Number of results to display per page
Search Results
42. Ten Years of the Syrian Conflict: Time for the EU to Reconsider Its Strategy?
- Author:
- Amer Al-Hussein
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Istituto Affari Internazionali
- Abstract:
- The Syrian conflict entered its eleventh year on 15 March 2021, bringing this “living nightmare” back to our minds.[1] This ominous anniversary should remind the world of the importance of addressing the bleak reality inside Syria. While the new US administration provides a glimmer of hope for a return to diplomacy, multilateralism and an end to the mercantilism of the past years, Europe would be wrong to simply wait for the US lead on Syria.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Politics, Sanctions, European Union, Institutions, and Coronavirus
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Syria, United States of America, and Mediterranean
43. Russia Defiant of White House’s Foreign Policy Agenda
- Author:
- Pavel K. Baev
- Publication Date:
- 02-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Jamestown Foundation
- Abstract:
- Russia received notably high attention in United States President Joseph Biden’s first foreign policy speech, delivered at the State Department last Thursday, February 4. President Vladimir Putin may take pride in earning a personal mention and a place ahead of China; although the latter was specifically recognized as the US’s top peer competitor, while Russia was characterized mainly as the world’s foremost troublemaker (Izvestia, February 5). Biden asserted he is taking a tougher tone with Moscow compared to his predecessor but said he also has to deal with a rather different Putin. Indeed, the accumulation of authoritarian tendencies, exorbitant corruption and aggressive behavior in recent years has produced a new quality to Putin’s maturing autocratic regime, making it less liable to be moved by criticism coming out of Washington.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Sanctions, and Protests
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Eurasia, and United States of America
44. Secondary sanctions and multilateralism – the way ahead
- Author:
- Jean De Ruyt
- Publication Date:
- 05-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- The sensitive issue of American ‘secondary sanctions’ imposed on its allies generated serious tensions in the transatlantic relationship when the US left the JCPOA with Iran. Some hoped these would ease with the Biden administration, but the current row about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline demonstrates that the extraterritoriality of sanctions is a well- entrenched US bipartisan policy. The EU has made numerous efforts to react by developing countermeasures, but these have not convinced European companies to challenge the sanctions. The perspective of enhancing the role of the Euro to reduce the dominance of the Dollar in world transactions is also still considered a long shot. New countermeasures have been suggested, notably by the Jacques Delors Institute and the European Commission has announced ‘additional policy options’ to that effect. But the issue should also be addressed in the context of a revival of multilateralism, which the Biden administration seems to favour. The renewed transatlantic dialogue and the G7 framework could be used to address this sensitive issue, in a context in which China’s power aims at challenging the US unipolarity - and the EU aims at developing its ‘strategic autonomy’.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Hegemony, Sanctions, Conflict, and Multilateralism
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
45. Biden and Belarus: A strategy for the new administration
- Author:
- Anders Åslund, Melinda Haring, John Herbst, and Alexander Vershbow
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Atlantic Council
- Abstract:
- United States President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has an historic opportunity to bring Europe together and reverse the tide of dictatorship by building an international coalition to support democracy in Belarus. In 2020, Belarusians unexpectedly called Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s legitimacy into question in the country’s August presidential election. Lukashenka brazenly rigged the results, claiming that he took 80 percent of the vote, but neither the United States nor the European Union (EU) recognizes his victory. A months-long protest movement has coalesced that demands new elections under the supervision of the international community. Recent years have seen no better chance for US leadership to facilitate lasting positive change in Europe than the crisis in Belarus. But how to secure democratic change in Belarus is not simple given internal resistance and Moscow’s determination to prevent another “color revolution.” Lukashenka is likely finished, unable to restore any authority or legitimacy. But he is seeking to hang on despite Moscow’s efforts to arrange a pliable replacement who would preserve Minsk’s pro-Russian orientation. Managing Moscow’s efforts to prevent an aroused citizenry from choosing their own leader is no easy task. Russia remains the key geopolitical player in Belarus, often plays the long game, and may be willing to countenance military options that the United States cannot. Perhaps the key fact is that Belarusians have made it amply clear that they want accountable leaders that they can choose and dismiss for themselves. More than thirty thousand peaceful protesters have been detained since August, more than three hundred and fifty police officers have defected, and ordinary Belarusians are no longer afraid to voice their opposition to the regime. Kremlin support for the ongoing repression risks turning the Belarusian people—historically friendly toward Russia—in a pro-European direction. These changes in Belarus are something that Moscow cannot ignore, and the United States and its allies must nourish and strengthen them in consistent ways that avoid and deter a Kremlin overreaction. Biden, with his long experience promoting US values and interests and his determination to strengthen transatlantic relations, is ideally situated to promote clear support for the people of Belarus that does not directly challenge Moscow’s security interests.
