Search

Begin New Search Topic Crisis Management Political Geography United States of America

61. Six Global Health Challenges Facing Russia and the US

Author:
Pietro A. Shakarian and Lusine Gigoyan
Publication Date:
02-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Rethinking Russia
Abstract:
U.S.-Russia relations are in a deep crisis. However, the current state of these relations should not prevent the two powers from cooperating on resolving global problems. Rethinking Russia assesses six global health challenges, which can bring Moscow and Washington together.
Topic:
Health, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, Trafficking, and Crisis Management
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, North America, and United States of America

62. Iron Curtain over the Arab world: Evaluating Trump’s inaction on the murder of Jamal Khashoggi

Author:
Adham Sahloul
Publication Date:
01-2018
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 murder of Saudi Arabian columnist Jamal Khashoggi on October 2nd in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul has been a clarion call for the Washington foreign policy community, one that is redefining the United States’ relations with the Saudi Kingdom and, by extension, US strategy in the Middle East. The Khashoggi affair will outlive President Donald Trump; the reputation of Saudi’s leadership is beyond repair, and with Global Magnitsky sanctions and the newly proposed bipartisan Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act, the US Congress appears ready to act where the executive has fallen short. The CIA has concluded that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) ordered Khashoggi’s murder. Trump, who has threatened “severe consequences” for whomever is found responsible, seemed over the past month to be looking for a way out of naming, shaming, and punishing MbS himself. In his statement on November 20th, Trump confirmed many observers’ worst fears about this president’s worst instincts, saying that US security, economic, and political interests transcend this incident. For a sitting US president to balk at the notion of holding an ally accountable and making even a symbolic effort to address such a gruesome crime with clear chains of responsibility constitutes a new low in US foreign policy
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Crime, Human Rights, Politics, Trump, Journalism, and Crisis Management
Political Geography:
Turkey, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, North America, United States of America, and Gulf Nations

63. IT’S NOT REALLY ABOUT THE NUKES—CRISIS NEGOTIATION IN NORTH KOREA

Author:
Alex Rohlwing
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Political Violence @ A Glance
Abstract:
The United States may soon have a shot at talking directly to North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. Given this unique opportunity, what foreign policy tactics should US negotiators use in the effort to denuclearize the Korean peninsula? It may seem strange, but negotiators might consider taking a lesson from the FBI and the field of Crisis Negotiation to show us a better path to de-escalation. Over several decades and half a dozen administrations, many have weighed in on how to deal with North Korea’s aggression towards the region and its pursuit of nuclear technologies. Solutions from sanctions by the international community (which only really work when China is serious about them) to ways to game potential meetings with the Kim regime all have two things in common: they are tightly focused on North Korea’s nuclear program, and they are pretty solidly ineffective.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Negotiation, and Crisis Management
Political Geography:
Asia, North Korea, and United States of America

64. Pragmatism and Common Sense – No Margin for Error

Author:
Maxim A. Suchkov
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Rethinking Russia
Abstract:
The American military strike on a Syrian airbase has rather demonstrated President Trump’s burning desire to adopt a more hawkish stance – both at home and abroad – than has been launched merely in retaliation for the terrible chemical attack. At home, it was a gimmick to consolidate his position in Congress, secure bipartisan support (primarily GOP’s approval), cement his voting base, and shed the image of the Kremlin’s lackey, which has increasingly been weakening his presidential mandate and left little room for political maneuver. Moreover, this step was due to receive the approbation of the major “domestic sponsors”, including the military-industrial complex, the oil industry, and financiers. Finally, it can be treated as the comeback of the “strong leader”, the translation of Trump’s election pledge into a policy.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Conflict, Syrian War, and Crisis Management
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, Middle East, Syria, and United States of America

65. The lessons of the Annual Crisis

Author:
Ilya Dyachkov
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Rethinking Russia
Abstract:
Occasional escalations on the Korean Peninsula each time are hotly debated in mass media, but can hardly surprise experts. Typically, difficult periods start in spring and there are several reasons for that. Exactly at this time the United States and the Republic of Korea usually conduct a joint exercise. This fact cannot but bother the DPRK. By the way, the scale of the maneuvers becomes larger every year: for instance, the personnel can practice such operation as seizure of Pyongyang. One more reason is connected with the actions and statements of North Korea itself. The North Korean missile launches, making Seoul and Tokyo nervous, usually “fall” exactly on May or April.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Crisis Management, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
South Korea, North Korea, Korean Peninsula, and United States of America

