Search

Begin New Search Topic Security Political Geography United States of America

751. Exigencies of Future Deployments: What Canada must Exact from its Military Partners

Author:
Hugh Segal and Jessica McLean
Publication Date:
06-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
An increase in global threats, failing states, and crisis prone regions around the world, coupled with shrinking defence budgets in the US, as well as budget cuts in Canada’s most loyal joint deployment partners – France, the UK, and The Netherlands – indicates there will be no less of a demand for Canadian deployable capacity over the next few years. In this context, understanding the ‘political’ requirements for various kinds of deployments is important and a key planning area for defence policy makers as well as military and strategic practitioners. To better understand the future of Canadian military deployments it is first necessary to examine the historical context of our post-war NATO and UN deployments as well as Prime Minister Harper’s 2006 commitment that required all significant military deployments to have parliamentary approval. Each deployment since WW II has been unique. The command structures, intelligence-sharing, mission design and assigned areas of responsibility for Canada, whether under the UN or NATO, have varied by the deployment itself and the nature of the mission. This requires our political and command requirements to adapt to the mission at hand. But whether or not Canada will participate in future deployments relies on not just being able to answer the question of “why”, but also “why us”. Reticence on the part of NATO allies will continue to be a problem in the future and so Canada must be capable to ensure it only takes part in “coalition of the willing” deployments to ensure realistic burden sharing. The pivot towards the Pacific will also require fresh and deeper intelligence cooperation with Australia, other Commonwealth partners in the region and enhanced interoperable capacity with our American allies.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, Troop Deployment, and Military
Political Geography:
Europe, Canada, North America, and United States of America

752. Asia's Uncertain Future: Korea, China's Aggressiveness, and New Leadership - Full Issue

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
09-2013
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
For over twenty years, the Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI) invited leading Korea and Asia scholars and experts from around the world to its annual academic symposium. Starting in 2012, KEI embarked on a new initiative to revamp this series by partnering with the Association of Asian Studies (AAS) to incorporate the symposium into the AAS annual conference. To this end, KEI organized four conference panels, advertised KEI’s outreach work to over 3,000 conference participants at AAS, and raised the profile of the Institute on a global stage. As before, KEI edited, compiled and published the research papers presented by the distinguished speakers at the symposium as part of its Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies series. Part of this new endeavor is the involvement of Dr. Gilbert Rozman, the Musgrave Professor of Sociology at Princeton University. As the Editor-in-Chief for this Joint U.S.- Korea Academic Studies volume, his knowledge and work with the authors is visible throughout this publication. Dr. Rozman also helped KEI organize four timely and topical panels at the AAS conference. His involvement is part of KEI’s constant effort to bring our subscribers high quality and informative resources on issues impacting the U.S.-Republic of Korea relationship. The events and actions in Northeast Asia continue to have important implications for the future of the region. Many of these interactions have both bilateral and multilateral effects, which our authors examine in four themes. The rise of the Asia-Pacific region is characterized by both an increase in cooperation and competition among countries, and our experts look at this dynamic through key bilateral relationships. Moreover, economics has been a vital driver of cooperation in Asia, and this volume examines this continuing trend with the development of the China-Japan-Korea trilateral relationship and the possibility of a free trade agreement among the three countries. We have a section that further analyzes the national identity aspects of the U.S.-China relationship and how national identity issues are often at the core of how other countries view themselves in the region compared to that huge bilateral relationship. Lastly, one section looks at the ever-looming question of reunification on the Korean Peninsula. As you can see, all of these are important areas for understanding and succeeding in an Asia-Pacific century.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Economics, Politics, Bilateral Relations, and Leadership
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, Korea, and United States of America

753. US-Russian Partnership for Advancing a Nuclear Security Agenda

Author:
Anton Khlopkov
Publication Date:
07-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Abstract:
Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the United States and the Russian Federation have engaged in bilateral and multilateral nuclear security efforts to secure nuclear materials and facilities in the region. This cooperation contributed to nuclear security globally and developed various tools, mechanisms, and approaches that need to be fully utilized by the international community. As new nuclear security challenges emerge, the implementation of sustainable nuclear security measures is constrained by limited expertise and resources, particularly in some key regions. For this reason, the application of US-Russian expertise and experience in cooperative threat reduction is essential to successful implementation of the global nuclear security agenda. Researchers investigate nuclear security challenges in other countries and regions—specifically in Southeast Asia and the former Soviet states of Central Asia—and examine possible ways by which the lessons learned from US-Russian nuclear security cooperation over the past two decades can be a
Topic:
Security, National Security, Nuclear Weapons, Nonproliferation, and Nuclear Safety
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North America, Southeast Asia, United States of America, and Post-Soviet Europe

