Search

Begin New Search Topic Multilateralism Political Geography United States of America

51. Harnessing Multilateral Financing for Health Security Preparedness

Author:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
The economic consequences of large-scale disease outbreaks can be enormous: pandemics could cause $570 billion per year in average economic losses over the coming decades. Health security threats have an especially destructive impact on development investments and GDP in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LICs and LMICs): the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa wiped out nearly five years of existing investments in the region, gravely setting back the region’s future development prospects. By contrast, upgrading countries’ preparedness is relatively inexpensive and affordable; recent data demonstrates most countries would need to spend approximately $0.50-$1.50 per person per year to get an acceptable level of epidemic preparedness. The financing gap for preparedness is one of the starkest problems in health security, especially among LICs and LMICs. That gap is estimated at $4.5 billion per year. Investments in preparedness are cost-effective and affordable, but low-income and lower-middle-income country governments continue to underinvest at dangerously low levels. These governments bear lead responsibility for addressing financing gaps, but external funding can be catalytic. At present, there is no financing mechanism and no adequate incentive structure to motivate governments in high-risk countries to invest in preparedness, particularly when those investments compete with more visible priorities such as education, housing, transport infrastructure, and other pressing health needs. As a consequence, countries remain ill-prepared and vulnerable to the persistent threat of pandemics and large-scale disease outbreaks. The World Bank Group’s International Development Association (IDA) replenishment takes place every three years and presents a choice opportunity to make adjustments that reflect important emerging priorities. In the current IDA19 replenishment, stakeholders can take a major step towards closing the preparedness financing gap by incentivizing $1 billion or more per year in preparedness investments in LICs and LMICs.
Topic:
Security, Health, Multilateralism, and Public Health
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

52. Energy Spheres of Influence

Author:
Sarah Ladislaw and Nikos Tsafos
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
For several decades, energy security has been defined and pursued in a multilateral world with relatively open markets and technology transfer, where energy relations have become increasingly commodified. But that world may soon disappear—energy relationships might become more political, open trade might give way to friction, and great powers might leverage energy relations or energy technology to gain an edge over each other. For decades the United States has promoted a rules-based, multilateral order, supported by shared gains from free trade and deeper economic and political integration within and among countries. Energy security, the ability to secure affordable and reliable supplies of energy, has been widely recognized as common good promoted by this system. As the world’s largest consumer and importer of energy, it was squarely in the United States’ national interest to support this approach through domestic and international energy policy as well as foreign policy. Today, this multilateral order is being challenged. The world is experiencing a new era of competition for greater geographic and economic power driven by the shifting center of gravity of the global economy, the realignment of relationships between and among countries, and rapid technological change. Energy is poised to play an important role in this upheaval and will be affected by these changes. The United States is no longer the largest consumer or importer of energy. Instead, it is now the largest producer of oil and natural gas and will soon be a net exporter of energy. The energy world also is changing rapidly, with renewable energy resources like solar and wind making up the fastest growing and largest source of new supplies and global imperatives like climate change challenging the role of status quo fuels. These changes have heralded a reexamination of the United States’ national interest regarding energy in this changing global system. The United States has important decisions to make about its position in this new environment. Can energy play an influential role in achieving U.S. foreign policy objectives in various regions of renewed geopolitical competition? Is any country or group of countries poised to dominate a given energy market or fuel and might that negatively affect U.S. national security interests? How does this changing global dynamic in which countries are vying for greater geographic and economic spheres of influence affect our approach to global energy security? Will the energy sector become fundamentally more mercantilist, and will the United States be competitive if it does? Greater insight about each of these questions is a prerequisite to the formulation of U.S. foreign and energy policy. So far, the United States has grappled with these questions by pursuing “energy dominance,” a strategy in which energy represents (1) a tool for gaining geopolitical influence in a given region and (2) an area of competitive and strategic economic advantage for the United States. But other global powers, like China and Russia, pose strong competition for this U.S. strategy. Energy features prominently in the economic, foreign, and national security strategies of all three countries but in different ways. And although all three recognize the importance of maintaining affordable and reliable energy supplies for the good of the global economy as well as their own economic well-being, they also recognize the influence of energy in the execution of foreign policy at the global and regional level. The issue for the international energy community is whether the multilateral approach to shared energy security, supported by the promotion of free and integrated markets, is breaking down into regional and economic spheres of influence more mercantile in nature—and if so, how the United States should respond.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

