Search

Begin New Search Topic Leadership Political Geography North America

91. Regaining U.S. Global Leadership on Anticorruption

Author:
Abigail Bellows
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The stakes for the United States to escalate the fight against corruption have never been higher. U.S. security, economic, and political interests demand a greater focus on countering corruption internationally. The next administration could substantially increase U.S. impact on anticorruption through taking the following measures: Defending against the weaponization of corruption; Providing politically responsive anticorruption assistance; Mainstreaming anticorruption; Enabling U.S. leadership.
Topic:
Security, Corruption, Leadership, and Economy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

92. Post-Trump Diplomacy Outlook

Author:
Eurico de Lima Figueiredo
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:
Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:
The electoral defeat of Republican candidate Donald Trump and the return to power of the Democrats with Joseph Biden cannot be left unexamined, considering its implications for international relations. Here we present notes from NERINT Strategic Analysis, written by experts and divided into thematic issues and bilateral relations between the United States and the most relevant nations at the global level.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Leadership, and Transition
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

93. Creating an Accountability Framework that Serves the Global Fragility Act’s Mission

Author:
Susanna Campbell, Dan Hoing, and Sarah Rose
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
In the final days of 2019, Congress passed the Global Fragility Act, an ambitious bill that aims to im- prove how the US government approaches stabilizing conflict-affected states and preventing the es- calation of violence in other fragile contexts. Introduced by a coalition of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate—led by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel (D- NY) and Senator Chris Coons (D-DE)—a version of the legislation was passed by the House this spring and boasted 26 cosponsors in the Senate. The Global Fragility Act’s final passage, as part of a large FY2020 spending bill, is a testament to bipartisan commitment and cooperation. The Global Fragility Act asks the State Department to create—jointly with USAID, the Department of Defense, and other agencies—a coordinated, coherent strategy to help prevent violence in fragile states and stabilize conflict-affected areas. As overseers of the taxpayer funds that will be used to implement the act, Congress also included several provisions to hold these agencies to account for achieving results. Accountability for results is important, especially when overseers are far removed from implementation. But how accountability is structured matters quite a bit. When accountability frameworks revolve largely around tight controls and reporting against targets, their good intentions can backfire and contribute to ineffective programming, especially in fragile states. To ensure that the Global Fragility Act’s accountability requirements support rather than undermine the act’s laudable goals, the monitoring, evaluation, and learning processes that accompany the act’s implementation must accomplish two linked but fundamentally distinct things. They must be able to satisfy Washington-based overseers’ reporting needs while also providing projects the space needed for locally informed adaptive management and learning (or continuous adjustment aimed at achiev- ing transformative aims in a dynamic context), which is associated with better outcomes in fragile states. The Global Fragility Act offers an opportunity to rethink the tools through which aid agencies pursue accountability. This note explains how tight controls and target-oriented reporting can nega- tively affect outcomes in fragile states and offers some initial recommendations for creating a stron- ger, outcome-oriented accountability framework.
Topic:
Foreign Aid, Leadership, Fragile States, Legislation, and Accountability
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

94. A Comparison of Nisga’a Self-Government and International Standards of Indigenous Self-Determination

Author:
Agnieszka Szpak
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
The paper concentrates on the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples on the basis of the Nisga’a Nation. The author analyzes the most important provisions of the Nisga’a Final Agreement, in particular those envisaging self-determination of the Nisga’a Nation. Then the author briefly examines the Nisga’a Constitution which may be regarded as a means to implement the Nisga’a Final Agreement. It shows how the Nisga’a selfgovernance model fits into the provisions on self-determination of indigenous peoples. The thesis of this paper is that the Nisga’a self-governance is consonant with international legal standards expressed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Nisga’a selfgovernment model is much more than just cultural autonomy: it actually amounts to political autonomy. This subject is worth exploring because it may serve as a pattern to be followed with reference to other indigenous peoples, not only in Canada.
Topic:
Governance, Self Determination, Leadership, and Indigenous
Political Geography:
Canada and North America

