Number of results to display per page
Search Results
22. Russia at the United Nations: Law, Sovereignty, and Legitimacy
- Author:
- Philip Remler
- Publication Date:
- 01-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- The central task for Russian foreign policy in the era of President Vladimir Putin has been to regain the undisputed recognition that Russia is a world power like the Soviet Union before it, a status to which Russia feels entitled.1 The United Nations (UN) is Russia’s most important venue for putting its global aspirations and achievements on display. Russia’s status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council boosts its claim to be part of a global oligarchy and grants it the power to veto or undermine initiatives that it deems contrary to its interests. The concepts underlying Russia’s use of the UN to promote its aspirations form the subject of this paper. Russia, like the Soviet Union before it, devotes great resources to its missions at the UN, especially New York and Geneva. It traditionally cultivates extensive expertise among its mission members, appointing them to UN postings several times over their careers and leaving them in place for long periods. Russian diplomats are noted for their abilities in drafting highly technical UN documents in English—none more so than Sergey Lavrov, currently Russia’s foreign minister and formerly its permanent representative to the UN from 1994 to 2004.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Sovereignty, Power Politics, Law, Geopolitics, and Legitimacy
- Political Geography:
- Russia and United Nations
23. Security Assistance in the Middle East: A Three-Dimensional Chessboard
- Author:
- Robert Springborg, F.C. "Pink" Williams, and John Zavage
- Publication Date:
- 02-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- The United States, Russia, and Iran have chosen markedly different approaches to security assistance in the Middle East, with dramatic implications for statebuilding and stability. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is the world’s testing ground for the effectiveness of security assistance provided by global and regional powers. That security assistance has contributed to the intensity and frequency of proxy wars—such as those under way or recently wound down in Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq—and to the militarization of state and substate actors in the MENA region. Security assistance is at the core of struggles for military, strategic, ideological, and even economic preeminence in the Middle East. Yet despite the broad and growing importance of security assistance for the region and for competition within it between global and regional actors, security assistance has been the subject of relatively little comparative analysis. Efforts to assess relationships between the strategic objectives and operational methods of security assistance providers and their relative impacts on recipients are similarly rare.
- Topic:
- Security, Geopolitics, Political stability, and State Building
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Iran, Middle East, and United States of America
24. Toward Accountable Nuclear Deterrents: How Much is Too Much?
- Author:
- George Perkovich
- Publication Date:
- 02-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- For decades, policy debates in nuclear-armed states and alliances have centered on the question, “How much is enough?” What size and type of arsenal, and what doctrine, are enough to credibly deter given adversaries? This paper argues that the more urgent question today is, “How much is too much?” What size and type of arsenal, and what doctrine, are too likely to produce humanitarian and environmental catastrophe that would be strategically and legally indefensible? Two international initiatives could help answer this question. One would involve nuclear-armed states, perhaps with others, commissioning suitable scientific experts to conduct new studies on the probable climatic and environmental consequences of nuclear war. Such studies would benefit from recent advances in modeling, data, and computing power. They should explore what changes in numbers, yields, and targets of nuclear weapons would significantly reduce the probability of nuclear winter. If some nuclear arsenals and operational plans are especially likely to threaten the global environment and food supply, nuclear-armed states as well as non-nuclear-weapon states would benefit from actions to physically reduce such risks. The paper suggests possible modalities for international debate on these issues. The second initiative would query all nuclear-armed states whether they plan to adhere to international humanitarian law in deciding if and when to detonate nuclear weapons, and if so, how their arsenals and operational plans affirm their intentions (or not). The United Kingdom and the United States have committed, in the words of the 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, to “adhere to the law of armed conflict” in any “initiation and conduct of nuclear operations.” But other nuclear-armed states have been more reticent, and the practical meaning of such declarations needs to be clarified through international discussion. The two proposed initiatives would help states and civil society experts to better reconcile the (perceived) need for nuclear deterrence with the strategic, legal, and physical imperatives of reducing the probability that a war escalates to catastrophic proportions. The concern is not only for the well-being of belligerent populations, but also for those in nations not involved in the posited conflict. Traditional security studies and the policies of some nuclear-armed states have ignored these imperatives. Accountable deterrents—in terms of international law and human survival—would be those that met the security and moral needs of all nations, not just one or two. These purposes may be too modest for states and activists that prefer the immediate prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons. Conversely, advocates of escalation dominance in the United States and Russia—and perhaps in Pakistan and India—will find the force reductions and doctrinal changes implied by them too demanding. Yet, the positions of both of these polarized groups are unrealistic and/or unacceptable to a plurality of