Search

Begin New Search Topic Alliance Political Geography United States of America

81. #NATO2030: Towards a NATO China Strategy

Author:
Una Aleksandra Bērziņa-Čerenkova
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
NATO’s search for a common, cohesive strategy towards China is among the challenges most likely to reveal deep fractures between the positions of the Allies. In the second of our series of policy briefs intended to shed light on some of the issues related to the Alliance’s further adaptation, Una Aleksandra Bērziņa-Čerenkova of the Latvian Institute of International Affairs examines the Allies’ public statements on China to find the common ground that might form the backbone of a NATO Strategy for China, and the differences between them that still need to be addressed.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, and Alliance
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and United States of America

82. The 2021 Australia-US Ministerial Consultations: Five Critical Areas for Cooperation

Author:
John Lee
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
On September 16, the US will host the Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN), the annual meeting of cabinet-level principals responsible for foreign affairs and the defense of Australia and the US. Although Australia participates in similar 2+2 meetings with a handful of countries that include the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, and India, AUSMIN is the most established and essential of these for Canberra, reflecting the singular importance of Australia’s alliance with the US. While affirming the closeness of the two countries’ relationship, AUSMIN represents much more than symbolism or tradition, as the US-Australia bilateral alliance is also a practical relationship based on action, outputs, and outcomes. AUSMIN is therefore a necessary event on the calendar that leads to both countries’ formulating objectives and implementing policy decisions. Viewed in a broader context, AUSMIN also increases regional countries’ confidence that US alliances are not merely historical artifacts, but relationships that evolve and respond to the most important of current challenges. The latter point, increasing regional and global confidence in US-led strategic architecture, is crucial, as the rising threat posed by authoritarian nations such as China and Russia requires a collective and coherent response by democratic countries and groupings. The US’s formal alliances in the Indo-Pacific complement other groupings of democracies such as the Group of Seven and newer entities such as the Quad, which involves the US, Japan, India, and Australia. In particular, its alliances with Japan and Australia are the US’s northern and southern anchors in the Indo-Pacific. Consequently, as one of the most important annual meetings of the US-Australia alliance, AUSMIN takes on even broader significance and relevance due to its role in ensuring regional and global balances of power, resolve, and values that favor liberal democracies. This paper outlines five areas that, from an Australian perspective, are critical to the Australia-US security partnership and efforts to counter China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific. Areas of discussion that should be prioritized by AUSMIN participants include: shifting orthodoxies around warning times for military conflict with China; increasing multi-domain joint military training; responding to illegitimate Chinese economic activity; adapting shared geopolitical strategy to account for the pandemic’s impact in the region; and countering Chinese narratives about the superiority of authoritarian models of governance.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Australia and United States of America

83. China’s Gambit for Total Information Dominance: A US-Australia Response

Author:
Patrick M. Cronin
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
This report assesses China’s comprehensive approach to information power and its implications for the U.S.-Australia alliance. The purpose of the report is threefold: to enlarge alliance awareness of China’s whole-of-society information challenge; highlight critical responses to this challenge from Canberra and Washington; and deepen alliance thinking regarding strategy and policy. The scale and scope of China’s information enterprise distinguishes it from other countries. Overt persuasion campaigns and covert influence operations are thoroughly researched, carefully choreographed, and uninhibited by concerns over individual or sovereign rights. Beijing goes beyond the use of information and instead seeks to achieve primacy in discourse power by weaponizing narrative in ways analogous to asymmetric military strategies. China uses a distinctive whole-of-society approach to building a dazzling wealth of data and information. Aided by intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, decades of education training abroad, and other forms of acquiring information, China’s industrial policy goes beyond protectionist measures like subsidies. When Military-Civil Fusion is considered, this development has far more than economic and technological ramifications.
Topic:
International Relations, Science and Technology, Alliance, Data, and Information Technology
Political Geography:
China, Asia, Australia, and United States of America

