« Previous |
1 - 10 of 17
|
Next »
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. A New Horizon in U.S. Trade Policy: Key Developments and Questions for the Biden Administration
- Author:
- Trevor Sutton and Mike Williams
- Publication Date:
- 03-2023
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- This issue brief examines some of the key trade initiatives pursued by the Biden administration to date. It then sets out key questions facing U.S. trade policy in a global environment defined by volatility and renewed ambition to tackle the great challenges of the 21st century, such as climate change, inequality, and great power competition.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Treaties and Agreements, European Union, Inequality, Economy, Trade Policy, and Strategic Competition
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific, United States of America, and Americas
3. Will Viktor Orbán Bring His Racist Rhetoric to the United States this Week?
- Publication Date:
- 08-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's embrace of far-right racism should prompt American conservatives to cut ties with the autocratic Hungarian leader.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Leadership, Discrimination, and Far Right
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Hungary, North America, and United States of America
4. Destroying the Foundations of U.S. Foreign Policy
- Author:
- Kelly Magsamen and Michael Fuchs
- Publication Date:
- 06-2018
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- In the span of just a few days in June, President Donald Trump became the first U.S. president to refuse to sign onto a statement of the G-7 leaders as well as the first sitting American president to meet with a North Korean leader. These two encounters have shaken the foundations of U.S. foreign policy and may irreversibly damage America’s security and prosperity. Specifically, they have signaled that the United States under Trump will disregard its closest allies and embrace the world’s most brutal dictators. For months, President Trump has chipped away at America’s role as a global leader. He has withdrawn the United States from both the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate agreement and has praised dictators such as Kim Jong Un, to name just a few examples. However, in the past few weeks, the events of the G-7 and Singapore summits may have triggered the beginning of a fundamental break between America and the alliances and democratic values that have grounded U.S. foreign policy for decades. And in the coming weeks, there is the potential for even more damage as Trump visits Europe in July for a state visit to the United Kingdom, the NATO summit in Belgium, and a U.S.-Russia summit. In only 17 months in office, President Trump has managed to scuttle decades of hard-won U.S. global credibility and has swung open the door to China and Russia, two countries that will seize the advantage at the expense of America’s security and economic interests.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Leadership, and Alliance
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
5. 6 Steps the Trump Administration Should Take in Iraq
- Author:
- Andrew Kim, Daniel Benaim, and Hardin Lang
- Publication Date:
- 02-2017
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- The ongoing battle to retake Iraq from the Islamic State, or IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is one of the most dynamic foreign policy challenges that the Trump administration confronts as it takes office. A fierce fight is underway to recapture Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, with American soldiers operating near the frontlines of a bewilderingly complicated battle space. Major questions remain regarding how Mosul will be stabilized and governed once the city is liberated, and how a still-fractured Iraq can approach the enduring challenge of national reconciliation. President Donald Trump has issued a new executive order requesting an anti-IS strategy in 30 days.1 But the new president has already undercut America’s position in Iraq through his words and deeds. He has repeated his campaign calls for the United States to take Iraq’s oil as spoils of war, including in front of a memorial to fallen Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA, officers.2 And his first major action related to Iraq—an executive order restricting Iraqis’ travel to America—insults the nation’s Iraqi partners who have been at the frontline of the fight against IS and weakens U.S. influence in Iraq.3 The Trump administration’s reckless rhetoric on Iran, including Trump’s accusation that Iran is “taking over more and more of Iraq,” undercuts the anti-IS campaign and undermines broader efforts to counter Iran’s malign regional influence.4 The 2003 Iraq war ended a U.S. policy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq, and the fallout from the Iraq war contributed to Iran’s rising influence across the region. More than a decade later, however, Iraqi nationalism remains strong, and the recent enhanced U.S.