attentive states and experts. To blunt efforts to stifle further analysis and debate of these issues, the appendix of this paper heuristically rebuts leading arguments against accountable deterrents. Middle powers and civil society have successfully put new issues on the global agenda and created political pressure on major powers to change policies. Yet, cooperation from at least one major nuclear power is necessary to achieve the changes in nuclear deterrent postures and policies explored here. In today’s circumstances, China may be the pivotal player. The conclusion suggests ways in which China could extend the traditional restraint in its nuclear force posture and doctrine into a new approach to nuclear arms control and disarmament with the United States and Russia that could win the support of middle powers and international civil society. If the looming breakdown in the global nuclear order is to be averted, and the dangers of nuclear war to be lessened, new ideas and political coalitions need to gain ascendance. The initiatives proposed here intended to stimulate the sort of analysis and debate from which such ideas and coalitions can emerge.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Environment, Nuclear Power, Weapons, and Deterrence
- Political Geography:
- Pakistan, Russia, China, India, Global Focus, and United States of America
25. With Friends Like These: The Kremlin’s Far-Right and Populist Connections in Italy and Austria
- Author:
- Andrew Weiss
- Publication Date:
- 02-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- A blend of new threats and opportunities is causing Moscow to take greater risks and embrace more flamboyant policies in Europe. The Kremlin’s relationships with Italy and Austria shine a spotlight on how Europe’s domestic troubles have opened many doors for Moscow.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Politics, Populism, and Far Right
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Italy, and Austria
26. Is It a Nuke?: Pre-Launch Ambiguity and Inadvertent Escalation
- Author:
- James M. Acton
- Publication Date:
- 04-2020
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- Ambiguity about whether a weapon is nuclear-armed prior to its launch is an underappreciated, serious, and growing danger. Rising geopolitical tensions and the decay of arms control are exacerbating the risk that such pre-launch warhead ambiguity could lead to nuclear use in a crisis or conflict. Recent developments in technology—as well as potential future advances, such as the development of ambiguous intercontinental missiles—further add to the danger. A first step toward reducing these risks is to enhance awareness among decisionmakers of the causes and potential consequences of ambiguity. Unilateral and cooperative risk-mitigation measures could further reduce the danger of escalation, including in conflicts between the United States and Russia or the United States and China.
- Topic:
- Conflict Prevention, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and Geopolitics
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, and United States of America
27. Gulf Security: The Arab Gulf States Have No Good Options
- Author:
- James M Dorsey
- Publication Date:
- 05-2020
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- The Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies (BESA)
- Abstract:
- The coronavirus pandemic and its economic fallout may rewrite the security as well as the political and economic map of the Middle East. The crisis will probably color Gulf attitudes towards the region’s major external players: the US, China, and Russia. Yet the Gulf States are likely to discover that their ability to shape the region’s map has significantly diminished.
- Topic:
- Conflict Prevention, International Relations, Security, and Trade
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Middle East, United States of America, and Gulf Nations
28. Coming Home to Roost: War Threatens to Spill Beyond Syria’s Borders
- Author:
- James M Dorsey
- Publication Date:
- 04-2020
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- The Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies (BESA)
- Abstract:
- As tens of thousands more refugees are shunted by Turkey toward Europe and a new phase of the brutal Syrian war unfolds, Russia, Turkey, the EU, and the international community are being handed the bill for a flawed short-term approach to the nine-year conflict that lacked empathy for the millions of victims and was likely to magnify rather than resolve problems.
- Topic:
- War, Refugees, Syrian War, and International Community
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Turkey, Middle East, and Syria
29. A Fragile Anti-US Alliance: Russia Accuses China of Technology Theft
- Author:
- James M Dorsey
- Publication Date:
- 03-2020
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- The Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies (BESA)
- Abstract:
- The relationship between Russia and China is based on shared short-term strategic interests, but their differences lie just beneath the surface. Occasionally they erupt into the public eye, as occurred when Russia recently accused China of technology theft. The dynamic of the Russian-Chinese alliance is similar to that of Moscow’s alliances with Turkey and Iran, which also function by focusing on immediate interests and putting off serious differences as long as possible.
- Topic:
- Crime, Science and Technology, and Arms Trade
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Eurasia, Asia, North America, and United States of America
30. Russia’s Shift from “Greater Europe” to “Greater Asia”
- Author:
- Emil Avdaliani
- Publication Date:
- 03-2020
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- The Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies (BESA)
- Abstract:
- Though analysts tend to portray Russia’s foreign policy as truly global (that is, independent of Europe, the US, and China), the country is plainly tilting toward Asia. The Russian political elite does its best to hide this development, but the country is accumulating more interests and freedom to act in Asia than in Europe or anywhere else.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Politics, Geopolitics, and Global Security
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Eurasia, and Asia