84. The Futility of U.S. Military Aid and Nato Aspirations for Ukraine

Author:
Sascha Glaeser
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
Since the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea, the U.S. has provided $2.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine. Continued security assistance prolongs the conflict and heightens U.S.-Russia tensions. Russia shares a 1,200-mile border with Ukraine and views the prospect of Kyiv joining NATO and basing U.S. and allied forces there as a threat. Russia will absorb significant costs—monetary and human—to prevent this outcome. A resolution in Ukraine that does not account for Russia’s concerns is unrealistic; therefore, U.S. and European leaders should account for them, starting with ruling out Ukrainian accession to NATO. Because of the risk of escalation, potentially to nuclear war, the U.S. should seek détente with Russia and support the establishment of a neutral, non-aligned Ukraine that serves as a buffer state between Russia and the West.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Nuclear Weapons, Alliance, Military Aid, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, North America, Crimea, and United States of America

85. Redefining the U.S.-Turkey Relationship

Author:
Sinan Ülgen
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
At present, the relationship between Turkey and the United States is in a deep crisis. The meeting between U.S. President Joe Biden and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the margin of the June 2021 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit in Brussels raised expectations that the U.S.-Turkey relationship can be put back on track. And yet recovery from the present crisis is uncertain, as the underlying factors that previously shaped the relationship have changed. The end of the Cold War and the emergence of a more multipolar system have altered the nature of U.S.-Turkey engagement. In Washington, competition between global powers is now the overriding frame for U.S. foreign policy. Ankara, however, views the world very differently. The rise of Asia and the ascendancy of China are seen more as opportunities than threats. Ankara interprets these trends, as well as Russia’s growing regional activism, as signs of the lasting emergence of a multipolar world order. This understanding now shapes the strategic calculus of Turkish policymakers. Turkish political elites firmly believe that a successful repositioning of their country in this multipolar environment will benefit the nation in the long run. This growing divergence in terms of how Ankara and Washington see the world creates a challenging environment for constructively addressing the range of prevailing bilateral disputes. This paper examines five main areas of disagreement between the two countries and explores how the two sides might overcome these differences. At the top of the list of current disagreements are Turkey’s acquisition of the S-400 air and missile defense system from Russia and ongoing U.S. support for Syria’s Kurdish military and political factions. Also important are the consequences of the erosion of democratic norms in Turkey; the U.S. position on the self-exiled Islamic preacher Fethullah Gülen, who many in the Turkish government believe was the architect of the failed coup attempt in Turkey in July 2016; the possible impact of the Halkbank court case on grounds of past violations of Iran sanctions; and the Biden administration’s decision to use the word “genocide” to refer to the killings and deportations of Ottoman Armenians during World War I. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Turkey-U.S. relationship is in need of redefinition. The Turkey-U.S. relationship has long been defined as a strategic alliance underwritten by NATO. Today, this definition has become obsolete and does not capture the new reality of this relationship. Turkey undoubtedly will remain a strong NATO ally, but its relationship with the United States will no longer be shaped by the power asymmetry of this military alliance. In other words, the reality of the United States being the main security provider will not be sufficient to override and contain the centrifugal trends that have shaped the relationship since the end of the Cold War and that have gained momentum in the past decade as a result of the growing divergences between Ankara and Washington. Yet differences with Turkey cannot be managed with the same clinical approach reserved for adversaries of the United States. Turkey is not an adversary, and therefore, a categorical separation of areas of agreement and cooperation from areas of disagreement is unrealistic. Unlike in the case of the United States and its true adversaries, the perpetuation of areas of dispute will always hinder the scope of U.S. collaboration with Turkey. The underlying alliance relationship has a built-in expectation of solidarity and mutual trust. Without these values, the bilateral relationship cannot function effectively. Neither will the “grand bargain” approach favored by Ankara be successful. Turkey wants a diplomatic process with the United States that would involve deliberations on all the disputed areas in a flexible manner. These deliberations could then lead to trade-offs that would create the conditions for a mutually beneficial reset. Ankara could also showcase its flexibility provided that Washington demonstrates its willingness for compromise. And yet there is little interest in Washington in undertaking such an enterprise with the Erdoğan government. A scenario of gradual rapprochement as an alternative to the grand bargain championed by Turkey or the principled engagement currently favored by Washington can be promoted. The gradual rapprochement would entail a series of confidence-building actions. Positive areas of engagement could include future negotiations with Iran, the reconstruction of Syria, the normalization of Libya, the stabilization of governance reform in Afghanistan given Turkey’s interest to operate the Kabul airport even after the U.S. and NATO withdrawals, the countering of Russian aggressiveness (especially toward Ukraine), and collaboration in Africa to dampen the influence of China. The Turkey-U.S. relationship may in that sense be in acute need of gradual but concrete steps that over time will set a new tone for a more positive and constructive strategic partnership and reestablish mutual trust.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, Multipolarity, and Military
Political Geography:
Turkey, North America, United States of America, and Mediterranean

