Number of results to display per page
Search Results
182. First Steps Toward a Constructive U.S. Policy in Colombia
- Author:
- Bob Graham and Brent Scowcroft
- Publication Date:
- 07-1999
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- In November 1999, the Council on Foreign Relations and Inter-American Dialogue established an independent task force to review and offer recommendations on U.S. policy toward Colombia. The co-chairs of the task force have decided to issue this interim report to make an impact on deliberations in Congress, as well as respond to an immediate opportunity to shape the current debate about U.S. policy. We plan to publish a final report in June 2000 that will provide a more comprehensive and systematic examination of U.S. policy toward Colombia. That report will, for example, discuss the wider challenge of addressing a serious drug problem in which many countries—the United States includedare involved, and which calls for shared responsibility and joint action. On January 11, the Clinton administration put forward a bill that seeks an "emergency supplemental appropriation" to provide some $950 million in assistance to Colombia this fiscal year, and a total of $1.6 billion through fiscal year 2001. The administration's bill was formulated in the context of Plan Colombia, a mutually agreed framework between the Colombian and U.S. governments. The plan identifies the country's critical needs and makes clear that the Andean nation's interrelated problems—powerful insurgent and paramilitary forces, massive narcotrafficking, widespread human rights abuses, and deep economic recession—have reached crisis levels. It further indicates that the Colombian government is prepared to tackle these problems, and is committed to addressing all of them together. While the Colombian government is prepared to contribute $4 billion of the $7.5 billion the plan will cost, Colombia has also asked for immediate help from the international community. In response, the Clinton administration has put together a two-year aid package that emphasizes equipment and training for the military and police to carry out counter-narcotics operations. Other elements of Plan Colombia are supported to a much lesser degree. In focusing the aid package in this way, the administration recognizes the close linkages that have developed between Colombia's illegal narcotics industry and the country's insurgent and paramilitary forces. As such, it deals with key concerns for both the United States and Colombia. Security assistance aimed at reducing drug production and trafficking is but a piece of a broader effort that seeks to extend legitimate authority in the country. For this reason—coupled with the fact that such support would signal strong US commitment to help a troubled country at a critical moment—we urge Congress to move quickly and approve the administration's aid package. We also suggest that Congress make two adjustments in the proposed package: strengthen a regional approach to the drug problem, and improve Colombia's economic situation by enhancing its trade benefits. Although it will make a contribution, the administration's aid proposal responds only partially to the formidable policy challenge posed by Colombia. An effective package must get beyond the current emphasis on fighting drugs. The main emphasis should, rather, be on helping the Colombian government strengthen its capacity to protect its citizens and effectively exercise control and authority over its territory. But a lack of consensus within the U.S. government has made it difficult to focus on that overall objective in U.S. policy toward Colombia. As currently formulated, the bill is an essential first step, but more is required, both from Washington and Bogotá. With its proposal, the administration has affirmed that the stakes for the United States are high. We agree. We therefore urge the White House to develop an integrated, long-term plan that has a broader focus than merely the drug problem. The administration and Congress must recognize that a serious policy response to the challenges posed by Colombia implies a U.S. commitment to the country beyond the two-year period of the proposed bill. A successful approach will require high-level, sustained engagement, supported by a bipartisan majority in Congress, during at least a half dozen years. As part of a longer-term policy, the main focus in the security area should be on reforming Colombia's armed forces and making them more professional, thereby establishing the conditions under which the United States could provide effective military assistance. Training is particularly crucial to upgrade the military capability of the armed forces and improve their human rights performance. Professionalization would also enhance the Colombian government's moves toward a political solution to the conflict, and reinforce efforts to deal more successfully with both insurgent and paramilitary forces. Under no circumstances should U.S. combat troops be deployed in Colombia for military intervention. Levels of support above those reflected in the current bill should be considered for other critical areas in addition to security. Extension of current preferential trade arrangements for Colombia should benefit its economy. Special efforts are needed to improve the country's judicial system and help Colombia strengthen its ability to undertake alternative development strategies. The United States should encourage a multilateral approach, working in concert with Colombia's hemispheric partners, European friends, and relevant multilateral institutions. A more balanced U.S. policy (that is, one less narrowly focused on drugs) would make other governments and institutions more inclined to join in a common effort. Finally, Colombia's problems demand strong, focused leadership from Bogotá that reflects a Colombian commitment and national consensus behind a set of realistic policies. The United States can and should respond to Colombian initiatives in accordance with its own national interests. It cannot, however, solve Colombia's problems.
