Search

Begin New Search Topic Bilateral Relations Political Geography United States of America

31. US-Turkey Relations Hanging by a Thread: Trump’s Re-Election

Author:
Ioannis N. Grigoriadis
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
As the American elections are about to take place, many in Turkey brace for the outcome. After countless disputes between the United States and Turkey during the 2010’s, coupled with growing divergence of Turkish foreign policy, two allies’ relationship has been deceptively good for the last two years. This was not due to a meaningful rapprochement, but to Erdogan’s well-executed personal diplomacy with Trump which has proved beneficial for Turkey in many cases. Yet, this superficial rapprochement is challenged by the prospects of a Biden presidency. Biden, whose remarks are far from affable towards Erdogan and who has even pledged to support Turkish opposition, is very likely to demand Turkey to recommit to its alliance with the West. Hence, we may soon see a Turkey at a serious crossroads: either Turkey will turn its face to West once again, or it will further alienate from the West.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Elections, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Turkey, North America, United States of America, and Mediterranean

32. 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

33. A New Arsenal for Competition: Coercive Economic Measures in the U.S.-China Relationship

Author:
Elizabeth Rosenberg, Peter Harrell, and Ashley Feng
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security
Abstract:
The United States and China have long used coercive economic measures to advance both economic and foreign policy objectives. In recent years, however, both countries have turned to coercive economic measures as mainstream instruments of foreign policy and national security policy, and increasingly have deployed coercive economic measures against each other. For the United States, China’s economic scale and global interconnections make it a fundamentally different type of target for coercive economic measures than the comparatively smaller and less sophisticated economies that have been primary targets of U.S. economic coercion in the past. The United States cannot simply isolate China from the global economy. Instead, it must adopt a more strategic focus on limiting Chinese actions in areas significant to U.S. national security and shoring up economic and technology arenas where the United States maintains lasting leverage. Over the past several years, the United States has deployed an array of coercive economic measures against China. The most prominent of these have been the tariffs on approximately two-thirds of U.S. imports from China. The tariffs remain largely in place despite implementation of the Phase One trade deal that the United States and China signed in January 2020. But the United States also has developed and deployed an increasingly sophisticated set of other coercive economic tools that will play a prominent role in U.S.-China relations over the years ahead, regardless of whether the United States and China fully implement the Phase One deal and reach a broader Phase Two trade agreement. Those other coercive economic tools include export controls, restrictions on U.S. imports to secure U.S. supply chains, heightened scrutiny of Chinese investment in the United States, sanctions, and stepped-up law enforcement measures against Chinese intellectual property (IP) theft and other Chinese activities in the United States. This expanding set of measures serves a broadening array of U.S. policy goals, including economic objectives, foreign policy goals, and the maintenance of America’s technological edge. The U.S. record of success in the use of these coercive economic measures has been mixed. While tariffs and other measures have succeeded in putting some macroeconomic pressure on China, they have not extracted fundamental concessions from Beijing. Targeted sanctions and law enforcement measures similarly have had economic impacts on some Chinese companies, but other Chinese companies have demonstrated an ability to weather U.S. economic coercion. To be effective in translating economic coercion into policy change by China, the United States needs to better integrate its coercive measures with each other and with other policies, better signal intentions and escalation, more rigorously assess impacts and costs, and galvanize allied support and coordinated action. For its part, China appears to recognize a balancing act between limiting economic ties with foreign partners in some domains and maintaining them in others. China has sought to distance certain Chinese economic sectors, particularly high-tech manufacturing, from the United States in some areas, investing heavily in domestic capacity development. In other areas where China must rely on foreign partners for technology, IP, or manufacturing, or where China does not appear to see a clear interest in severing trade, Beijing has sought to keep trade and investment flows moving in an unencumbered fashion. As for the United States, this is a dynamic policy environment.
Topic:
Security, Bilateral Relations, Economy, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

