Search

Begin New Search Topic Democracy Political Geography United States of America

111. Can U.S. Democracy Policy Survive Trump?

Author:
Thomas Carothers
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI)
Abstract:
In President Donald Trump’s first year in office, U.S. policy relating to supporting democracy abroad became starkly divided. At the level of “high policy”—direct engagement and messaging by President Trump and his principal foreign policy advisers—the United States sharply downgraded its global pro-democratic posture. Trump’s praise of dictators, criticism of democratic allies, and anti-democratic actions at home recast the United States as at best an ambivalent actor on the global democratic stage. Yet at the same time, pro-democratic “low policy”—quiet but serious engagement by U.S. diplomats to counter democratic backsliding and support democratic advances overseas, and the extensive but generally low-profile domain of U.S. democracy assistance programs—largely carried on, making important contributions in many countries. During Trump’s second year, this policy schism has only widened. He has doubled down on his embrace of dictators and spurning of democratic partners, as well as his anti-democratic actions at home. His new secretary of state and national security adviser may not share his anti-democratic impulses, but they have done little to mitigate his anti-democratic actions and have reinforced a transactional foreign policy with little apparent commitment to the idea of democracy as a universal value. Still, U.S. pro-democratic low policy carries on, as American diplomats support democracy in various countries at important moments of political change, and as democracy assistance remains at pre-Trump levels of activity. Yet the manifest lack of commitment to democracy at the top is increasingly corroding the low policy domain. Under Trump, U.S. democracy high policy has reached its lowest ebb of at least the past forty years. If the United States continues its present course for two more years, it will end up stranded on the sidelines, or even on the wrong side, of the global democratic struggle, precisely at a time when that struggle is more acute than at any time in modern history. Nevertheless, democracy’s defenders—both inside and outside of the U.S. government—still have the opportunity to mitigate the damage.
Topic:
Politics, Democracy, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

112. The Revolutionary Seeds of Mass Media

Author:
Sania El-Husseini
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Contemporary Arab Studies (CCAS)
Abstract:
The development and spread of mass media throughout the Middle East over the past two decades—starting with satellite television stations, which took national narratives out from under state control, and followed by social media, which gave voice to the masses—is widely considered a key factor leading to the eruption of the Arab revolutions.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Mass Media, Democracy, Internet, Arab Spring, Journalism, and Revolution
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East, North America, Qatar, and United States of America

113. Making Reform a Priority for Taiwan’s Fishing Fleet

Author:
Trevor Sutton
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Reform of the Taiwanese fishing sector will strengthen bilateral ties between Taipei and Washington and enhance global perceptions of Taiwanese democracy.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Bilateral Relations, Water, Reform, Democracy, and Fishing
Political Geography:
Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

114. The United States and India: Forging an Indispensable Democratic Partnership

Author:
Center for American Progress Task Force on U.S.-India Relations
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The United States and India must forge an indispensable democratic partnership that can serve as a pillar of peace, prosperity, and democracy around the world.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Partnerships, Democracy, Alliance, and Peace
Political Geography:
India, Asia, North America, and United States of America

