Search

Begin New Search Topic Partnerships Political Geography United States of America

71. A Long Way To Go: Analyzing Facebook, Twitter, and Google’s Efforts to Combat Foreign Interference

Author:
Bradley Hanlon
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Two years after the Russian government manipulated social media to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, online information platforms continue to serve as mediums for such operations, including the 2018 midterm elections. Under intense public criticism and congressional scrutiny, the three most prominent online information platforms – Facebook, Twitter, and Google – have taken steps to address vulnerabilities and to protect their users against information operations by actors linked to authoritarian regimes. However, given the ongoing nature of online authoritarian interference, the steps taken by these companies continue to fall short. This report reviews and analyzes the steps taken by online information platforms to better defend against foreign interference since 2016, adopting the framing of the Senate Intelligence Committee by focusing on the largest and most influential online information platforms of Facebook, Twitter, and Google. The platforms’ efforts to combat foreign interference have focused primarily on three key lines of effort: preventing or suppressing inauthentic behavior, improving political advertising transparency, and investing in forward-looking partnerships. Measures to limit user interaction with inauthentic behavior include content removal, labeling, and algorithmic changes. The platforms have also taken steps to improve advertising through policies to publicize advertiser information and improve verification standards for those hoping to publish political advertisements. Investments in forward-looking measures have included internal initiatives to critically assess vulnerabilities and external partnerships with civil society, academia, and fact-checking organizations. They have also led to increased transparency about the behavior and content of accounts linked to the Russian operation against the 2016 and 2018 elections, as well as other nation-state operations targeting Americans. Though all of these steps are important, ongoing vulnerabilities demand more urgent action by the platforms to secure the online information space against foreign manipulation, while ensuring American’s ability to engage freely in robust speech and debate.
Topic:
Elections, Partnerships, Social Media, and Foreign Interference
Political Geography:
Russia and United States of America

72. NATO-Russia Relations: Overcoming Agony

Author:
Akop Gabrielyan
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Rethinking Russia
Abstract:
ANALYSISOPINION NATO-Russia Relations: Overcoming Agony 17.07.2017Featured Image Akop A. Gabrielyan – the founder and the leader of the “Consensus” youth NGO, expert in the policy of the post-soviet states. If anything, the central tenet of the Hippocratic oath: first do no harm – Primum non nocere – is the first motto to be applied to today’s dialogue between Russia and NATO, a military and political organization. The dialogue essentially boiling down to interaction between Russia and the United States, the alliance’s leader, has offered fewer grounds for optimism over the years. Noticeably worse relations, whose downward spiraling trend is too serious a phenomenon to be even referred to as “the Cold War”, are degenerating into an agony. This is testified by some experts predicting an unavoidable military conflict and a real deterioration in the situation amid the Ukraine and Syria conflicts that Russia and NATO (the US) treat differently. For instance, Moscow officially suspended a deal with the US to prevent mid-air collisions over Syria in response to America’s attitude towards April’s deadly chemical attack in Syria’s Idlib province.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, NATO, Partnerships, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Eurasia, and United States of America

73. The Future of U.S. Partnerships: A Conversation with Hans Binnendijk

Author:
Robert Pulwer and Hans Binnendijk
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Dr. Hans Binnendijk is Vice Chairman of the Fletcher School Board. He has served in senior positions at the National Security Council, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the State Department. He has directed think tanks at Georgetown University, the National Defense University, and in Europe. He writes frequently on national security policy.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Government, Politics, Partnerships, and Trump
Political Geography:
Russia, China, North America, and United States of America

74. Common Ground for the United States, Japan, and China in Southeast Asia

Author:
Brian Harding
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Over the past decade, Southeast Asia’s economic and geopolitical profile in the world has risen dramatically. Its $2.5 trillion economy is a rare bright spot for global growth.1 Plus, the increasingly integrated Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, is a rare example of a regional political structure writing its own destiny—in this case, the agenda for the emerging regional security architecture of the Asia-Pacific.2 The region has also emerged, however, as a nexus for a range of transnational threats, ranging from trafficking in illicit goods to extreme weather events that are a result of climate change.3 Yet the region’s vital sea lanes have only grown more important, with more than half of the world’s merchant tonnage and one-third of global maritime traffic transiting the region every day on their journey from the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean to the economic powerhouses of Northeast Asia.4 The world has taken note of the opportunities presented by increased involvement in Southeast Asian affairs, as well as the challenges the region faces. Governments and multinational companies across the world are ramping up engagement with the region bilaterally with individual countries and multilaterally with ASEAN. Southeast Asian countries wholeheartedly welcome this global interest for both economic and strategic reasons. Economically, despite the region’s promise, all but Singapore and Brunei are developing countries in desperate need of foreign investment to continue their upward trajectories. Most critically, the region faces a multitrillion-dollar infrastructure gap that constrains economic growth and perpetuates inequality.5 With indigenous capital and even the commitments of international development banks unable to meet demand on this scale, investment by major powers is essential for the region to achieve its potential. Strategically, Southeast Asian countries welcome engagement by a wide range of outside powers to ensure that the region’s partnerships are highly diversified. As a grouping of small countries with modest military and economic power, robust partnerships with a range of actors ensure that no single outside power can dominate regional affairs. In essence, the region prefers a balance of power—or in Indonesian parlance, dynamic equilibrium. While welcoming and encouraging international involvement in regional affairs, Southeast Asian nations also naturally seek to do so on their own terms. For countries making national decisions regarding foreign investment or security cooperation with an outside power, these smaller countries can often find themselves in a position of weakness relative to the outside power. However, collectively, ASEAN provides a platform that allows each country to punch above its weight, providing a venue to make certain issues ASEAN issues rather than national issues for the purpose of creating greater leverage with outside powers. Quite remarkably, despite its flaws, the bloc has managed to maintain its position in the region as the driver of Asia-Pacific regionalism, while outside powers routinely reiterate the importance of “ASEAN centrality.”6 This report outlines findings from a recent trilateral dialogue, organized by the Center for American Progress, of Southeast Asia experts from the United States, Japan, and China. It describes the current state of U.S., Japanese, and Chinese engagement in Southeast Asia and presents four areas for potential U.S.-Japan-China collaboration with Southeast Asian partners on shared challenges.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Partnerships, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, North America, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

