Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Political Geography United States

341. Toward Deeper Reductions in U.S. and Russian Nuclear Weapons

Author:
Micah Zenko
Publication Date:
11-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
President Barack Obama has made reductions in the United States' nuclear arsenal and a decreased reliance on nuclear weapons major foreign policy priorities for his administration. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), signed in April 2010 by President Obama and Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev, represents concrete movement toward these goals—goals that both presidents share. This follow-on accord to the 1991 START Treaty limits the United States and Russia to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear and conventional war - heads, 800 strategic launchers, and 700 deployed strategic missiles and bombers. Yet while the New START Treaty represents a substantial decrease from Cold War levels, the United States will retain around 2,000 deployed strategic and tactical nuclear weapons and Russia will maintain approximately 3,500 deployed strategic and tactical nuclear weapons—which together will constitute over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
Russia and United States

342. U.S. Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan

Author:
Richard L. Armitage and Samuel R. Berger
Publication Date:
11-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
Al-Qaeda's attack on September 11, 2001, was the deadliest terrorist assault on the United States in history. In the hours and days that followed, Americans learned more about the perpetrators and their links to bases and networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Less than a month later, President George W. Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom. Much changed nearly overnight as the United States focused military, economic, and diplomatic attention squarely on the region for the first time since the end of the Cold War. In Afghanistan, the Taliban regime—al-Qaeda's sympathetic host—was toppled. In Pakistan, the Pervez Musharraf regime was drafted into Washington's Global War on Terror.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Counterinsurgency
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and United States

343. Congress and National Security

Author:
Kay King
Publication Date:
11-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
Much has been written, blogged, and broadcast in the past several years about the dysfunction of the U.S. Congress. Filibusters, holds, and poison pill amendments have become hot topics, albeit intermittently, as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have increasingly exploited these tactics in pursuit of partisan or personal ends. Meanwhile, such pressing national issues as deficit reduction, immigration reform, and climate change have gone unresolved. To be fair, the 111th Congress has addressed many significant issues, but those it has addressed, such as health-care reform and economic stimulus, exposed Americans to a flawed process of backroom deals that favors obstruction over deliberation, partisanship over statesmanship, and narrow interests over national concerns. Although partisan politics, deal making, and parliamentary maneuvering are nothing new to Congress, the extent to which they are being deployed today by lawmakers and the degree to which they obstruct the resolution of national problems are unprecedented. This may explain why Congress registered a confidence level of only 11 percent in July 2010, marking its lowest rating ever in the annual Gallup institutional confidence survey and ranking it last among sixteen major U.S. institutions.
Topic:
Foreign Policy and War
Political Geography:
United States

344. Turkey's Iran Policy: Between Diplomacy and Sanctions

Author:
Kadir Üstün
Publication Date:
07-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Insight Turkey
Institution:
SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research
Abstract:
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed the fourth round of sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran on June 9, 2010. Turkey, along with Brazil, voted in opposition to sanctions while Lebanon abstained from the vote. Turkey and Brazil's votes were particularly critical because they demonstrated a lack of unity within the international community. The rationale behind Brazil and Turkey's votes derived from the fact that the nuclear swap deal signed by Iran is, so far, the only concrete deal. It represents the only legal basis that the international community can build upon and hold Iran accountable. Although both countries' “no” votes were consistent with their diplomatic efforts, many analysts are criticizing Turkey in particular for not voting with its traditionally strong allies such as the US. Turkey's vote against the new round of sanctions represents an important milestone not because Turkey is abandoning its long-time allies but because Turkey is learning to make its own foreign policy calculations and decisions.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and Diplomacy
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Turkey, Brazil, and Lebanon

345. The EU and Turkey in Energy Diplomacy

Author:
Dimitrios Triantaphyllou and Eleni Fotiou
Publication Date:
07-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Insight Turkey
Institution:
SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research
Abstract:
Since 2000, Turkey's Europeanisation process has affected the country's foreign policy both as a structural and a conjunctural factor. As a structural factor, the EU has had a good deal of influence on Turkey's political and security culture by introducing elements of “soft power” and by expanding the number of Turkey's foreign policymaking agents, particularly in the realm of “pipeline diplomacy.” As a conjunctural factor, the EU has affected Turkey's foreign policy rhetoric by introducing new negotiating chips, and thus complicating the “bargaining” process. However, in order for Turkey's energy diplomacy to achieve its goals, Turkey's strategy towards the Middle East and the Caucasus must become coherent and its approach towards the EU, the US, and Russia, balanced. Most importantly, the question of whether Turkey perceives “pipeline diplomacy” as a means to achieve energy independence, thus enhancing its security, or as leverage to increase its power, thus leading to its recognition as a regional hegemon, remains open.
Topic:
Foreign Policy and Diplomacy
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Turkey, and Middle East