-Iraqi cooperation in countering IS has helped reaffirm Iraq as an independent actor not beholden to any other regional forces, including Iran. Trump’s saber-rattling against Iran risks making Iraq a battleground for the United States and Iran. It heightens the chances of conflict between U.S. troops and Iranian-backed Iraqi Shia militants—an outcome that would set back the campaign against IS and quickly wear out America’s welcome in Iraq. The time is now for President Trump to change course and set a more responsible path for U.S.-Iraqi relations. His team will confront policy decisions in its first 100 days that will have consequences for years to come. The good news is that the new administration inherits an anti-IS campaign with considerable momentum. President Barack Obama left behind a global coalition on the cusp of a major military victory in Mosul.5 With U.S. and coalition support, Iraqis have already liberated most of their country and are now degrading remaining IS sanctuaries.6 Trump’s challenge will be to correct his early missteps, see the last administration’s effort through to its conclusion, and chart a stable course for post-IS Iraq. To this end, the Trump administration should take the following six steps.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, Counter-terrorism, and ISIS
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
6. U.S.-Indonesia and U.S.-Malaysia Relations in the Trump Era
- Author:
- Brian Harding and Trevor Sutton
- Publication Date:
- 06-2017
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- Since President Donald Trump took office, East Asia has rapidly emerged as one of both his and his foreign policy advisers’ key geographic focuses. To date, most of Trump’s attention has been on Northeast Asia—particularly China and North Korea. By contrast, the White House has offered little in the way of a policy vision for Southeast Asia, where engagement so far has largely focused on gaining Southeast Asian support for policy regarding North Korea’s nuclear program. Yet even with Washington on autopilot with the region, U.S. ties with some Southeast Asian states are already changing. Specifically, the Islamophobic rhetoric and policies of Trump’s campaign and the early days of his administration have already caused significant damage to perceptions of the United States and its government among the region’s more than 230 million Muslims, the vast majority of whom live in its two Muslim-majority nations—Indonesia and Malaysia.1 In April, the authors visited Jakarta, Indonesia, and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and met with leading political analysts, public opinion experts, businesspeople, and government officials to get on-the-ground insight into how the general public and elites in Indonesia and Malaysia view the Trump administration and what those views might mean for U.S. bilateral relations. While it is too early for substantial polling data to be available, it is clear that opinions of the United States are declining among the general public in both countries.2 However, based on the authors’ conversations with officials and leading nongovernment analysts, it also appears that U.S.-Indonesian and U.S.-Malaysian government to government relations are unlikely to deteriorate significantly in the immediate future. But the reasons why bilateral relations are likely to remain stable may also damage U.S. interests in the long run.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Leadership, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Indonesia, Malaysia, Asia, North America, Southeast Asia, and United States of America
7. Setting Priorities for Nuclear Modernization
- Author:
- Lawrence Korb and Adam Mount
- Publication Date:
- 02-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- n the next decade, the United States will have to make decisions that will shape its nuclear arsenal for much of the next century. Nearly every missile, submarine, aircraft, and warhead in the U.S. arsenal is nearing the end of its service life and must be replaced. As Congress and the Obama administration continue to wrestle with the effects of sequestration on projected levels of defense spending, the U.S. Department of Defense has begun a series of procurement programs that will nearly double the amount the country spends on its nuclear deterrent in the next decade compared to what it spent in the past decade. Over the next 30 years, the cost of the nuclear deterrent could pass $1 trillion and crowd out defense and domestic investments needed to keep the United States strong and competitive. In addition, it could undermine U.S. credibility on the issue of nuclear proliferation—especially when it comes to dealing with regimes such as Russia, China, and North Korea.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Denuclearization
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Japan, China, Europe, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America
8. Updating U.S.-Saudi Ties to Reflect the New Realities of Today’s Middle East
- Author:
- Brian Katulis, Rudy deLeon, Peter Juul, Mokhtar Awad, and John Craig
- Publication Date:
- 04-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- When President Barack Obama arrived in Saudi Arabia last week to participate in the U.S. summit with the Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC, he landed in the midst of regional turbulence and major economic and foreign policy changes by the Kingdom. Today, the Middle East remains caught up in a period of fragmentation and competition for influence among the leading powers in the region. In the aftermath of last year’s nuclear deal between Iran and other global powers, President Obama has yet to achieve the new equilibrium in the Middle East that he envisioned. His recent suggestion that GCC countries “share” the region with Iran received a cool reception in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the GCC. Saudi Arabia—along with other GCC countries—remains deeply concerned about Iran’s subversive activities in the region, including its support for terrorist groups and ongoing conventional military efforts, such as its ballistic missile program. This current period of insecurity following the Iran nuclear deal is the latest episode in a U.S.-Saudi relationship roiled by tension for more than a decade. Since 2000, the decades-long foundation of close relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia—namely, regional stability, energy security, and military cooperation—has come under considerable stress. The 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 and the 2003 Iraq war ushered in a rocky phase in bilateral U.S.-Saudi relations. These two incidents—along with the end of the U.S. policy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq—led to a decline in mutual trust between the United States and Saudi Arabia that’s now reaching critical mass.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Economic Cooperation
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Saudi Arabia, North America, and United States of America
9. The Crisis in Turkish-Russian Relations
- Author:
- Soli Ozel
- Publication Date:
- 05-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- On November 24, 2015, despite multiple warnings from Turkish air patrols, a Russian SU-24 aircraft that violated Turkish airspace for 17 seconds was shot down by a Turkish F-16 fighter jet. The Russians denied that they were ever in Turkish airspace, while NATO corroborated the Turkish version. According to Turkish sources, there were repeated warnings for five minutes—which the Russians claimed they never received—and Turkey’s rules of engagement were well known to the Russians. One pilot was rescued by Russian special forces, but Turkmen rebels—trained and supplied by Turkey—on the ground across the border in Syria shot and killed the other as he was parachuting from the plane.* Turkish authorities immediately approached NATO for support, a move that reportedly infuriated Russian President Vladimir Putin, who called the downing of the plane “a stab in the back.” The Russian military claimed that the Turkish action was preplanned—an accusation the Turkish General Staff denied. After initially reiterating that its rules of engagement were clear, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan expressed sadness at the downing of the plane and his hope that the crisis could be resolved.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, NATO, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Turkey, and Asia
10. Emerging Threats and New Trends in Turkish Foreign Policy
- Author:
- Galip Dalay
- Publication Date:
- 06-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- Turkey’s foreign policy during most of the republican era was informed by the security imperatives of the Cold War and the crises that ensued from the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. These influences were coupled with the country’s republican elites crafting Turkey’s identity along the lines of strict secularism, militant nationalism, and a western orientation. As a status quo power, Turkey looked at its neighborhood through the lens of security, becoming highly sensitive to threats of all varieties and seeing itself in a hostile environment—if not surrounded by outright enemies. Upon coming to power in 2002, successive Justice and Development Party, or AKP, governments tried to change this understanding and minimize areas of friction with Turkey’s neighbors. During the early years, they adopted a utilitarian approach, attempting to develop mutual interests and opportunities and to create a degree of interdependency, particularly through economic exchange. This was expressed through then-Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s “zero problems with the neighbors” principle, which provided the intellectual architecture for much of Turkey’s foreign policy. The AKP sought to build an “economy first” approach, which it would later hope to leverage for political purposes. From the beginning of the AKP’s second term in 2007 to the early days of the Arab uprisings in late 2010 and into 2011, the party gradually expanded its ambitions and policy toward the Middle East through attempts to achieve regional integration and, later, to build an order centered on Turkey. All of these attempts sought to build on economic relations toward economic integration and political cooperation and were very much in line with the neofunctionalist approach to regional integration theories.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, NATO, Diplomacy, Military Affairs, European Union, and Arab Spring
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Turkey, and Asia