86. A High-Tech Alliance: Challenges and Opportunities for U.S.-Japan Science and Technology Collaboration

Author:
James L. Schoff, Douglas E. Rake, and Joshua Levy
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
In both Japan and the United States, there is a growing recognition that national security and alliance security involve more than just military concerns and extend to new technology areas and their economic effects. Looming over the two allies is a wide-ranging question of how to enable greater science and technology (S&T) research collaboration for commercial and defense purposes, involving such fields as artificial intelligence (AI), quantum information science (QIS), cybersecurity, and space utilization. Competing domestic political and economic considerations in each country make this a particularly complex challenge for policymakers, who can be expected to treat the international sharing or sale of assorted technologies differently. Still, there is little doubt that it is in the mutual interest of Japan and the United States to harmonize their approaches and find acceptable ways to enable deeper and broader S&T collaboration—and to do so expeditiously.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, and Collaboration
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

87. Maintaining the U.S.-Saudi Relationship

Author:
Hussein Ibish
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
The once booming strategic alliance between Riyadh and Washington has weathered a number of regional storms but is beginning to show wear and tear.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Middle East, Saudi Arabia, North America, United States of America, and Gulf Nations

88. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: How Should South Korea Manage its Relations with the United States and China?

Author:
Zhiqun Zhu
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
This paper deals with one of the most critical issues in contemporary international relations: how China’s rise challenges foreign policies of U.S. allies, with a focus on the Republic of Korea (ROK) or South Korea. South Korea has been carefully hedging between the United States and China, its traditional security patron and largest trade partner, respectively. Strategic rivalry between the two great powers has put South Korea in an awkward position as pressure grows from the two powers to pick a side. Using a modified dual-track economics-security nexus framework, this paper suggests that the United States and China each has a significant impact on South Korea’s security and economic policies, making it important but challenging for South Korea to simultaneously manage relations with the two great powers. So far, South Korea has maintained these two sets of relationships remarkably well, but it may be difficult to continue with business as usual in the years ahead. For its own national interests, South Korea must seek to preserve the status quo under which it can continue to benefit from good relations with both great powers. The paper also proposes that South Korea should form a “middle power coalition” with like-minded nations to deflect pressures and avoid the dilemma of having to choose sides.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Alliance, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

89. Trilateral Cooperation Between Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Georgia

Author:
Dr. Richard Weitz
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
Since the breakup of the So­viet Union, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Georgia have achieved unprecedented levels of economic and security collabo­ration. Through this expanding cooperation, the three countries have established themselves as a collective hub of Eurasian energy extraction and multi‑model trans­portation. Their growing ties have accelerated since the opening of the Baku‑Tbilisi‑Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline in 2006 to extend to the construction of additional pipe­lines, the launching in 2017 of the Baku‑Tbilisi‑Kars (BTK) railway, the holding of regular trilateral mil­itary exercises, and the convening of frequent high‑level leadership meetings. The South Caucasus remains one of the world’s most complex geopolitical regions, with several external powers competing for regional influ­ence.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Hegemony, Alliance, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Asia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, North America, and United States of America

90. Kim Jong Un’s Two-Faced Strategy: South Korea First and U.S. Later Tactics Restoration of the Inter-Korean Hotline, the Road to an Inter-Korean Summit

Author:
Sung-wook Nam
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
North Korea reportedly test-fired its new long-range cruise missiles and rail-mobile ballistic missiles four times in September, which successfully hit their respective targets. As the North continues to enhance its nuclear missile capabilities, military threats and arms races among neighboring powers are intensifying. The North claims that prospects for bilateral relations depend on the attitude of South Korean authorities as it demands the South to drop its hostile policy towards the North and that the South promptly cease crisis awareness and delusion of getting harmed that it should deter the north's provocation. The author notes that the inter-Korean hotlines restored after 55 days of suspension can create a momentum to improve inter-Korean relations. However, he notes that the road ahead will be bumpy due to the differing attitudes of the two Koreas.
Topic:
International Relations, Nuclear Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North Korea, and United States of America