- Topic:
- Security and Foreign Policy
- Political Geography:
- United States, America, Colombia, South America, Latin America, and North America
183. 'Rogue' States and International Relations
- Author:
- Paul D. Hoyt
- Publication Date:
- 02-1999
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- International Studies Association
- Abstract:
- Over the last few years a new concept has taken on heightened emphasis in the public rhetoric of American policymakers: that is, the “rogue state” and the related “pariah” and “outlaw state” designations. In American post-Cold War thinking, these states have emerged as one of the major, if not the most preeminent, of America's security concerns. As fears of a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union recede into memory, “rogue states” tend to be joined with such international evils, and perceived threats to U.S. interests, as terrorism (commonly associated with rogues), drug syndicates, and organized crime.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy and National Security
- Political Geography:
- United States and America
184. Third Party Arms Transfers: Requirements for the 21st Century
- Author:
- John D. Macomber and Charles McC. Mathias
- Publication Date:
- 10-1998
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Atlantic Council
- Abstract:
- Can the United States collaborate with foreign nations in armaments development and production without jeopardizing US national security? This question - in light of America's global security obligations - demands a satisfactory answer. The economic and political advantages of greater international cooperation are significant. Benefits from cooperation include improved interoperability of weapons and equipment used by US allies and partners in operations with the United States, reduction in production costs, and preservation of a defense industrial base among US allies. Yet, considerations of national security are equally cogent.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, and Economics
- Political Geography:
- United States and America
185. Future Prospects for the U.S. Defense Budget and Their Implications for Our Asian Alliance Commitments
- Author:
- Andrew Krepinevich
- Publication Date:
- 08-1997
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
- Abstract:
- This talk addresses two issues. First, given the level of American defense spending, are there enough resources available to sustain the U.S. presence in East Asia, over the long term, along the lines of the current commitment of approximately 100,000 troops? Second, even if there is adequate funding to maintain forward deployed troops, are these the kinds of investments we ought to be making, given the transformations we are seeing in the geopolitical environment and, I would argue, the military-technical environment? Will these investments, in other words, achieve American security objectives in East Asia over the next ten to twenty years?
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Government
- Political Geography:
- United States, America, Israel, East Asia, and Asia
186. Policy Impact Panel Twenty-First Century Surprises and Threats
- Publication Date:
- 03-1997
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- Ms. ELLEN FUTTER (President, American Museum of Natural History): Welcome to a panel discussion on 21st Century Surprises and Threats at the Council on Foreign Relations. I'm Ellen Futter, president of the American Museum of Natural History and moderator for this panel.
- Topic:
- Security and Foreign Policy
- Political Geography:
- United States and America
187. U.S. Trade Negotiations: Lessons Learned, Lessons Applied
- Author:
- Mickey Kantor
- Publication Date:
- 11-1997
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- The challenges of the era of interdependence will constitute the greatest foreign policy test of the 21st century. The war over globalization and interdependence is at an end. Only the battles are yet to be fought. Those who cower behind walls of fear and fail to accept responsibility do so at their own peril, and will not turn containment into engagement, or mutual assured destruction into mutual assured prosperity. The approach of the new millennium finds us at the intersection of three epochal events: in politics, the end of the Cold War; in economics, the emergence of a global economy; and in technology, the rise of the Information Age. The intersection of economics, strategic issues, and political concerns is creating the glue which will bind together an updated U.S. foreign policy. Vast opportunities lie before us, and more than a few pitfalls. We face fewer serious military threats but an increasing number of competitors. The rise of competition, the need to create new opportunities, and the confluence of major economic and political changes create a need to intensely focus on U.S. priorities and goals. Despite this urgency, we have yet to fully articulate a foreign policy that matches the era in which we now live, especially the appropriate role of international economics. We need to direct our focus toward the lessons we have learned over the past five years. Seekers of universal truths or simple catch phrases should prepare in advance for disappointment. U.S. leadership in both the public and private sectors must accept the challenges represented by these enormous changes. Our willingness to take responsibility, clearly define our goals, and recognize our limitations but pursue U.S. leadership at every opportunity will dictate the success or failure of promoting a stronger United States and a less dangerous world. The goals and objectives are clear: U.S. leadership must pursue peace, stability, economic progress, basic human rights, and sustainable development. In order to address these goals we need to create foreign-policy tools and institutions that are pragmatic, practical, and resilient reflecting the speed with which events, opportunities, and challenges now confront us as a nation. There is no question that global economics has fundamentally changed the nature of foreign policy. Today, economics and foreign policy are no longer separable, and economic security and national security have become synonymous. We live in an interdependent, globalized world. No longer are we self-contained, nor is it in our interest to be so. We can no longer take for granted our global economic dominance and turn our back on foreign markets. It is self-defeating in the short run and impossible in the long run to ignore the problems which occur across the border or across the world, and we cannot overlook our responsibility as the world's remaining superpower. Driven