53. Can the European Union Save Multilateralism?

Author:
Mikael Barfod
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
Controversies have abounded, including Palestine and Israel within the UN's Human Rights Council, lack of US support for the International Law of the Sea (since 1994), and the International Criminal Court (since 2002). Collectively, the European Union and its Member States remain by far the largest financial contributor to the UN, providing 30% of all contributions to the budget and 31% of peace-keeping activities in addition to substantial contributions towards project-based funding. 4. Some may object that the European Union has been hampered by the lack of a common position among EU Member States on the future of the UN Security Council (UNSC), where two member-states, UK and France, currently have permanent seats and one, Germany, is desperate to get one.
Topic:
International Relations, Cold War, Human Rights, European Union, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
Africa, China, United Kingdom, Europe, Iran, Israel, Asia, France, Germany, and United States of America

54. US tariff measures may boomerang

Author:
Dong Yan
Publication Date:
07-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Abstract:
US President Donald Trump has launched a tariff war not only against China but also against some other economies and threatened to undermine the multilateral trading system. Apart from China, quite a few other economies have also taken countermeasures to Trump's unilateral and protectionist moves. For instance, Russia plans to impose 25-40 percent tariff on US industrial goods, including equipment for road construction, oil and gas, and mining in response to the US tariffs on Russian metals.
Topic:
Multilateralism, Tariffs, Trade Wars, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Russia, China, and United States of America

55. Assessing the Collective Security Treaty Organization: Capabilities and Vulnerabilities

Author:
Richard Weitz
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
Russia has strengthened its military position in Central Asia and the South Caucasus through a combination of bilateral and multilateral initiatives. The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) has become the most important multilateral defense structure in the former Soviet Union and is an essential instrument in Russia’s resurgence. The CSTO has expanded its missions, authorities, and capabilities. However, it faces both internal and external challenges, especially debilitating divisions among its members.
Topic:
Security, Treaties and Agreements, Military Strategy, Multilateralism, and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Central Asia, North America, and United States of America

56. ‘Mourning for America’: Donald Trump’s Climate Change Policy

Author:
Michael A Mehling and Antto Vihma
Publication Date:
10-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
Donald Trump projects slogans more than strategy, yet his administration has moved quickly and with vigour to dismantle existing climate policies in the United States. As this analysis underlines, a robust system of political checks and balances will constrain the domestic deregulatory agenda, although Trump’s actions may disturb the delicate balance of interests in international climate negotiations. A long view on the legal and political system of the United States – from the ideological foundations of American political reaction to the federal constitution and its Madisonian separation of powers – is necessary to understand whether the policy direction charted by the current administration can prevail. At first glance, the scale of regulatory roll-back appears unprecedented. Procedural and judicial limitations on federal powers that long predate awareness of climate change may nonetheless afford existing climate action surprising resilience against deconstruction. Still, the cumulative effects of deregulation, budget cuts, and personnel choices will eventually impact the scale and speed of US decarbonization. At the diplomatic level, severely diminished contributions to international climate finance will impact the political dynamic in international climate negotiations, while a disengaged US is likely to have an unsettling effect on the stocktaking and periodic review processes under the Paris Agreement. Some of these effects can be compensated by market forces and invigorated action by cities and states. Meanwhile, the underlying politics in the US remain as partisan as ever. Even if contemporary policy decisions prove to be temporary outliers, a sobering insight from this analysis is that science denialism and political opportunism will surface time and again in the US public debate on climate change.
Topic:
Climate Change, United Nations, Governance, Multilateralism, Economic Policy, and Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

57. Full Issue: Money & War

Author:
Sarah Detzner, James Copnall, Alex de Waal, Ian M. Ralby, Joshua Stanton, Ibrahim Warde, Leon Whyte, Richard Weitz, Jessica Knight, John H. Maurer, Alexander Tabarrok, Alex Nowrasteh, Tom Keatinge, Emily Knowles, Karolina MacLachlan, Andrew Lebovich, Caroline Troein, and Anne Moulakis
Publication Date:
01-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
The Fletcher Security Review: Managed and edited by students at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, we build on the Fletcher School’s strong traditions of combining scholarship with practice, fostering close interdisciplinary collaboration, and acting as a vehicle for groundbreaking discussion of international security. We believe that by leveraging these strengths – seeking input from established and up-and-coming scholars, practitioners, and analysts from around the world on topics deserving of greater attention – we can promote genuinely unique ways of looking at the future of security. Each issue of the Review is centered around a broad theme – in this issue, we tackle “Money & War.” Money influences every aspect of warfare, conventional or unconventional. No nationstate military, insurgent group, terrorist network, trans-national criminal organization, or hybrid actor can be understood, or countered, without knowing where the money is coming from – as well as where, and how, it gets spent. Evolutions and revolutions in financial tools and practices quickly translate to transformations in military affairs, and some cases, vice versa.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Economics, Human Rights, Governance, Sanctions, Military Affairs, Finance, Islamic State, Navy, Arab Spring, Maritime, Conflict, Multilateralism, Islamism, Drugs, and Currency
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Africa, China, Iran, Sudan, Darfur, Middle East, Asia, North Korea, Mali, Asia-Pacific, Sahel, United States of America, and North America