Number of results to display per page
Search Results
22. Making a Better Open Skies Treaty
- Author:
- Peter Jones
- Publication Date:
- 02-2021
- Content Type:
- Research Paper
- Institution:
- James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
- Abstract:
- The US withdrawal from the Treaty on Open Skies was motivated by ideological considerations within the Trump Administration. In response, Russia announced its intention to withdraw on January 15, but has not yet notified the depositaries of the treaty to begin the six-month clock. If the treaty is to be sustained, its two main members must reconsider these decisions. This paper proposes ideas as to how the Biden Administration may wish to re-join the treaty, how Russia may be persuaded to stay in it, and also steps that the other treaty members can take to facilitate these objectives. Going further, the paper argues that the treaty, which is now almost 30 years old, could be strengthened in its operations and applied in other contexts. Proposals are advanced in the paper as to how all of this might be done in a phased manner, with basic steps required to sustain the treaty coming first and then more ambitious reforms being considered over time.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, Reform, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America
23. Afghanistan: The Fog at the End of the Tunnel
- Author:
- Carl Conetta
- Publication Date:
- 06-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Project on Defense Alternatives
- Abstract:
- What is causing the uncertainty about when US ground forces will exit Afghanistan. The Biden administration insists that logistical factors explain its breach of the 2020 US-Taliban agreement, which reset the exit date from May to September. Logistical factors are also supposed to explain why the date may now be walked back to July. Actually, logistical issues explain neither. Using current data and historical precedent, this short analysis shows why. An alternative explanation for the delay is that it gave Washington more time to pursue some of its unfinished goals regarding Afghanistan. In this, the lingering troop presence serves as leverage. What goals? Improve Kabul’s military posture, polish plans and preparations for US forces to “fight from afar,” and pursue dramatic new international initiatives aiming to lock the Taliban into a cease-fire, peace settlement, and government reform plan substantially defined by the USA. This high risk-gambit won’t succeed, but it might prolong the conflict and America’s involvement in it.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Treaties and Agreements, War, Military Strategy, Armed Forces, Taliban, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, South Asia, North America, and United States of America
24. Is Diplomacy Back? Making the Case to the American People
- Author:
- Mary Thompson-Jones
- Publication Date:
- 05-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- American Diplomacy
- Institution:
- American Diplomacy
- Abstract:
- Within hours of being sworn in, President Joe Biden put the United States on track to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization. A week later, he signed a new START Accord with Russian President Vladimir Putin, extending the nuclear missile nonproliferation treaty for another five years. These actions—along with many others—were important messages to a world that had grown accustomed to seeing America walk away from treaties. Why would Biden prioritize the international community? Americans are far more concerned about the pandemic, the events of January 6, the faltering economy, and scores of pressing domestic issues. Clearly, the early attention was a chance to give substance to his inaugural promise that “we will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again.” Biden underscored the change of focus in a speech to the State Department in which his now-familiar line, “diplomacy is back,” has become a rallying cry for a crowd eager to resume the day-to-day operations that underpin diplomacy. They can now proceed with the confidence that their work will be valued by the boss.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, International Community, and Joe Biden
- Political Geography:
- North America, Global Focus, and United States of America
25. U.S.-Thai Economic Prospects–Turning A New Page
- Author:
- Judy A. Benn
- Publication Date:
- 11-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- Judy A. Benn, Former Executive Director American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand, explains that “for Thailand to take full advantage of post-pandemic opportunities and reignite its economy to make-up for the last 18 months, the nation will need to capitalize on its centralized geographic location and position as one of Southeast Asia’s strongest manufacturing bases.”
- Topic:
- International Trade and Finance, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Regulation, and Economy
- Political Geography:
- North America, Thailand, Southeast Asia, and United States of America
26. Mexico and the United States: a new beginning | México y Estados Unidos: un nuevo comienzo
- Author:
- Agustín Barrios Gómez, Henry Cuellar, Juan Carlos Baker, and Kenneth Smith
- Publication Date:
- 02-2020
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI)
- Abstract:
- North America started 2020 as a bloc of three democratic countries with shared values that trade freely in the context of regional peace and cooperation. We are nearly 500 million North American citizens who came together to sign the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994 and its successor, the United StatesMexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) of 2018, providing a legal framework for commercial freedom on our continent. The world often conducts its affairs with a zero-sum game mentality, meaning that one country’s gain is another’s loss. This is why agreements like NAFTA, in 1994, and the USMCA, today, are particularly valuable. It is also the reason that we must not take them for granted. The effort invested in creating the USMCA was born precisely from the understanding of a fundamental idea: restricting the liberty of our people to trade freely is a mistake. It was not an easy case to make. The current U.S. president based his political campaign on animosity towards Mexico, in particular, and against exchange with the world, in general. However, he was led to a position of saving free trade in North America by the millions of his fellow citizens who saw their economic livelihood threatened by protectionism and the possibility of severing close economic ties with their neighbors. At the same time, a sector of Mexican society that has always been antagonistic to two pillars of trade in our continent: integration with the United States, and economic freedom, came to power in Mexico. This raised the specter of a challenge to free trade from Mexican socialists. However, the overwhelmingly positive results and obvious benefits of NAFTA for Mexico were of such magnitude, that protectionism was not an issue in the return to power of the nationalist Left. It now looks like a given, but both in the case of the U.S. and in the case of Mexico, the survival of the framework of openness born on January 1, 1994, is a testament to enormous political and economic success. In a world that increasingly favors the Pyrrhic victories of political symbolism, the triumph of reason over nativist fervor is well worth highlighting. For each of the three countries, the USMCA was the way to protect these gains, but each country placed its own emphasis on their priorities. Canada, currently the most politically stable country of the three, clearly sought to uphold a system that provides the country with access to its main market, as well as to another market (Mexico) in which it has fewer interests, but which is still important. The United States, the former architect of the world order that promoted economic freedoms for 71 years (1945-2016), was set to become its spoiler. Fortunately for the general interest, despite the rhetoric, with the USMCA it was possible to find a compromise that safeguarded the gains made from economic integration since 1994. Sectors of society, such as farmers and border communities which had never organized to defend their markets, got together to successfully make their case directly to the Administration. Mexico’s interests were clearer: manufactured exports are the most dynamic and competitive part of its economy. They not only provide a major source of hard currency, but in conjunction with the imports made possible by income from exports, they support the internal market, as well. For Mexico, even more than for Canada, protecting free trade of North America was imperative. The result was an Agreement that protected the benefits of North American commercial freedom, at the same time as it brought certain aspects up to date. It also addressed a number of the concerns that had been raised by blue collar workers in the United States, particularly pertaining to the automotive sector. This document helps us understand these changes and provides perspective from three authors who were directly involved in making the USMCA a reality.
