Search

Begin New Search Publishing Institution Center for Strategic and International Studies Publication Year within 25 Years

91. What Youth Want

Author:
Ritu Sharma and Eric Simms
Publication Date:
08-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
In this review of 25 statements from youth summits and consultations globally, as well as 11 national and regional youth polls, we hear some priorities we expect: youth want jobs, the chance to start their own businesses, and high-quality relevant education. But we also see that young people everywhere are increasingly concerned about issues of governance, corruption, and both regional and national security.
Topic:
International Security, Labor Issues, and Youth Culture

92. Advancing U.S.-Australian Combined Amphibious Capabilities

Author:
Maren Leed, J.D. McCreary, and George Flynn
Publication Date:
08-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
The demand for amphibious capabilities in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region reflects the operational and strategic challenges faced by the U.S. Marine Corps and Australian Defense Forces. Both nations have indicated the importance of deepening their strategic partnership, yet there has been a lack of clarity around the desired outcomes for and priority among the variety of cooperative activities. Recognizing that the demand for amphibious capabilities in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region will likely continue to exceed the current capacity of any one nation, the CSIS International Security Program sought to explore the strategic and operational utility of various models for combined amphibious forces. The study first provides an overview of existing and projected ADF and USMC amphibious capability and capacity. Using data gathered from interviews with U.S. and Australian subject matter experts, the study examines two potential force options along five dimensions: range/duration, responsiveness, scale, breadth, and force protection. These options are evaluated against three mission sets varying in complexity. As the United States continues to face shortfalls in amphibious capacity and as Australia continues to advance its capabilities, this report provides a framework and recommendations through which to align strategic interests and advance a shared vision for combined amphibious operations.
Political Geography:
United States and Australia

93. U.S. Actions Can Help Keep Global Polio Eradication Strategy on Track

Author:
Nellie Bristol
Publication Date:
07-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) in April 2013 unveiled an ambitious six-year strategy aimed at finally ending polio worldwide. The four-pronged approach called for stopping transmission in the remaining polio endemic countries while also eliminating rare but paralyzing vaccine-related polio. It outlined plans to ensure proper laboratory and health facility containment of poliovirus as eradication neared. Lastly, the Polio Eradication & Endgame Strategic Plan 2013–2018 urged countries, donors, and international partners to begin planning for the transition of polio program resources to country heath systems and other health initiatives. The drive to eradicate polio is at a pivotal point. The number of cases is down globally compared to last year. Polio programs in both Nigeria and Pakistan are moving in a positive direction while progress in Afghanistan is holding steady. A successful move to bivalent OPV would greatly reduce the number of polio cases caused by vaccine viruses and set the stage for an eventual worldwide switch to IPV. But extraordinary efforts still are required to reach the endgame strategy’s goals.
Topic:
Health, Infectious Diseases, and Health Care Policy

94. Counting the Cost of South Africa's Health Burden

Author:
Richard Downie and Sahil Angelo
Publication Date:
07-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
South Africa’s health system is approaching a make or break moment. Can it complete a set of complex organizational reforms and place itself on a sustainable financial footing that will enable it to deliver first-rate health care services to patients? Or will a stalled political process, economic stagnation, and the country’s daunting—and expanding—health burden torpedo the reform effort and cause the system to grind to a halt, with dire consequences for the nation’s health? CSIS explored these questions on a recent research trip to South Africa. This report summarizes the findings
Topic:
Health and Health Care Policy
Political Geography:
South Africa

95. Theories on Why North Korea Rejects the World

Author:
Victor D. Cha
Publication Date:
07-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
North Korea last week rejected South Korea’s invitation to attend the Seoul Defense Dialogue in September, denigrating the talks as “puerile.” In the same breath, it also rejected a proposal by National Assembly speaker Chung Ui-hwa for a meeting with his northern counterpart to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Korean Peninsula on Aug. 15. If you ask an Obama administration official about America’s “strategic patience” policy of non-dialogue with North Korea, he or she will tell you that the problem is not an unwillingness on the part of the United States to have dialogue. On the contrary, the Obama administration has tried every channel possible, from six-party talks to personal communications to secret trips, to jump-start a dialogue. But the regime in Pyongyang has rejected all of these.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention and Diplomacy
Political Geography:
South Korea, North Korea, and Korean Peninsula