by technological change, freed of Cold War conflicts and connected by economic and strategic interests, the era of interdependence demands negotiation, engagement, and leadership. Interdependence dictates that our foreign policy and economic future are increasingly connected to international trade. Interdependence dictates that terrorism, weapons proliferation, environmental concerns, the drug trade, and economic opportunity are now cross-border issues. These issues profoundly affect the everyday lives of people around the globe. Cross-border issues directly influence policies, laws, and regulations of the countries in question, raising issues such as the rule of and respect for law, regulation and deregulation, privatization, and other concerns heretofore thought to be strictly internal. This new era requires a redefinition of global leadership. Being the only remaining superpower does not simply mean that we are the strongest military power, nor does it mean only that we are the most economically competitive nation on earth. Both of those statements are true, of course. But holding the position of the world's only remaining superpower in the era of interdependence means that we have the opportunity to take advantage of the vast economic potential which is being created around the globe to the benefit of all Americans, and we have a corresponding obligation to rally other nations to pursue common long-term interests, such as strategic and political stability, economic progress, and sustainable development. There are other examples which support the notion of new multidimensional international relations. Brazil has dramatically increased its international standing and influence using its potential economic strategic position. During the Cold War and prior to the dramatic growth of economic power and industrialization, Brazil's strategic position would have been defined and dictated by its ability or inability to have an influence over strategic and political issues especially those concerning East-West relations. But today, and in the foreseeable future, not only do countries increase their influence based on economic potential and achievement, but economic considerations and relationships tend to bring entities together which in other circumstances could not or would not cooperate. The recent Middle East Economic Conferences and the participation of China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) are obvious examples.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Cold War, Diplomacy, and Political Economy
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, America, Taiwan, Asia, Brazil, and Democratic Republic of the Congo
188. Bridges with Asia: Asian Americans in the United States
- Author:
- Vishakha N. Desai, Chang-lin Tien, Sanford J. Ungar, Robert T. Matsui, and Shirley Young
- Publication Date:
- 05-1996
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Asia Society
- Abstract:
- From its inception, more than two years ago, “Bridges with Asia: Asian Americans in the United States” has sought to explore the implications of the bicultural identity—felt or perceived—of the Asian American in a global community in which the Asia-Pacific region has become increasingly predominant. The purpose was to examine the possible relationship between two significant factors in America's national and international experience: the unprecedented growth of the Asian American population in the last three decades and the rise of the Asia-Pacific region as one of the world's most dynamic areas as well as the one most crucial to the future of the United States. With an active advisory committee composed of scholars, community leaders, and representatives of other cultural organizations (see the end of this report), we attempted to address a number of key issues ranging from economic relations between different regions of Asia and the United States to generational attitudes toward Asian Americans' countries of origin. The following questions provided the framework for discussion: What roles do Asian Americans play in the increased interaction between U.S. companies and Asian countries? How are they affecting the domestic economies of their countries of origin? How are Asian Americans perceived by local American political leaders and what is their impact upon American domestic politics? What role, if any, do they play in U.S. foreign policy toward particular Asian countries? How is the notion of “home” used by writers and artists of Asian origin? How are conceptions of loyalty or nationalism made manifest for diverse groups of Asian Americans who often have very little in common except for a census category, or how they are perceived by others?
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy and International Cooperation
- Political Geography:
- United States, America, and Asia
189. The United Nations: What's in it for the United States?
- Author:
- Madeleine Albright and Jeane Kirkpatrick
- Publication Date:
- 09-1996
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- Presider: Dr. LESLIE GELB:: (President, Council on Foreign Relations): Pundits and pollsters tell us that the American people aren't paying much attention to foreign policy, and we can all understand that. But I think you will agree with me that if Americans would hear our guests tonight, they'd pull out their earplugs because our guests are two masters of statecraft and two possible Secretaries of State: Jeane Kirkpatrick and Madeleine Albright.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and United Nations
- Political Geography:
- United States and America
190. Defining the National Interest Minorities and U.S. Foreign Policy in the 21st Century Project for Diversity in International Affairs
- Author:
- David J. Vidal
- Publication Date:
- 05-1996
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- In the architecture of postwar American foreign policy, the twin themes of the Cold War and the national interest emerge as unshakable pillars. In the design of the conference, one session was set aside to explore the practical and political meanings of these themes for minorities. Conferees were asked to consider how Cold War foreign policy priorities intersected with minority concerns. They were also asked to assess whether the declaration made by Hans J. Morgenthau --that "we should have one guiding standard for thought and action, the national interest"--was a useful benchmark. These two points of departure struck the organizers as indispensable to any rethinking of the future.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Cold War, and Politics
- Political Geography:
- United States and America