346. Generational Change and the Future of U.S. - Russian Relations

Author:
Jeffrey Mankoff
Publication Date:
06-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of International Affairs
Institution:
School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University
Abstract:
While post-Cold War generation Americans are more sober in assessing Russia, the next Russian generation (those under 35) is in some ways more problematic. Russian youth are much more entrepreneurial and politically engaged than their elders, but also more skeptical of the US and more comfortable with intolerant nationalism. The Kremlin is also reinforcing some of the more worrying trends among Russian youths. There is no going back to the Cold War, but the coming of the new generation does not portend smooth sailing, unless current officials can figure out ways to fundamentally alter the nature of a relationship still dominated by mutual distrust.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cold War, and Nationalism
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, America, and Soviet Union

347. The U.S. Senate and Iraq: Who Changed their Views, and Why?

Author:
Andrew Bennet and Andrew Loomis
Publication Date:
10-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Peace and Security Studies
Abstract:
Focusing on the evolving views of the 77 U.S. Senators who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002, we seek to explain why some political leaders changed their views markedly from 2002 to 2008 and others did not. We argue that in view of the great preponderance of evidence that the initial premises of U.S. intervention in Iraq were not fulfilled, Bayesian updating cannot by itself explain the persistence of divergent views on Iraq. It is also puzzling that a half-dozen senators persisted in their support of Bush's position on Iraq even though this may have contributed to their electoral defeat. We use a combination of political and psychological variables, including ideology, party affiliation, safety of the senator's seat, military service, cognitive style, and presidential aspirations to explain why some senators changed their public positions on Iraq within a year, others did so by 2006, still others in 2007, and some changed very little in more than five years. We combine these variables into a typological theory and test it against a qualitative analysis of 20 senators' views on Iraq. We conclude that our model is relatively successful in predicting not only when senators' views changed but what rationales they gave for why their initial expectations were not borne out. We also note several senators who prove important anomalies for our model, including Senators Lieberman, who was the only Democrat who did not move toward opposing Bush's policies, and McCain, who thus far has not moved toward the political center on Iraq despite having effectively secured his party's nomination.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, War, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, and Arabia

348. Taming the Revisionist State: The Effects of Military Defeats on the War-Proneness of Germany vs. Iraq

Author:
Benjamin Miller and Moran Mandalbaum
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Peace and Security Studies
Abstract:
Following the post - 2003 US intervention in Iraq, and with a potential US use of force against Iran, one key analytical question stands out, which has major policy implications: Does military defeat by the great powers have stabilizing or de - stabilizing effects on the aggressive behavior of revisionist states? Somewhat similarly to the pre - 2003 Iraq invasion debate, the great powers have a number of options for dealing with the potential Iranian nuclear threat: diplomatic engagement, deterrence, or resort to military power -- either to bring about a regime change, or to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. Taking into account the possibility of resorting to force against Iran, an intriguing question emerges: what does IR theory lead us to expect -- and what does the historical record show -- with regard to the effects of military defeats on the war - propensity of revisionist states? In other words, why do some militarily defeated states become war - like, while others peaceful?
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Regime Change
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Iran, Middle East, and Germany

349. NATO and the (Re-)Constitution of Roles: "Self", "We" and "Other"?

Author:
Trine Flockhart
Publication Date:
03-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies
Abstract:
The popular perception of the role of NATO was famously defined by NATO's first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, as “keeping the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down”. NATO's role is still essentially to keep its members safe from threats, to ensure the cohesion of the transatlantic relationship, and to transform relations between former foes. However, behind this alluringly simple description of NATO, lie complex “self”, “we” and “other” definitions and perceptions of roles and relevant functional tasks. This paper seeks to unravel some of the complex processes of constituting and re-constituting NATO's roles. By utilizing a combination of role theory and social identity theory the paper traces how NATO has been engaged in complex and simultaneous processes of having a role set defined for it, whilst also being deeply involved in constructing its own identity and the identity of its member states, prospective member states and partners.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, and International Organization
Political Geography:
United States and Europe

350. Turkey And The Middle East: Ambitions And Constraints

Publication Date:
04-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
Turkey is launching initiative after ambitious initiative aimed at stabilising the Middle East. Building on the successes of its normalisation with Syria and Iraq, it is facilitating efforts to reduce conflicts, expanding visafree travel, ramping up trade, integrating infrastructure, forging strategic relationships and engaging in multilateral regional platforms. For some, this new activism is evidence that Turkey is turning from its traditional allies in Europe and the United States. In fact, its increased role in the Middle East is a complement to and even dependent on its ties to the West.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Islam, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Turkey, Middle East, and Arabia