115. What Turkey’s Political Changes Mean for U.S.-Turkish Relations

Author:
Max Hoffman, Alan Makovsky, and Michael Werz
Publication Date:
07-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The July 9 swearing-in of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for his second term as Turkey’s president—and his subsequent decree1 thoroughly restructuring the Turkish government—have inaugurated a new phase in the country’s political history. Erdoğan will preside over a new system in which power is even more centralized in the office of the presidency than it was previously. Of course, this structure represents the institutionalization of what had been a de facto reality: Erdoğan was already the unassailable top decision-maker, and he will remain so. This continuity means that there may be little visible change in many areas of government. But the shift is emblematic of Turkey’s transformation over the last decade from an institutional, bureaucratic state into a highly personalized one. This personalization will affect Turkey’s foreign policy management, which may become even more unpredictable than it was before, with ramifications for U.S. and EU policy. As just one element of this change, Western diplomats may find that long-time Turkish diplomatic or military contacts have diminished authority and responsibility as foreign and security policy development is centralized in the presidential palace.2 Given his complete personal control, it is time to take seriously President Erdoğan’s apparent desire for Turkey to chart a more independent course, one that shows less deference to the ties that have long bound Turkey to the Western security architecture. During the swearing-in ceremony in Ankara, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro hailed his Turkish counterpart as the “leader of the new multi-polar world.”3 Erdoğan and his advisers certainly share this view: They believe that the United States is in decline, that the world is fundamentally multipolar, and that Turkey deserves to be a center of gravity in its own right.4 They further feel that the West is hypocritical in its espousal of democratic values and human rights. Therefore, they have concluded that Turkey’s traditional, Western-oriented foreign policy is obsolete.5 This worldview has led Erdoğan to adopt a transactional approach toward the United States and Europe and cultivate ties with Iran, China, and—especially—Russia.6 Alongside this understanding of a changing world, President Erdoğan has built his domestic political legitimacy on an aggressive nationalism that includes at its core deeply anti-Western and anti-American rhetoric.7 This was on full display in Erdoğan’s recent electoral campaign, which relied heavily on anti-Western resentment, conspiratorial thinking, and the cultivation of a sense of national threat—all staples of the Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) politics in recent years. Meanwhile, the election empowered the extreme nationalists of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). This will only reinforce the negative trends in the government’s political orientation, given the MHP’s deep suspicion toward the United States and hostility toward any reopening of dialogue with Kurdish populations in eastern Turkey and northern Syria. This issue brief considers the ramifications of these changes for U.S. policy, providing recommendations for how the U.S. government should approach bilateral relations with Turkey in the months ahead. It is a policy designed to maintain the viability of U.S.-Turkish relations while seeking to restore Turkish respect for U.S. interests.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, Authoritarianism, and Democracy
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, North America, and United States of America

116. Securing a Democratic World

Author:
Kelly Magsamen, Max Bergmann, Michael Fuchs, and Trevor Sutton
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Reviving America’s strategic position in the world in the wake of President Donald Trump will require a foreign policy that both firmly embraces democratic values and systematically pushes back against authoritarian competitors such as Russia and China. The Trump presidency has already severely undercut the United States’ global standing, causing immense harm to the nation’s strategic position, credibility, and moral authority. Allies are losing faith in American leadership while illiberal regimes are growing in number, stature, and audacity. Trump’s rise reflects a pre-existing deterioration in the vitality of democratic systems, a global phenomenon which his presidency has now turned into a crisis. The damage cannot be reversed simply by electing a different president or reverting to previous foreign policy approaches. Instead, the United States must adopt bold new policies to regain the advantage in great power competition and help vulnerable democracies, including its own, resist authoritarian influence and strengthen a growing global democratic community. This report explains why a democratic values-based foreign policy is the right choice for the United States on both a strategic and moral level. It also offers specific policy recommendations as a roadmap for how the next administration could pursue a democratic values-based foreign policy. Today, democracy is under strain in America and threatened across the globe. The spread of democratic governance, which for decades seemed all but inevitable, has stalled and now faces serious setbacks. Across the democratic world, ordinary people have lost trust in their institutions of government and delivered stunning rebukes to their political establishments. These setbacks have also emboldened authoritarian regimes. Russia, China, and other illiberal states have sought to exploit the openness of democratic societies for their geopolitical advantage and have put forward an alternative autocratic model for politics and economic development that undermines liberal democratic values.
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Democracy, and Alliance
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

117. Fragile States Index 2018 – Annual Report

Author:
J. J. Messner, Nate Haken, Patricia Taft, Ignatius Onyekwere, Hannah Blyth, Charles Fiertz, Christina Murphy, Amanda Quinn, and McKenzie Horwitz
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Fund for Peace
Abstract:
The Fragile States Index, produced by The Fund for Peace, is a critical tool in highlighting not only the normal pressures that all states experience, but also in identifying when those pressures are pushing a state towards the brink of failure. By highlighting pertinent issues in weak and failing states, The Fragile States Index—and the social science framework and software application upon which it is built—makes political risk assessment and early warning of conflict accessible to policy-makers and the public at large.
Topic:
Oil, Sovereignty, Natural Resources, Authoritarianism, Counter-terrorism, Democracy, Fragile States, Economy, Domestic Politics, Conflict, Resilience, Regional Politics, and Illiberalism
Political Geography:
Africa, Europe, Middle East, Poland, South America, Hungary, Spain, Venezuela, Mexico, Catalonia, Qatar, Central Europe, Sahel, Global Focus, United States of America, and Gambia