34. Sino-US Kashmir Policy: Analyzing The Bilateral Approach

Author:
Sumeera Imran and Lubna Abid Ali
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Political Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
Sino-Indian stand-off in Galwan has revived world attention to the dispute in Kashmir. Indian revocation of Article 370 and Article 35-A propped up diverse responses from the international community. China condemned Indian abrogation and the US offered to mediate on Kashmir. Trump’s offer of mediation opened up a pandora box of strong opposition in Indian Lok Sabha. Resolute criticism unleashed on Modi for compromising on Indian national security objectives and territorial integrity. Reflecting the urgency and complications involved in conflict resolution, the propensity of nuclear confrontation in South Asia remains high in Kashmir. US Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has declared Human Rights in Kashmir as integral part of his electoral agenda. The US State Department has declared no change in its historic Kashmir policy, while China has resented Indian unilateral change in the region’s status. Great powers’ involvement in regional conflicts has been fluid, fluctuating with the change in their national security interests. Broad contours of national security objectives have shaped Sino-US Kashmir policy in the past. Employing qualitative research methodology and theoretical perspective of complex interdependence, the article reviews Sino-US traditional policy roles in conflict resolution on Kashmir. How has the US and Chinese Kashmir policy evolved over the years? What impact does the US and Chinese Kashmir policy has on regional stability? The article argues that great powers’ involvement has inflicted more injury than cure, exacerbating regional tensions. Great powers’ alignment along opposite poles has increased India-Pakistan bilateral hostilities on Kashmir. Sino-US insistence on Indo-Pakistan bilateral approach for conflict resolution rather than the UN framework has created the impasse on Kashmir.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, and Territorial Disputes
Political Geography:
China, Kashmir, and United States of America

35. Negotiating the U.S.-Romania Consular Convention

Author:
Jonathan B. Rickert
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
One of the traditional tasks of diplomacy is the negotiation of bilateral and multilateral agreements. Although many diplomats may spend an entire career without ever engaging in such activity, I am pleased that I had the chance to do so.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and Memoir
Political Geography:
Eastern Europe, Romania, North America, and United States of America

36. The Forgotten Peace at Twenty-Five: How to Protect and Strengthen Israel-Jordan Ties

Author:
Ghaith al-Omari and Ben Fishman
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
On the twenty-fifth anniversary of the peace treaty, both parties and the United States have strategic interests in upholding and reinforcing the relationship. The optimism that characterized the signing of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty a quarter-century ago has long since dissipated. Today, the peace rests on a strong security foundation but lacks popular support, particularly on the Jordanian side. Nevertheless, there remain important opportunities for strengthening Israel-Jordan relations and preserving that pillar of America’s steadily eroding security architecture in the Middle East. It is critical for Washington to prioritize Jordan on its agenda. This includes urging the still-to-be-formed Israeli government to take responsible action on two fronts: keeping Amman’s interests in mind when formulating policy toward the West Bank, and implementing long-delayed initiatives that would help Jordan’s struggling economy.
Topic:
Security, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Territorial Disputes, Negotiation, and Peace
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Jerusalem, Jordan, and United States of America