95. Pakistan and CPEC Are Drawn Into the U.S.-China Rivalry

Author:
Adnan Aamir
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
Leaders in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan were stunned in late November when a senior U.S. government official issued a strong verbal attack on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). On November 21 in Washington, D.C., U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asia Affairs Alice Wells spoke at length about the CPEC at a public event, criticizing multiple elements of the $62 billion flagship component of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Ambassador Wells cast doubt upon claims that CPEC will generate sustainable economic development in Pakistan and criticized the project’s cost escalations and non-transparent processes of awarding CPEC contracts to Chinese firms. She appealed to Pakistan’s citizens to ask tough questions of the PRC regarding the CPEC and China’s related projects in Pakistan (U.S. State Department, November 21, 2019). In the past, the U.S. government had raised concerns over CPEC and China’s “debt-trap diplomacy,” but it had never presented such a direct and detailed set of criticisms. Ambassador Wells crossed that line—bringing the notoriously stalled out CPEC back under international scrutiny just after Chinese and Pakistani leaders had brokered a cautiously optimistic set of funding deals to jumpstart progress a month before (Ministry of Foreign Affairs (PRC), October 9, 2019). Chinese representatives were quick to respond to Ambassador Wells’s criticisms. The next day, PRC Ambassador to Islamabad Yao Jing(姚敬) said that he had been “shocked and surprised to see the remarks of Alice,” and that Ambassador Wells lacked accurate knowledge and had relied on “Western media ‘propaganda’” for her accusations. He called on the U.S. to “show your evidence, give me evidence” of specific cases of corruption related to the CPEC, and questioned whether Wells was taking potshots at the CPEC to score political points. Ambassador Yao challenged the U.S. to suit its actions to its words: “If there is any sincerity… [the U.S. should] come forward to invest in Pakistan. We [China] welcome U.S. investment in Pakistan.” (INP (Pakistan), November 22, 2019; VOA, November 22, 2019). In addition to refocusing negative attention on the CPEC, Assistant Secretary of State Wells’ speech drew a reluctant Pakistan further into the tumultuous U.S.-China political rivalry. Pakistan faces a balance of payments crisis and a severely weakened currency, which has led it to grow increasingly dependent on economic ties with China. At the same time, the Pakistani leadership has navigated a complex and multifaceted historic security and political partnership with the U.S. If, as Ambassador Wells’ statement seems to imply, Pakistan’s engagement with China is seen to come at the expense of its bilateral relationship with the U.S. – or vice-versa – then Pakistan’s delicate power balancing diplomacy will soon become even more tenuous.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Leadership, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Pakistan, China, Middle East, Asia, North America, and United States of America

96. Global Health Security and Pandemics: Joe Biden and COVID-19

Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Mile End Institute, Queen Mary University of London
Abstract:
In this episode, Professor Sophie Harman discusses President-elect Joe Biden’s proposed plans to deal with the Coronavirus pandemic on both a domestic and international scale. She examines what Biden’s plans entail and what challenges may lie ahead in his pandemic response.
Topic:
Security, Leadership, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

97. Global Health Security and Pandemics: Donald Trump's response to COVID-19

Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Mile End Institute, Queen Mary University of London
Abstract:
n this video, Professor Sophie Harman (Queen Mary University of London) and Professor Sara E. Davies (Griffith University) discuss Donald Trump's response to the Coronavirus pandemic. They note that, whilst Trump has been criticised for his actions with regard to the USA's initial response, this has not differed vastly from that of other countries, such as Indonesia and Brazil.
Topic:
Security, Leadership, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

98. Rejecting Retreat

Author:
Dina Smeltz, Ivo H. Daalder, Karl Friedhoff, Craig Kafura, and Brendan Helm
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
The upending of US foreign policy under the Trump administration, the revolt against establishment politicians, and the rise of the progressive wing in US politics has led many foreign policy experts to conclude that Americans want to retreat from the world. Much of Washington and its foreign policy elite believe that “Iraq and other debacles” have left Americans wearied, worried, and inclined toward either America First or retrenchment ideas.1 They believe the American public sees the rules-based international order established after World War II as bankrupt. But that is not what the American public actually thinks. Americans may be searching for a new way to make sense of the world. But the 2019 Chicago Council Survey demonstrates that retreating from the world, abdicating international leadership, and abandoning alliances and global institutions is not what the American public has in mind.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Leadership, Alliance, Institutions, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

99. The changing global order and its implications for the EU

Author:
Katja Creutz, Tuomas Iso-Markku, Teija Tilikainen, and Kristi Raik
Publication Date:
03-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
The forms of global political transition contradict each other. The Western leadership of the world seems to be in decline, with the US political and military hegemony being challenged by the rise of China and other emerging powers and with global power structures evolving towards multipolarity. At the same time, however, there are increasing signs of a diffusion of state power. It involves a growing group of non-state actors challenging state power in very different forms and different capacities. This report focuses on the axis of state power considered the most important in terms of its global implications: the relationship between the US and China. This relationship is studied with the aim of assessing how the mutual interdependencies are evolving, and what the goals of the two actors look like in respect of their own global role. The im¬plications of this power transition in the key fields of global governance – also covering the simultaneous diffusion of power to non-state actors – forms another relevant topic under review in the global context. Lastly, the report analyses how the EU contends with these forms of power transition and safeguards its own influence in this changing environment. The project also addresses the international role and influence of one of the northernmost EU members, Finland. It investigates how the changes in the global and regional setting should be understood from the Finnish point of view and how Finland should act in order to consolidate its international role in economic as well as political terms.
Topic:
Power Politics, Non State Actors, Hegemony, Leadership, and Liberal Order
Political Geography:
United States, China, Asia, and North America

100. American Leadership and Grand Strategy in an Age of Complexity

Author:
Tanguy Struye de Swielande
Publication Date:
02-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
Abstract:
Many voices challenge the values and norms of the international order. If the United States seeks to maintain a relative advantage over its rivals, the rules have to be rewritten and the global system reshaped. In this sense the diagnosis of the Trump administration is partially correct – but the instruments that President Trump uses are faulty.
Topic:
Hegemony, Leadership, and International Order
Political Geography:
United States and North America