96. Workforce Development in Tunisia and Jordan

Author:
Carolyn Barnett
Publication Date:
07-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
Elites in Tunisia and Jordan stress their need to invest in their human resources, because people are the only resources they have. An array of programs has arisen in both countries to help young people learn life and job skills, find appropriate careers, and launch new businesses. Yet a look at recent and ongoing workforce development efforts in each country reveals that these schemes are intended to produce something fundamentally different in each country. Tunisians are working to overcome the legacies of dictatorship and build a new, more democratic system while simultaneously carrying out economic reforms that aim to alter the state’s role in the economy. Jordanians are trying to alter society and economic incentives within a political status quo where too much change too quickly could threaten the political order, and the government therefore faces compelling reasons both to reform and to keep things as they are. This report examines how similar efforts have evolved in these contrasting contexts.
Topic:
Labor Issues and Youth Culture
Political Geography:
Jordan and Tunisia

97. Chinese Strategy and Military Modernization: A Comparative Analysis

Author:
Anthony H. Cordesman and Steven Colley
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
China’s emergence as a global economic superpower and as a major regional military power in Asia and the Pacific, has had a major impact on its relations with the United States and its neighbors. China was the driving factor in the new strategy the United States announced in 2012 that called for the U.S. to “rebalance” its forces to Asia-Pacific region. At the same time, China’s actions on its borders, in the East China Sea, and in the South China Sea have shown that China is steadily expanding its geopolitical role in the Pacific, and having a steadily increasing impact on the strategy and military developments in other Asian powers. As a result, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the United States, and China’s neighbors face a critical need to improve their understanding of how each state in the region is developing its military power, and find ways to avoid the kind of military competition that could lead to rising tension or conflict.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Industrial Policy, International Trade and Finance, and Power Politics
Political Geography:
China and East Asia

98. Transition in Afghanistan: Losing the Forgotten War?

Author:
Anthony H. Cordesman
Publication Date:
01-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
On December 29, 2014, the US President and Secretary of Defense announced the formal end to Operation Enduring Freedom, its combat mission in Afghanistan, which had begun in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. They also stated that the US would begin its follow-on mission, Operation Freedom's Sentinel, at the start of 2015.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Political Violence, Defense Policy, International Security, Military Strategy, and Military Affairs
Political Geography:
Pakistan and Afghanistan

99. European Defense Trends: Briefing Update

Author:
David J. Berteau, Gregory Sanders, T.J. Cipoletti, Meaghan Doherty, and Abby Fanlo
Publication Date:
01-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
The European defense market, though impacted by lethargic economic growth and painful fiscal austerity measures, continues to be a driver in global defense. Five of the fifteen biggest military spenders worldwide in 2013 were European countries, and Europe remains a major market for international arms production and sales. Surges in military spending by Russia, China, and various Middle Eastern countries in recent years has augmented the defense landscape, especially as European countries in aggregate continue to spend less on defense and the United States embarks on a series of deep-striking budget cuts. This report analyzes overall trends in defense spending, troop numbers, collaboration, and the European defense and security industrial base across 37 countries. To remain consistent with previous reports, this briefing utilizes functional NATO categories (Equipment, Personnel, Operations and Maintenance, Infrastructure, and Research and Development) and reports figures in constant 2013 euros unless otherwise noted. Many of the trends identified within the 2012 CSIS European Defense Trends report continued into 2013, namely reductions in topline defense spending, further cuts to R spending, and steadily declining troop numbers. Though total European defense spending decreased from 2001-2013, with an accelerated decline between 2008 and 2010, select countries increased spending2 between 2011 and 2013. Collaboration among European countries has decreased in the R category; however, it has increased in the equipment category – indicating increased investment in collaborative procurement. Defense expenditure as a percentage of total government expenditure has decreased across Europe from 2001-2013 with the exceptions of Albania and Estonia. An updated CSIS European Security, Defense, and Space (ESDS) Index is included within this report and exhibits a shift in geographic revenue origin for leading European defense firms away from North America and Europe and towards other major markets between 2008 and 2013. Finally, a brief analysis of Russian defense spending is included in the final section of this report in order to comprehend more fully the size and scope of the European defense market within the global framework. In 2013, Russia replaced the United Kingdom as the third largest global defense spender, devoting 11.2 percent of total government expenditures to defense. This briefing report concludes with summarized observations concerning trends in European defense from 2001 to 2013. CSIS will continue to follow and evaluate themes in European defense, which will appear in subsequent briefings.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Military Affairs, and Budget
Political Geography:
Russia, China, United Kingdom, America, and Europe