66. A “Modest Proposal” To End The North Korean Nuclear Crisis: Trump Should Threaten Beijing With A Nuclearized Taiwan

Author:
Steven Holloway
Publication Date:
10-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for the Study of Security and Development, Dalhousie University
Abstract:
As the North Korean nuclear crisis escalates, the media is filled with an endless rehashing of the old inutile options. Typically articles in Globe and Mail and others will restate all the traditional options from multilateral diplomacy to tougher sanctions to unilateral US military action but then recount the long acknowledged problems with each option. This paper suggests a simple but revolutionary diplomatic move. It agrees with the many commentators who have said that China is the only actor with the leverage to effectively halt or even roll back Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile program (or even to attempt regime change.) But unlike some of these analyses, I will argue that so far China has not had sufficient motivation to fully exercise its leverage on North Korea. Therefore the key is to develop a threat plausible enough to provide that motivation. If the US is to face a nuclear deterrent from North Korea, then China should face a similar deterrent and threat from Taiwan.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Crisis Management
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, and United States of America

67. Climate Change, Water Security, and U.S. National Security

Author:
Carolyn Kenney
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The first months of Donald Trump’s presidency have raised serious concerns about the new administration’s understanding of climate change and the associated security risks. President Trump’s vocal skepticism of climate change and his appointment of several prominent climate deniers to his Cabinet, along with deep proposed budget cuts to government activities aimed at slowing or adapting to climate change, could see the new administration do untold damage to the environment, human health and security, economic development, and international peace and stability. The Trump administration’s disengagement comes at a time when severe weather conditions spurred on by climate change are having devastating effects in the United States and around the world. In California, for example, despite a recent respite, the state’s long-running drought cost the state’s agricultural sector an estimated $2.7 billion in 2015 alone, and the state is expected to experience chronic water shortages in the future.1 In southern Africa, for example, millions are at risk of starvation following a two-year drought and above-average temperatures.2 And in Sri Lanka, the worst drought in 40 years has left more than 1 million people affected by acute water shortages.3 These worrying signs early in the Trump administration contrast sharply with the legacy of former President Barack Obama. Before leaving office, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum on Climate Change and National Security designed to elevate and address the national security implications of climate change. Hailed as an historic step, the memorandum directed federal departments and agencies to “ensure that climate change-related impacts are fully considered in the development of national security doctrine, policies, and plans.”4 Released alongside a National Intelligence Council, or NIC, report, “Implications for US National Security of Anticipated Climate Change,” the memorandum reflected the consensus among U.S. national security experts that climate change is a core national security concern and should be addressed as such.5 Indeed, even some within the Trump administration agree with this consensus: Trump’s Secretary of Defense James Mattis, in his written testimony following his confirmation hearing, noted that climate change poses a serious threat to American interests abroad.6 Both Obama’s presidential memorandum and the NIC report argue that extreme and more frequent weather events, droughts, heat waves, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification—all driven or exacerbated by climate change—will increasingly threaten food and water security, energy and transportation infrastructure, and other crucial systems in the decades to come. These disruptions can seriously stress or overwhelm affected governments’ ability to respond to crises, threatening human security and eroding state legitimacy. Deteriorating conditions or severe crises can undermine economic livelihoods and contribute to decisions to migrate. Taken in the aggregate, these stresses can create political instability and amplify conditions that lead to conflict, especially in already fragile or unstable regions.7 And, as many recent crises have demonstrated, instability and violence in one country often do not remain confined solely within that country’s borders. Both reports therefore conclude that it is in the United States’ national interest to try and address the underlying drivers of crises abroad to prevent future instability and avoid more expensive crisis interventions. While the Trump administration’s approach to the issues outlined in the memorandum and the NIC report are shaping up to be hostile, the fact that such challenges exist is unequivocal.8 The administration would do well to heed the advice of climate and national security experts and ensure that the United States continues to address these issues.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Environment, Water, and Crisis Management
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

68. The USA-Turkey Relationship After the 2003 Iraq Crisis

Author:
Şûle Anlar Güneş
Publication Date:
03-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
BILGESAM (Wise Men Center for Strategic Studies)
Abstract:
Turkey and the USA have been strategic allies since declaration of Truman Doctrine in 1947. This strategic partnership got worse due to the USA‘s politics towards Middle East after 9-11 tragedy and Turkey’s new changing domestic political situation through AKP in 2002. Specifically, 2003 Iraq crisis was milestone to decline the relationship between Turkey and the USA. In spite of deterioration of relationship, Turkey and the USA had to overcome this problem due to security, foreign, and economic concerns of both countries, and the process have advanced as expected. In this article, the US-Turkey relationship will be examined in the contexts of recent Iraq crisis, Turkey’s new approach to foreign policy, NATO, war on terrorism, European Union, and economic concerns in order to comprehend the new era of Turkey-US strategic partnership.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, Economics, European Union, Crisis Management, and War on Terror
Political Geography:
Iraq, Turkey, Middle East, North America, and United States of America