37. Don't Write Off Iraq

Author:
Bilal Wahab and Barbara A. Leaf
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Even as Baghdad works to rein in militias that invite outside attacks, Washington needs to be patient with the country’s contradictions in the near term and give space for it to exert sovereignty in the long term. As President Trump met with Iraqi president Barham Salih today on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, they were no doubt buoyed by their governments’ mutual conclusion that the recent attack on Saudi oil facilities in Abqaiq did not originate from Iraq. Initial concerns about that possibility were well founded—a previous attack on a major Saudi pipeline was carried out from Iraqi territory this May, and multiple Iraqi militia facilities have been struck since June, reportedly by Israel. Each of these developments was linked to Shia “special groups” with known ties to Iran. On July 1, Iraqi prime minister Adil Abdulmahdi ordered these and other militias to fold themselves under state authority, but so far he has been unable to impose order on them. The government has also failed to prevent them from threatening neighboring countries at Iran’s presumed behest—an especially dangerous lapse given that Iraqi authorities cannot protect the territory these militias hold from external retaliation. To keep other countries from turning Iraq into a proxy battleground, Baghdad needs to rein in the unruliest militias. This is a tall order because Tehran has spent fifteen years building them into a parallel force of its own. Given the willingness these “special groups” have shown when asked to attack U.S. troops, fight on the Assad regime’s behalf in Syria, or secure other Iranian interests, they risk implicating Iraq in Tehran’s regional confrontations with the United States, Saudi Arabia, and/or Israel.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Non State Actors, and Proxy War
Political Geography:
Iraq, Iran, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United States of America, and Gulf Nations

38. Course Correction: The Muslim World League, Saudi Arabia's Export of Islam, and Opportunities for Washington

Author:
Sarah Feuer
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Throughout 2016 and 2017, statements from Riyadh suggested that Saudi Arabia might be on the verge of reorienting its decades-long promotion of Salafism around the world. Given the sheer scale of the kingdom’s support for Islamic institutions over the years, the ripple effects of such a shift would be profound. Saudi efforts to propagate its particular brand of Salafism have long been anchored in the Mecca-based Muslim World League, but the ascent of Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman has apparently shunted the MWL in a different direction. Recent initiatives suggest Riyadh has assigned the league a central role in its broader religious reform agenda, at least as it applies to the export of religious doctrine abroad. In this deeply researched Policy Focus, Sarah Feuer, an expert on Middle East religion and politics, explores the meanings of Saudi reforms, how they are playing out within the MWL, and the broader implications for the U.S.- Saudi relationship. She recommends that Washington expand reporting mechanisms in nations where the MWL is active, pursue avenues to engage directly with the league, and incorporate religious reform into the high-level U.S.-Saudi strategic dialogue, all toward promoting moderation and undermining extremism.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Islam, Politics, Religion, Bilateral Relations, and Soft Power
Political Geography:
Saudi Arabia, North America, United States of America, and Gulf Nations

39. Egypt Takes Another Step Toward China

Author:
Haisam Hassanein
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Port projects and other outreach may help President Sisi check off some of his policy goals, but giving China such a foothold could threaten a number of U.S. interests in the region. On August 5, Egypt signed a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese company Hutchison Ports to establish a Mediterranean container terminal in Abu Qir. President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi himself attended the signing ceremony, where he praised the company’s global reputation in the field and emphasized the importance of executing the project in accordance with the highest international standards. The project is in line with Sisi’s track record of seeking Chinese help to fulfill his ambitious domestic and foreign agenda. Hutchison is one of the world’s leading port networks, operating terminals in twenty-seven countries; in Egypt, it operates the country’s two main commercial ports, Alexandria and El Dekheila. The company’s representatives commended the opportunity for direct investment in Abu Qir and announced that they will be training more than 1,500 Egyptian engineers and other workers for jobs at the terminal. According to them, the facility will be able to handle up to 1 million containers annually once completed.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Economic growth, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Middle East, Asia, North Africa, Egypt, and United States of America

40. An Unnatural Partnership? The Future of U.S.-India Strategic Cooperation

Author:
Samit Ganguly and M. Chris Mason
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
As global competition with an increasingly assertive Chinese Government expands, the strategic relationship between India and the United States is assuming ever-greater importance. From a superficial perspective, a strategic partnership seems to make a great deal of sense for both countries. Yet, enormous political, cultural, and structural obstacles remain between them, which continue to slow the progress in security cooperation to a crawl, relative to China’s economic and military advances. The authors explore these impediments frankly and suggest practical ways to build trust and establish confidence.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Armed Forces, Military Affairs, Partnerships, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, North America, and United States of America