- Topic:
- Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Economy, NAFTA, Free Trade, Trade, and USMCA
- Political Geography:
- North America, Mexico, and United States of America
27. Trump’s “Deal of the Century” Is Not the Reversal of US Policy toward Israel– Palestine —The Reversal Is What We Need
- Author:
- Sadiq Saffarini
- Publication Date:
- 01-2020
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Harvard Journal of Middle Eastern Politics and Policy
- Institution:
- The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
- Abstract:
- The article analyzes President Trump’s vision for a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, the so-called Deal of the Century announced on January 28. While the proposal uses the language of hope and prosperity and expresses support for the two-state solution, its provisions actually render the Palestinian “state” inviable. The plan does not empower the Palestinian state with full sovereignty over its territory nor does it recognize its internationally accepted borders, while at the same time nullifying the Palestinian right of return. In short, the plan seeks to legalize and legitimize the status quo by enabling Israeli expansionism and the systemic denial of Palestinian rights, which is a flagrant violation of international law and has no legal validity.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Sovereignty, Treaties and Agreements, Territorial Disputes, Peace, and Donald Trump
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America
28. The Middle East Accords: an Israeli Perspective
- Author:
- Ophir Falk
- Publication Date:
- 11-2020
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- American Diplomacy
- Institution:
- American Diplomacy
- Abstract:
- Peace is a universal value, the highest virtue in Jewish tradition, and cherished by anyone longing for a brighter future for his children. Pragmatic Muslim leaders are no exception and with the recently reached “Abraham Accords’, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel have proven that Peace for Peace is possible.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and North America
29. Treaty Termination and the Presidency: Using Custom to Solve Separation of Powers Disputes
- Author:
- Joseph M. Lapointe
- Publication Date:
- 01-2020
- Content Type:
- Research Paper
- Institution:
- Department of Social Sciences at West Point, United States Military Academy
- Abstract:
- The debate over whether the President, the Senate, or the Congress has primacy in treaty termination remains unsettled. Professor Curtis Bradley incorrectly argues that custom supports a presidential authority to terminate treaties independently. This paper argues that a fuller view of custom, combined with the Intent of the Framers and functional considerations, shows treaty termination is a shared executive-legislative power.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Politics, Treaties and Agreements, Leadership, and Federalism
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
30. Conventional arms control on the Korean Peninsula: The current state and prospects
- Author:
- Yong-Sup Han
- Publication Date:
- 05-2020
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- At the end of 2017, the Korean Peninsula reached the brink of a nuclear war, as the US president Donald Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un exchanged words of nuclear threats each other. A tug of war as to whose nuclear button is bigger and stronger exacerbated the nuclear crisis. However, the South Korean President Moon Jae-in intervened to resolve the crisis by taking advantage of the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics. In doing so, President Moon intended to pursue denuclearisation and peace-building on the Korean Peninsula at the same time. North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un responded positively to the South Korean call to hold the inter-Korean summit and the Trump-Kim summit. In order to end the Korean war and promote peace-building on the Korean Peninsula including termination of hostile acts on inter-Korean relations, the two Koreas adopted the April 27 Panmunjom Declaration, the September 19th Pyongyang Joint Declaration and the Inter-Korean Military Agreement at their summit in 2018. The Military Agreement is aimed at reducing tension and building trust between the two Koreas through conventional arms control, while the North Korean nuclear issue is being resolved through the US-DPRK summit. The September 19th Military Agreement is a modest but remarkable success in arms control history when compared with a long-term stalemate or even retreat in the contemporary international arms control arena. Indeed, arms control is at its lowest point in history, so dim are its prospects. Nevertheless, heated debates are taking place, both at home inside South Korea and abroad, over the legitimacy and rationality of the Sept. 19th Military Agreement. With little progress on the denuclearisation issue at the Kim-Trump summit and no sign of easing economic sanctions on Pyongyang, North Korea has test-fired short-range missiles ten times to exert pressure on the United States, undermining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. Against this backdrop, this policy brief intends to analyse the true meaning of the September 19 Military Agreement between the two Koreas, to identify its problems and policy implications in order to draw up supplementary measures to implement it successfully. Furthermore, the paper will draw some implications for the relationship between progress on North Korea’s denuclearisation issue and further conventional arms control on the Korean Peninsula.
- Topic:
- Conflict Prevention, Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Treaties and Agreements
- Political Geography:
- South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America