118. The ASD Policy Blueprint for Countering Authoritarian Interference in Democracies

Author:
Jamie Fly, Laura Rosenberger, and David Salvo
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
In 2014, Russian government operatives began attacking American democracy through a multifaceted operation, a campaign that followed years of similar activity across Europe. A core component of this operation was the Russian government’s aggressive interference in the 2016 presidential election, according to the unanimous conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s February 16 indictment of the Internet Research Agency and related individuals, as well as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation, provided further details on the extent of Russia’s interference in American democracy. Through e-mail hacks and leaks of information on politicians and campaigns, cyber-attacks against U.S. electoral infrastructure, and the injection of inflammatory material into the U.S. political and social ecosystems, the Kremlin sought to undermine the integrity of democratic institutions and amplify growing social and political polarization within and between the left and right. This campaign sought to damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and boost Donald Trump’s profile during the election. It also targeted prominent members of both parties, including members of the Trump administration, and average American citizens through political ads and disinformation on social media, a trend that continues to this day. The Kremlin’s operation to undermine democracy weaponized our openness as a nation, attempting to turn our greatest strength into a weakness, and exploited several operational and institutional vulnerabilities in American government and society: A government that was — and remains — unprepared to address asymmetric threats of this nature; Insufficient cyber defenses and outdated electoral infrastructure; Tech companies that failed to anticipate how their platforms could be manipulated and poor cooperation between the public and private sector to address technological threats; A highly polarized media environment which amplified Russian disinformation without regard for the credibility of the information they reported or the ethics of doing so; A porous financial system that allowed dirty or anonymous money to enter the country and facilitate the aims of corrupt foreign elite; The polarization of American citizens and the American political system; and, A general decline of faith in democracy and the media. The Kremlin’s playbook takes advantage of vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the societies it targets. In the United States, the vulnerabilities that the Kremlin exploited included operational and structural weaknesses in governance, legislation, and corporate policy. But they also exploited existing institutional and societal shortcomings in America. A hyper-partisan climate, declining faith in the ability of government to do its job, festering racial divisions, growing economic disparities, and the increasingly polarized media environment and prevalence of echo chambers, all provide fertile ground for adversaries who seek to do America harm. Addressing the threat of foreign interference requires closing both sets of vulnerabilities. The tools the Kremlin has used to wage these operations include information operations, cyberattacks, malign financial influence, support for political parties and advocacy groups, and state economic coercion. In a world increasingly interconnected by technology, state and non-state actors alike will be able to conduct malign interference operations of varying scales and sophistication. Other authoritarian regimes, such as China, have already adopted and begun to deploy asymmetric tools for their own interference operations. Some U.S. partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are now even adopting similar tools as they attempt to influence American debates. As other foreign actors enter the field and as technology continues to rapidly advance, Western institutions, such as the EU and NATO, and democracies worldwide will face additional challenges.
Topic:
Government, Infrastructure, Authoritarianism, and Democracy
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, and United States of America

119. Nuclear Governance and Legislation in Four Nuclear-Armed Democracies

Author:
Avner Cohen and Brandon Mok
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Abstract:
The report presents a set of comparative raw data on the question of how four Western democratic nuclear-weapon states— the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Israel—handle the essential tension between nuclear weapons (which require secrecy) and liberal democracy. The initial intent of this work was to assist Dr. Cohen in his preparations for an unprecedented hearing at the Israeli High Court of Justice in September 2017, whereby the Court would hear a petition, signed by over 100 Israeli citizens, calling for regulation and oversight of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission. The petitioners cited the legal lacuna under which Israel’s nuclear activities operate, devoid of oversight and beyond the realm of law, in violation of fundamental democratic principles. In particular, the study assesses the comprehensiveness—the breadth and depth—of the legislative, regulatory, scientific, and policy mechanisms that each of these four democratic states have created to govern its nuclear affairs in the following categories or parameters: legislation, organizations (directly responsible for either civilian and military applications of nuclear materials or both), regulation, oversight, secrecy, and policy making. Such material has never before been publicly available in a condensed form in one location, making this study of use to anyone interested in the problem of governing the atom. It will be updated as structures and policy change.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Military Affairs, Democracy, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, Middle East, Israel, France, North America, and United States of America

120. Authoritarian Backlash: A Comparison of Turkey & Venezuela

Author:
Robert Pearson
Publication Date:
10-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” This famous opening line from Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina is important also for democracies. While Turkey and Venezuela are each unhappy in their own way, they also may share some common elements in their struggles for democracy that provide lessons.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Authoritarianism, Elections, Democracy, and Economy
Political Geography:
Turkey, Middle East, South America, Venezuela, and United States of America