Search

Begin New Search Political Geography United States Publishing Institution Finnish Institute of International Affairs

31. The Odd Couple? The Merits of Two Tracks in the International Climate Change Negotiations

Author:
Kristian Tangen
Publication Date:
04-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
It is far from certain that a strong, legally-binding climate agreement preferred by the EU will produce better environmental results than the broader and weaker scheme proposed by the USA. By ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, countries that are listed in Annex B of the protocol also committed themselves to inscribe new emission reduction targets for the period after 2012. The push by some countries for a single legal outcome to replace the Kyoto Protocol has antagonized developing countries, who see this as an attempt by the developed countries to back out of their commitments. In terms of environmental results and the negotiation dynamics there are significant merits to a system where one group of countries takes on legally binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol for the post-2012 period, and another group of countries take on less binding commitments under the Climate Change Convention. Such a system could broaden participation by including countries not yet ready to accede to a legally-binding instrument (i.e. the USA and major developing countries), while preserving the operational detail of the Kyoto Protocol to serve as a benchmark for the development of the climate regime going forward.
Topic:
International Relations, Climate Change, Environment, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
United States

32. Controversies over missile defense in Europe

Author:
Raimo Väyrynen
Publication Date:
04-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The plan to deploy an anti-missile system in Central Europe has been one of the most controversial security policy issues in the past few years. The Bush Administration pushed hard for the deployment of the radar site in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland, largely because it would provide an additional layer in the global anti-ballistic missile defense of the United States. In both of these countries, public opinion has been against the deployments and the governments have had to negotiate between external and internal pressures pushing them in different policy directions. Russia has been adamantly opposed to the missile defense plan, issuing both threats and suggesting alternative ways to diminish the threat that the United States feels from Iran. The result has been a political stalemate that has further complicated otherwise tense relations between Moscow and Washington, D.C. With the arrival of the Obama Administration, there is a pause in the missile dispute, but no permanent resolution of the conflict is in sight.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Security, Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Iran, Washington, Poland, Moscow, and Czech Republic

33. Towards a new climate regime? Views of China, India, Japan, Russia and the United States in the road to Copenhagen

Author:
Linda Jakobson, Anna Korppoo, Johannes Urpelainen, Antto Vihma, and Alex Luta
Publication Date:
05-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The fifteenth Conference of Parties to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009 has been set as the political deadline for establishing a comprehensive regime to address the dramatic threat of climate change and follow up the Kyoto Protocol. The EU has a convening role in the position formation for the negotiations as the newly elected presidential administration of the US will need all the time available to establish its position for Copenhagen.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Japan, China, and India

34. The Dead Souls: How to deal with the Russian surplus?

Author:
Anna Korppoo
Publication Date:
09-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The 10-15% reduction target by 2020 announced by Russia reflects neither the country's efficiency potential, nor modeled emissions trends. With emission reduction measures, Russia could commit to a target of ca. -30% by 2020. Transferring the surplus emission allowances Russia gained under the Kyoto Protocol due to the economic restructuring of the 1990s represents an extreme threat to both the environmental and market integrity of the Copenhagen agreement as it could be used to offset real domestic emission reduction measures in other countries. But it seems politically unlikely that Russia would join without transferring the surplus under the Copenhagen agreement. Countries should recognize the threat posed by the surplus, and offer a cooperative strategy to deal with it. However, pushing through a 'cancel or discount' approach to the surplus problem by three-quarter majority, which could be brought together without the co-operation of the surplus-holding countries, should be kept as a reserve strategy. More ambitious targets - beyond the 25-40% suggested by the IPCC - for the Annex I industrialized country group, especially for the surplus holding countries including Russia, could absorb the transferred surplus. However, given the current low pledges of Annex 1 countries, higher targets are unlikely to absorb the whole surplus, and therefore, a basket of approaches should be applied. To gain credibility on this issue of vis-à-vis Russia and to avoid Russia setting the tone, before Copenhagen the EU must adopt an internal solution to deal with the surplus of its new member states. If expecting to transfer the surpluses, the other surplus holding countries including Russia could announce national surplus use plans prior to the Copenhagen climate talks. In order to minimize a scenario of Russia blocking the Copenhagen process in the final hours, key countries should publically engage Russia on climate and the Copenhagen talks. Important Annex I countries, especially the US, should send very high-level representatives to Moscow like they have sent to China and India.
Topic:
Climate Change and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, Europe, India, and Asia