754. Iran’s Nuclear Program: A Case Study in Successful U.S.-Japan Alliance Management

Author:
Vance Serchuk
Publication Date:
04-2012
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
Speaking at Suntory Hall in Tokyo during his inaugural visit to the Asia-Pacific region as President of the United States, Barack Obama in November 2009 affirmed his Administration’s commitment to “an enduring and revitalized alliance between the United States and Japan.” Noting the impending 60th anniversary of the alliance, President Obama pledged to “deepen” the ties between Washington and Tokyo as a cornerstone of a broader strategy of reengagement with the region. At the same time, Obama cast the U.S.-Japan alliance in global terms, noting Japan’s “important contributions to stability around the world—from reconstruction to Iraq, to combating piracy off the Horn of Africa, to assistance for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Nuclear Weapons, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Japan, Iran, Middle East, Asia, and United States of America

755. Pakistan Remains A Question Mark in Lead Up to NATO Summit

Author:
Boris Macguire
Publication Date:
05-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
After a decade of war in Afghanistan, world leaders will arrive at May’s NATO Summit in Chicago having finally articulated a plan to transfer control of security to Afghan forces. There has also been increasing pressure on President Obama and the alliance’s leaders to use the summit to announce a timetable for the second stage of the endgame process – the actual extraction of NATO forces. But Pakistan, which has perhaps the greatest stake in NATO’s exit and the endurance of a negotiated settlement with Taliban, has yet to publicly articulate a clear and unified position on the process. Instead, Pakistan has initiated a “strategic pause” in relations, appointing a parliamentary committee on national security to review the country’s official engagement with the United States and NATO. Until the results of the review and the status of U.S.-Pakistan relations are clarified, President Obama and NATO leaders will be severely restricted in their ability to formulate a realistic withdrawal timeline.
Topic:
Security, NATO, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Europe, North Atlantic, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

756. The New U.S. Defense Strategic Guidance and Its Implications for South Korean Security

Author:
Young Ho Kim
Publication Date:
02-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
On January 5, 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama paid a rare visit to the Pentagon and unveiled his guidelines for the Department of Defense to set the goals and priorities of its defense strategy for the next ten years. The resulting eight-page-long guidelines, entitled Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense (hereafter DSG), contain the administration’s assessment of changing global security conditions and propose the roles and shape of the U.S. armed forces for the coming decade. Prepared through “unprecedentedly” close consultations between the President himself and senior leaders in the U.S. defense department and military including both service chiefs and combatant commanders, the DSG defines the present as a historic “inflection point” and envisions the future U.S. military as “smaller and leaner, but agile, flexible, ready and technologically advanced.” Moreover, in accordance with the DSG the U.S. defense budget will be cut by $487 billion and the sizes of the Army and Marine Corps will shrink by 80,000 and 14,000 respectively over the next ten years. While a more detailed picture will be revealed next month with the administration’s FY2013 budget request to Congress, the DSG reflects the Obama administration’s arduous effort to rebalance and redirect its defense priorities and spending under severe fiscal austerity. Because of the unusual timing of its publication and the magnitude of the reduction in defense spending, the DSG has generated controversy and concern domestically in the United States as well as internationally. In the United States, particularly people in the conservative wing of the Republican Party have been prompted to criticize the guidelines for putting the nation’s security in danger, whereas some people on the liberal side have advocated seeking deeper and bolder cuts in defense spending. Internationally, China was understandably the first to respond negatively to the DSG. For example, rebutting the DSG’s portrayal of Beijing’s military policy as lacking transparency as “groundless and untrustworthy,” Liu Weimin, a spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, stressed that Beijing was committed to peaceful development and “defensive” policy. What then are the implications of the DSG for South Korean security? Will there be any changes in U.S. defense policy or posture in the region under the DSG that may affect security conditions in South Korea significantly and, if so, require new measures or scrutiny by the South Korean government or the military? In fact, there have been largely four issues raised by the news media in South Korea. I will examine these four issues, and then discuss more challenging concerns that will require closer attention by South Korean foreign and security policy-makers.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