100. Institutional Foundations of Federated Defense

Author:
Stephanie Sanok Kostro and Rhys McCormick
Publication Date:
01-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
While the united states has long acknowledged the value of working with partner nations to address shared security concerns, drawdowns in defense spending have underscored the importance of bilateral and multilateral cooperation to leverage capabilities and investments. the Center for strategic and International studies' multiyear Federated Defense Project aims to inform policymakers about global and regional security architectures and defense capabilities that support the achievement of common security goals, as well as ways to improve defense cooperation among nations to address those goals together. This report on institutional foundations of federated defense recognizes that successful cooperation in a budget-constrained environment often rests on the u.s. ability and willing-ness to provide assistance and/or equipment to partner nations. CSIS project staff drew on a literature review, workshops, and a public event (“the Future of the security Cooperation Enterprise”) to identify key findings in five areas: Priorities/Strategic Guidance: Proponents of federated defense should better articulate priorities. A proactive, interagency component that includes, at a minimum, officials from the Defense Department, State Department, and White House is necessary to effect a cultural shift and combat potential backsliding into unilateral approaches. Foreign Military Sales: In a federated approach, officials should identify capabilities that could most effectively support partner nations' contributions to federated defense. Toward that end, officials should also emphasize the establishment and maintenance of high-demand capabilities over time. other key issues related to potential difficulties in foreign sales include surcharges, overhead costs, and transparency in offsets. Export Controls: study participants noted that recent export control reform efforts have not yet resulted in significant change and have inadequately addressed industry concerns. Moreover, there appears to be a lack of appetite for these reforms in Congress. Technology Security and Foreign Disclosure: Improvements are needed to coordinate and speed technology transfer and foreign disclosure decisions. transparency across stovepipes within the executive branch is critical to create a common vision and objectives for federated defense, which is especially important when working with industry and foreign government partners. Acquisition and Requirements Processes: Within the Department of Defense, there is insufficient consideration of the export value and challenges of systems in early stages of the acquisition and requirements processes. Modifications during late stages of development are often far more expensive than building in exportability earlier. Having examined these key areas, the study team identified and analyzed three over-arching institutional challenges to and opportunities for federated defense. First, study participants remarked upon the lack of sufficient advocacy for federated defense among senior U.S. government officials. A second challenge was the cultural resistance to federated defense; experts noted that significant cultural change, such as that brought about by the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Pub.L. 99-433), may require top-down direction, years to implement, and decades to be accepted. A third challenge was the need for a perceived or actual budget crisis to drive change. The study team's recommendations resulting from this examination were five-fold. First, U.S. national strategies should address the grand strategy questions that could imperil implementation of a federated approach. Implementation of the u.s. National security strategy could impel a new effort to focus on partner capabilities and areas for sharing the common global security burden, as well as to prioritize interests and activities related to U.S. security cooperation, export controls, and technology security/foreign disclosure. Second, proactive U.S. leaders should articulate a vision, objectives, and priorities for a federated approach to defense. third, the Administration and Congress should work together to ensure completion of legal and regulatory reforms already under way (e.g., on export controls). Fourth, executive and legislative officials—perhaps through an interagency task force that works with committee staffs—should identify additional reforms to streamline or create authorities and to eliminate unhelpful directed spending on capabilities and systems that do not contribute to federated defense. Finally, the Department of Defense should start with incremental steps to create a culture that values federated defense; for example, the Defense Acquisition University and Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management could update coursework to institutionalize knowledge regarding federated approaches. This study made it clear that enduring changes in these five areas—from strategy to culture—are necessary to ensure the success of a federated approach to defense.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, and Budget
Political Geography:
United States