- Topic:
- Economics, Human Rights, Sanctions, and Democracy
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Belarus, and United States of America
46. Transatlantic tools: Harmonizing US and EU approaches to China
- Author:
- David Barkin and Agatha Kratz
- Publication Date:
- 11-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Atlantic Council
- Abstract:
- Close cooperation between the United States and the European Union is essential if advanced economies are to develop effective responses to the array of challenges presented by China. Washington and Brussels share concerns regarding competitive distortions arising through the state’s role in the Chinese economy, the use of advanced technologies to repress ethnic minorities and fuel its military, and the spread of authoritarian influence through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, there has been a lack of coordination and cooperation in recent years between the US and EU when it comes to responding to China’s policies and behaviors. Washington’s focus on risks to US economic and national security contrasts with an emphasis in Brussels on ensuring reciprocity and leveling the economic playing field. But, with the transatlantic relationship back on a better footing under the Biden administration, new structures for transatlantic dialogue being put in place, and a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific in both Washington and Brussels, this paper argues there is now an opportunity for the United States and Europe to learn from each other and harmonize some of their China-related efforts.
- Topic:
- Human Rights, Markets, Sanctions, European Union, Regulation, Trade, and Transatlantic Relations
- Political Geography:
- China, Europe, and United States of America
47. Unpacking US Cyber Sanctions
- Author:
- Allison Peters and Pierce MacConaghy
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- Malicious cyber activity poses one of the greatest threats to America’s national, economic, and personal security. Yet, the perpetrators of these crimes largely operate with pure impunity and face little consequences for their actions. This is particularly the case for cybercriminals who cost the US economy anywhere from $57 billion to $109 billion in 2016 alone.1 Since 2015, the United States has imposed targeted sanctions (e.g., asset freezes, travel bans) on over 300 individuals and entities in response to malicious cyber activity.2 Many of these sanctions were issued under the cyber-related sanctions program administered by the Department of Treasury and established by a series of Executive Orders under Presidents Obama and Trump and bills passed by Congress.3 Sanctions have largely been imposed on individuals with ties to Iran, Russia, and North Korea, and, in about half of these cases, sanctions have followed indictments. An overwhelming majority of these sanctions have targeted individuals with suspected links to government entities and, only recently, have cyber sanctions targeted cybercriminals.4 As targeted sanctions increasingly become a tool deployed by the US government to punish malicious cyber actors, it remains unclear whether they are having an impact in changing behavior. Research on the impact of sanctions more broadly indicates that sanctions can be an effective tool to impose consequences on bad actors and change their actions when employed multilaterally, as part of a coherent strategy, and effectively messaged.5 However, imposing sanctions on malicious cyber actors without continuously reassessing their impact and the expected reciprocal actions by the target(s), risks a number of potentially negative outcomes. While Congress introduced legislation in the 116th Congress to impose new or codify existing cyber-related sanctions into law,6 it has not exercised the necessary oversight over the Executive Branch’s strategy in issuing cyber-related sanctions and determining their efficacy. With other countries now following America’s lead in issuing these sanctions, the time is ripe for the new Congress to push for an inter-agency, holistic assessment of the impact of US cyber-related sanctions.7 And with cybercrime increasingly threatening all sectors of the US economy, Congress must call for an evaluation as to whether sanctions on non-state cybercriminals should increasingly be used.
- Topic:
- Science and Technology, Sanctions, Cyberspace, and Digitalization
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
48. Iran Raises the Stakes for Biden
- Author:
- Alexander Grinberg
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Giving Iran unearned incentives in advance of negotiations only will bring about more Iranian provocation.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Sanctions, and Negotiation
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
49. Raising a caution flag on US financial sanctions against China
- Author:
- Jeffrey J. Schott
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
- Abstract:
- China’s policies in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea and its ongoing support for Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela pose major challenges for the United States, where bipartisan pressure is growing to ramp up punitive sanctions against leading Chinese firms and financial institutions. Financial sanctions freeze the US assets or bar US entry of the targeted individuals and firms and prohibit US financial firms from doing business with them. Schott explains why US officials should carefully weigh the risks to international financial markets and US economic interests before imposing punitive sanctions on major financial institutions engaged with China. The collateral costs of such sanctions would be sizable, damaging US producers, financial institutions, and US alliances. By restricting access of major banks to international payments in US dollars and barring use of messaging systems like SWIFT, tougher US financial sanctions would effectively “weaponize” the dollar; friends and foes alike would be pushed to seek alternatives to dollar transactions that, over time, would weaken the international role of the dollar. Instead of doubling down on current unilateral financial sanctions, US policy should deploy sanctions in collaboration with allies and calibrate trade and financial controls to match the expected policy achievements.
- Topic:
- Human Rights, Sanctions, Finance, and Economy
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
50. Getting the Balance Right: Refining the Strategic Application of Nonproliferation Sanctions
- Author:
- Alistair Millar, George A. Lopez, David Cortright, and Linda Gerber
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Fourth Freedom Forum
- Abstract:
- This paper argues for a greater commitment to sanctions that fit the reality of each discrete case of proliferation, nimble diplomacy that includes incentives-based bargaining, and strategies for reciprocal threat reduction to reduce nuclear dangers and enhance international cooperation for peace and security.
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Sanctions, Nonproliferation, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus and United States of America