757. Aging Eagle and Dark Clouds on the Security Horizon

Author:
Dong-Joon Jo
Publication Date:
10-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
The financial crisis in 2008 exposed a latent weakness that the United States would not have resources enough to cope with its population aging and maintain its global leadership. The crisis led the federal government to increase its welfare spending, bail out faltering industries, and rely on measures of economic stimulation. These measures resulted in the swelling of the public debt, which increased by $5,077 billion from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2010, and intensified the U.S. federal government’s budgetary difficulties in meeting the welfare and medical needs of senior citizens and carrying out the war on terror abroad (See Figure 1). The belief in the sustainability of the public debt severely weakened, as the interest expense on the public debt rose to 8.6 percent of the total federal spending in 2010; the belief in the comparability between U.S. domestic welfare and its global leadership eroded. The financial crisis evoked a fairly routine set of behavior in partisan politics in 2011. When the public debt was about to reach the ceiling in 2011, Republicans and majority members of the Tea Party threatened not to agree on raising the debt ceiling. They pressured the Barack Obama administration to reduce the federal budget and governmental regulations. Meanwhile, the Obama administration and Democrats wanted to raise the maximum amount of governmental borrowing and keep boosting the economy. In the gunfire between the two parties loomed the possibility of sovereign default. Amid the partisan conflict the credit rating of the U.S. government bonds was downgraded for the first time in history; major market indexes plunged in the third quarter of 2011. The Budget Control Act was the result of bipartisan negotiations, accommodating conflicting goals and instruments from both sides. It provided breathing room for the Obama administration and Democrats by allowing the debt ceiling to increase by $900 billion two times in 2011 and additionally by $1.2 trillion in 2012. Meanwhile, it reduced the budgetary leeway of the administration and gave more power to the House, where Republicans and Tea Party members held the majority. More specifically, it established binding limits on annual appropriations bills to reduce the funding for discretionary programs, relative to the funding in the Congressional Budget Office’s 2010 baseline; it set up a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, the “Supercommittee,” to come up with a bill to reduce deficits by at least $1.5 trillion through 2021. The legislation appeared to keep the partisan gunfire under control.
Topic:
Security, Financial Crisis, Budget, and Welfare
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

758. La relation Pakistan – Etats-Unis : un patron et son client au bord de la rupture ? (The Pakistan-US relations : A relationship on the brink ?)

Author:
Christophe Jaffrelot
Publication Date:
09-2012
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Internationales (CERI)
Abstract:
During the Cold War the US-Pakistan relationship was one in which the US considered Pakistan as a necessary part of its effort to contain communism in Asia while Pakistan considered its relationship with the US as strengthening its position vis a vis India. The high point in this relationship was during the Soviet-Afghan war. The US tried to renew this relationship after 9/11, although when Obama replaced GW Bush he stated his intention to move US-Pakistani relations off the security agenda which the Pentagone and the Pakistani army considered a priority. However, Obama rain into resistance from the Pakistani army and from the national security establishment in Washington- as can be seen from the security-oriented distribution of US aid. But not even in the area of security have the two nations been able truly to collaborate. To begin with, the strengthening of US-India relations angered Pakistan. Then Islamabad protected the Taliban in its fight with NATO. Finally, Obama violated Pakistani sovereignty (the Drone strikes in the tribal belt and the Ben Laden raid). These conflicting interest, however, do not necessary means the end of the relationship.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, Foreign Policy, Terrorism, War, Peacekeeping, and State
Political Geography:
Pakistan, South Asia, North America, and United States of America

759. 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

760. Security Policy in the European Union and the United States through the issue of their Defence Expenditures

Author:
Theodore Metaxas and Emmanouil Marios L. Economou
Publication Date:
01-2012
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Rest: Journal of Politics and Development
Institution:
Centre for Strategic Research and Analysis (CESRAN)
Abstract:
This article aims to clarify how the level of defence expenditures affected security poli- cy in the post-World War II Europe and the United States till the present day. We first analyze theoretically the issue of a nation’s power through its defence outlays. We then proceed to the examination of how security policy was formulated during Cold War and afterwards for both Europe and the United States through their defence ex- penditures. By comparing European to United States defence budgets ceilings we found that the European military capabilities are undermined by the low level of the defence budget which is provided by the European Union member states as a whole, as well as by the lack of homogeneity in military means. By contrast, we noticed that the historically large US defence expenditures were one of the major reasons for the US global hegemony during Cold war and afterwards. We also examine the implica- tions that defence expenditures have on military industry, macroeconomic perfor- mance and geopolitics and the correlation that arises among them.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Regional Cooperation, European Union, and Regionalism
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America