiative, an attempt to develop swarms of high-tech weapons systems at relatively low cost, and in numbers capable of overwhelming any potential adversary. But the history of so-called miracle weapons offers ample reasons to doubt Replicator’s supposedly transformative potential. Previous innovations, from the “electronic battlefield” in Vietnam to drone warfare in the Global War on Terrorism, did not, in fact, revolutionize war as we know it. Cutting-edge technology is no substitute for sound strategy or a realistic assessment of what military force can achieve. Unfortunately, so far, at least, these lessons from history have been no match for the boosterism of venture capital (VC) firms that pride themselves on disrupting industries and overturning conventional wisdom. While estimates of total VC funding of emerging military technology vary widely, it is clear that private investments in emerging weapons technologies are large and growing, driven by a handful of major Silicon Valley players, including Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund and Andreessen-Horowitz. Companies backed by these firms, including Palantir, Anduril, and SpaceX, have already landed major contracts for weapons systems that incorporate next-generation technology. These firms and their allies in the Pentagon and Congress are determined to move full speed ahead on the development and deployment of weapons based on AI and other technological innovations, despite many unanswered questions about the costs and risks involved. While the bulk of Pentagon funding still goes to the “big five” contractors — Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon), Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman — VC-backed startups aspire to become the future of military contracting, and they hope that AI and other emerging technologies will be their ticket. These startups may prove to be more nimble and innovative than the bloated, top-heavy firms that currently dominate the arms industry, but they should not be allowed to operate with impunity. Congress must establish ground rules that prevent military startups from exploiting the procurement process in ways that pad their bottom lines while providing flawed systems — outcomes that we have seen all too often from their traditional rivals. What is most important, the rush to profit from emerging military tech cannot be allowed to short-circuit the careful scrutiny and wide-ranging public debate that must precede any move toward a brave new world of autonomous warfare in which human intervention in the kill chain is significantly reduced, if not eliminated. This brief offers policymakers a framework for ensuring that unsupported promises to “reinvent” warfare don’t exacerbate the cycle of corruption and waste that has all too often plagued the Pentagon’s procurement process, to the detriment of our safety and security.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Finance, Grand Strategy, and Warfare
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

249. Rethinking the U.S.–Belarus Relationship

Author:
Mark Episkopos
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
Belarus is commonly seen as a Russian outpost on NATO’s eastern flank, with its president, Aleksandr Lukashenko, cast as a categorical opponent of Western interests. This narrative became ascendant in the West after Russia’s full–scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. However, a fuller examination of Belarusian foreign policy under President Lukashenko reveals a more nuanced picture of a country that, despite its historic ties to Russia, has consistently demonstrated a willingness to engage with the West. Lukashenko has sought to pursue what he calls a “multi–vector foreign policy,” straddling the great powers to best safeguard Belarus’s national sovereignty and its interests. This multi–pronged approach has shifted decidedly in recent years, however, with Lukashenko drifting into the Russian camp, as evidenced by Minsk providing logistical support and safe passage to Russian troops in its war on Ukraine, and allowing Russian tactical nuclear weapons on Belarussian soil. But these policies did not occur in a vacuum. They were, rather, a direct result of American efforts to isolate Belarus through a maximum pressure campaign which began in the aftermath of the 2020 re–election of Lukashenko. Western policies aimed at isolating Minsk have had the counterproductive effect of pushing Lukashenko closer to Moscow and Beijing, in an effort to counteract what he sees as a Western program of driving regime change in Belarus. Western governments, particularly Washington, should recognize that maximum pressure will backfire by pushing Belarus closer to Moscow. An alternative strategy based on resetting relations with Belarus and enabling the return of Lukashenko’s multi–vector foreign policy holds the promise of preventing the further integration of Belarus and Russia and possibly even reversing some of Putin’s moves to pull Belarus into the Russian orbit. To execute this strategy, the United States should: Explicitly disavow regime change and the training of anti–Lukashenko dissidents as U.S. policy goals in direct talks with Belarussian officials, conditioned on Belarussian assurance that it will not use its territory as a staging ground for attacks on NATO Establish a piecemeal approach for sanctions relief with Belarus as progress is made toward resetting relations Pursue bilateral cooperation with Belarus, including the resumption of energy trade, American investment, and other cultural arrangements. Pursuing the soft reset prescribed in this paper will not be easy, but the alternatives would leave the United States in a weaker strategic position by needlessly heightening Minsk’s dependence on its Russian neighbor. Steps toward reaching a new understanding with Belarus can instead bolster eastern European stability and enhance NATO’s eastern deterrent posture.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, National Security, Bilateral Relations, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Eastern Europe, Belarus, and United States of America

250. Subsidizing the Military-Industrial Complex: A Review of the Secretary of Defense Executive Fellows (SDEF) Program

Author:
Brett Heinz and Ben Freeman
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
For nearly 30 years, an obscure Department of Defense (DoD) program has given Pentagon contractors a taxpayer-subsidized opportunity to influence U.S. military policy, creating massive conflicts of interest — yet little scrutiny. This research brief offers a first of its kind look at the DoD’s Secretary of Defense Executive Fellows (SDEF) program, which sends U.S. military officers to work at major corporations for a year, and then return and provide recommendations to the DoD for how it might improve. Military contractors benefit disproportionately from the SDEF program. Twenty-nine percent of all SDEF fellows have gone to the nation’s top 50 government contractors, with 15 percent going to the “big five” military contractors alone. None of the 317 fellows in the program’s history has ever served at a public sector institution. Decades of SDEF recommendations have consistently focused on reforms that would both benefit corporations and bolster their influence over the DoD, including calls for a greater share of the agency’s budget to be given to military contractors, reduced oversight, greater private outsourcing of agency responsibilites, and the loosening of international arms trade regulations. SDEF also keeps the revolving door between public service and private profit spinning. Forty-three percent of SDEF fellows went on to work for a government contractor at some point in their post-military career. In consistently failing to distinguish between what’s best for corporate executives and what’s best for the American people, the SDEF program represents a dangerous embrace of the military-industrial complex. Whereas Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against the “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry” whose “total influence” can be seen in “every office of the Federal Government,” the SDEF program explicitly advocates for it. SDEF has become a reliable method for corporations to disguise self–interested policy aspirations as helpful recommendations for DoD. If this program is to continue, DoD must act forcefully to address and minimize the unsettling conflicts of interest embedded within SDEF by: Enforcing a “one defense contractor per year” rule; Barring fellows from working in “government relations” roles; Exploring post–employment restrictions for former fellows; Re–balancing orientations away from undue corporate influence and political bias; Rationalizing program size.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Military-Industrial Complex, and Militarism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America