75. The United States and Future Policy Options in the Taiwan Strait

Author:
Mark Stokes
Publication Date:
02-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
Taiwan is a core interest in U.S. foreign policy. Its values, technological prowess, and geostrategic position align with foundational American values and priorities for the region, making it a crucial U.S. partner in the Asia Pacific. As such, ensuring a stable and positive future for Taiwan as a democracy and a primary contributor to the global economy and international community is a high priority. This monograph concludes that a more objective representation of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait may better serve long-term U.S. interests.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Partnerships, Geopolitics, Global Political Economy, and International Community
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

76. U.S.-Korea Economic Relations and the Next U.S. Administration

Author:
Troy Stangarone
Publication Date:
04-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
When the next United States president is inaugurated on January 20, 2017, he or she may face one of the more challenging domestic political environments for international trade in the modern political era; at that time, the U.S. will need to make significant decisions regarding its economic relationship with East Asia, including South Korea. The most significant decision facing the next administration will be handling the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). While there is still time for the U.S. Congress to pass the TPP prior to the next administration taking office, it is increasingly likely that the next administration will have to grapple with either passing or renegotiating the Asia-Pacific-wide agreement, as well as determining how to bring South Korea into the region wide agreement. Bringing Korea into the TPP will further solidify the U.S.’ economic relationship with South Korea, enhancing efforts to move toward a free trade area within the Asia-Pacific. While South Korea’s accession to the TPP will likely be the next administration’s major economic objective, they should also work to strengthen the economic relationship with South Korea by deepening cooperation on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), cyber security, the digital economy, energy, and New Frontier issues.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Politics, Partnerships, Digital Economy, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trade, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:
East Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

77. The Alliance: Toward a Stronger U.S.-Japan Partnership

Author:
Project 2049 Institute
Publication Date:
07-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
For the first time in the history of our nation, the Asia-Pacific is more important for the United States than any other region of the world. That is today. Tomorrow it will be even more vital. Indeed, the Asia-Pacific is the new epicenter of global affairs, and it is here that profound strategic changes are unfolding that will transform the international system. As one of the region’s most prosperous, powerful and pivotally located countries, Japan will play a key role in steering the trajectory of future developments in the region. This report is the capstone paper for the U.S.-Japan Exchange Program (2012 – 2014).
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Partnerships, Alliance, and International System
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, North America, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

78. An action plan for US policy in the Americas

Author:
Robert F. Noriega and José R. Cárdenas
Publication Date:
12-2012
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Abstract:
As US policymakers struggle to overcome sluggish economic growth while confronting abiding security threats, there is a stronger argument than ever for fortifying US partnerships with countries in the Americas whose economies and security are intertwined with America’s own economy and security. While the United States has been preoccupied with other regions, most Latin American nations have continued to modernize their market economies; two nations in particular—Brazil and Mexico—are emerging as global players. Therefore, the time is right to restore a strong bipartisan consensus in the United States that promotes a constructive, free-market growth agenda in the Americas. Practical initiatives—not rhetoric—will encourage America and its neighbors to find common ground for their collective benefit.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Partnerships, Economy, and Economic Crisis
Political Geography:
Latin America and United States of America

79. Strengthening Fragile Partnerships: An Agenda for the Future of U.S.-Central Asia Relations

Author:
Evan A. Feigenbaum
Publication Date:
02-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
A comprehensive new report from the Central Asia Study Group and the Project 2049 Institute calls on American and Central Asian leaders to rise to the challenges and opportunities in the region. The report proposes an action agenda on economics, energy, governance, security, social development, and regional cooperation, and places particular emphasis on the importance of reconnecting Central Asian countries to the global economy. The United States needs to reassess its strategies and policies and reaffirm its commitment to remain engaged with the nations of Central Asia even as the U.S. draws down forces from Afghanistan.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Development, Partnerships, Economy, and Energy
Political Geography:
Central Asia, North America, and United States of America

80. The Limits of Sino-Russian Strategic Partnership in Central Asia

Author:
Brian Carlson
Publication Date:
05-2007
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
U.S. foreign policy has recently suffered setbacks in Central Asia, where its role had expanded dramatically following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Recent events appear to indicate growing Sino-Russian cooperation to limit U.S. influence in the region. Although Russia and China have grown closer together in recent years based on convergent strategic views, a number of factors will limit their strategic partnership at the global level. Likewise, their interests in Central Asia mix elements of cooperation with competition, reducing the likelihood of a Sino-Russian condominium in the region. Prudent U.S. foreign policy can prevent anti-American, Sino-Russian power balancing in Central Asia. In order to achieve its goal of a stable, independent Central Asia, the United States should seek to promote a regional concert with Russia, China, and the Central Asian states. If this is not fully achievable, the United States should promote maximum cooperation to address shared interests on issues of security and economic development.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Partnerships, Economic Development, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Central Asia, Asia, and United States of America