35. Sectarian Identities or Geopolitics? The Regional Shia-Sunni Divide in the Middle East

Author:
Mari Luomi
Publication Date:
01-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to enhance understanding of the new geopolitical situation currently unfolding in Middle Eastern politics that has emerged since the onset of the United States-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The paper focuses on the notions of the Sunni-Shia divide and the Rise of the Shia.
Topic:
Ethnic Conflict and Politics
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, Iraq, Middle East, and Asia

36. The Implications of China's Rise for Asia and Europe

Author:
Linda Jakobson
Publication Date:
05-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
China has in a very short time span embraced multilateral mechanisms to address a broad range of issues and avoided confrontation with the United States. Both stances have shaped Asian and European views of a rising China. At present, Asian and European leaders take China's word regarding its peaceful intentions as a rising power. However, Asian and European policy-makers tend to refrain from confronting China too strongly on issues sensitive to Beijing (poor implementation of intellectual property rights, disregard for human rights, etc). The more prosperous China grows, the less influence any other country will have over Beijing's policies. A rising China is a challenge to others because of its sheer size, its great need for imported energy, and the environmental degradation it causes due to its ongoing industrialization. The troubled relationship between China and Japan is one of increasing concern and could lead to aggravated tensions in East Asia.
Topic:
International Relations, Development, and International Political Economy
Political Geography:
United States, China, Europe, and Asia

37. The US and Iran on a Confrontational Course

Author:
Tapani Vaahtoranta and Steve Wright
Publication Date:
03-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The US and Iran are on a confrontational course. Iran challenges the US hegemony in the region and is striving for regional dominance. The US does not accept the current Iranian regime, foreign policy or drive towards nuclear capability. The strategies of both have led to a classic game of chicken. Neither is ready to give concessions to avoid confrontation.
Topic:
Foreign Policy and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Middle East

38. "WMD" Terrorism - How Scared Should We Be?

Author:
Toby Archer
Publication Date:
05-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
“WMD” is a political term, not an analytical one. It mixes up very different weapons; some that would have little effect if used by terrorists, and some that would have catastrophic effects. The more dangerous the type of weapon, the more difficult it is for terrorist groups to obtain those weapons. It is important to understand the differing reasons why terrorists have not chosen to use “WMD” in the past, in order to make useful threat assessments. With radical jihadi groups, the symbolic value of suicide attacks as a demonstration of faith seems as important as the effects of the attack. If this changes it could increase the interest of jihadis in “WMD”.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States

39. Russia and Europe: A Finnish View

Author:
Henrikki Heikka
Publication Date:
12-2004
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
In recent months, several prominent Finnish politicians have criticized the Finnish government for lack of vision in its foreign policy. Liisa Jaakonsaari, Chairman of the Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee and a prominent social democrat), has argued that the government “lacks one thing, and with it, everything: a vision”. Member of the European Parliament Alexander Stubb (the Conservative party's vote puller in the last EP elections) has publicly called contemporary Finnish foreign policy as “pitiful tinkering” (säälittävää näpertelyä). Editorial writers have begun to recycle the old the term “driwftwood” (ajopuu), a term originally coined to describe Finland's flip-flopping during World War II, in their attempts to find an appropriate label for the present government's foreign policy.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Democratization, Diplomacy, and International Cooperation
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, Finland, and Asia

40. Telos or Brick Wall? British Nuclear Posture and European Defence Integration

Author:
Toby Archer
Publication Date:
01-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
Somewhere, at this very moment under one of the world's oceans, there is a Royal Navy 'Vanguard' class nuclear powered and armed submarine (SSBN) on patrol. Before it returns to port, another one of the four Vanguard class boats will head out into the deep ocean, meaning that no matter what occurs, Britain will always have an unreachable nuclear counter-strike facility. That one submarine, always out at sea and submerged, is now Britain's whole nuclear deterrent; all other nuclear weapons that Britain held during the Cold War, both land based and air-launched, have been decommissioned and dismantled over the last decade. The UK has the smallest nuclear arsenal of all the five nuclear-armed permanent members of the UN Security Council (it is even believed that Israel – undeclared as a nuclear power – now actually possesses more warheads than the UK does). The number of warheads quoted by the Ministry of Defence is now “fewer than 200”, and estimated by independent sources as likely to be around 160.
Topic:
Defense Policy and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
Britain, United States, United Kingdom, and Europe