Search

Begin New Search Topic Strategic Competition Political Geography United States of America

21. The Problem with Power: Taiwan in the Era of Great Power Competition

Author:
Joey Ching Aracena
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
The United States and the PRC hold opposing positions on the “Taiwan Question.” The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act affirms U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s defense by providing weapons and services to promote Taiwan’s self-defense capability.” The Act also considers “any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means...a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.” Conversely, the PRC emphasizes that Taiwan “reunification” is a strategic priority that “cannot be dragged on generation after generation.” At the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), PRC President Xi Jinping stated, “We will continue to strive for peaceful reunification… but we will never promise to renounce the use of force.” Despite the PRC’s coercive behavior and sharpened rhetoric, Taiwan refuses to accept “reunification” under the PRC’s proposed “One Country, Two Systems” model. ​ Nevertheless, the United States and the PRC both discourage Taiwan’s independence. Both states understand that if Taiwan were to formally declare independence, it would compel both parties to respond, potentially escalating towards military conflict. By attempting to influence Taiwan’s behavior, both great powers implicitly recognize Taiwan’s role in making or breaking their respective strategies. In this way, Taiwan maintains a powerful point of leverage in the “Triangular Relationship,” as it could take actions that trigger future conflict between the United States and the PRC.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Territorial Disputes, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

22. Countering Terrorism in a Period of Great Power Competition

Author:
Matthew Levitt
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Over more than 20 years, the U.S. built a counterterrorism enterprise that proved remarkably successful at preventing another catastrophic terrorist attack like September 11. By investing heavily in counterterrorism over such a long period of time, America not only created new agencies dedicated to fighting terrorism but also systems that enabled the military and other security agencies to carry out a high rate of operations across multiple geographic areas, supported by unique collection platforms and tools. These further benefited from robust intelligence analysis capabilities that translated vast amounts of collected information into timely and actionable intelligence. But the inherent tradeoff was that all those dollars, intelligence resources, and more went to support primarily kinetic missions. Thus, two factors—widening the national security aperture to address other priority threats and making the counterterrorism mission more sustainable over the long term—now underlie the need to rationalize counterterrorism efforts. Today, the threats that demand quick, dedicated investments emanate from states like China and Russia and from emerging transnational threats such as climate change and pandemic preparedness.
Topic:
Intelligence, Counter-terrorism, Strategic Competition, and Great Powers
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

23. North Africa in an Era of Great Power Competition: Challenges and Opportunities for the United States

Author:
Anna Borshchevskaya, Louis Dugit-Gros, Ben Fishman, Sabina Henneberg, and Grant Rumley
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Washington can demonstrate its decisive edge in areas like climate change remediation and economic development, while highlighting the many dangers posed by partnership with Russia and China. This week, Tunisia’s President Kais Saied will be among the leaders attending the tenth China–Arab States Cooperation Forum in Beijing. The event deserves U.S. attention, even as foreign policy minds remain focused on Ukraine and Gaza, because North African countries are strategically significant to U.S. defense and economic interests. Viewed through the lens of great power competition, China generally advances its economic interests by developing local infrastructure (e.g., ports), whereas the other main U.S. competitor—Russia—favors a security-based approach, supporting whatever actor it believes will help advance its goals (e.g., Gen. Khalifa Haftar in Libya). Such inroads threaten American interests and require responses that address the region both holistically and state-by-state. In this Policy Note, five experts argue for more robust U.S. engagement in North Africa against the anti-liberal designs of Beijing and Moscow. An effective approach, they contend, would amplify the benefits of cooperation in areas like climate change remediation and economic development, while highlighting the dangers posed by America’s rivals to national growth, freedom, and—especially in the case of China—sovereignty.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, Sovereignty, Strategic Competition, and Great Powers
Political Geography:
Russia, China, North Africa, and United States of America

24. U.S. Policy in the Middle East Amid Great Power Competition

Author:
Michael Singh
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
The true U.S. strategy debate in the Middle East is not about whether we should stay or go; it’s about how to continue advancing the interests pursued by successive administrations even as hostile competitors and unresolved threats combine to throw U.S. regional policy off balance. By the end of the 2010s, two points of broad foreign policy consensus prevailed among Republicans and Democrats: The United States should not fight any more wars like Iraq, and the United States must shift to a focus on the Indo-Pacific given the threatening implications of China’s rise and demonstrated desire for hegemony in Asia. Both points seemed to imply a diminished U.S. commitment to the Middle East. Now, however, this consensus has evolved. American policymakers have arrived at the conclusion that strategic competition with China and Russia is global in scope, and the Middle East has a key role to play in it. That great power competition should draw the United States into—rather than out of—the Middle East is no historical anomaly. America was deeply engaged in the Middle East long before the Iraq War and the Global War on Terror. This engagement came not despite but because of the need to counter our great power competitor, the Soviet Union, which American policymakers worried might dominate the region’s resources and exert undue influence over its governance. Today, America’s competitors are once again contending for Middle Eastern influence. What’s more, unlike during the Cold War, the Middle East in turn is influencing events well beyond its boundaries...
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Strategic Competition, and Great Powers
Political Geography:
Middle East and United States of America

25. Marine Corps and Space Force Integration for a More Lethal Joint Task Force to Counter China

Author:
Josh Bringhurst
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
The objective of this article is to highlight the unique capabilities of the Marine Corps and Space Force and how they can function as part of a Joint Task Force (JTF) operating within U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM). More importantly, it aims to discuss the need to establish a Joint force structure and package that minimizes the risk should the United States need to quickly shift from competition to a crisis or, worse, conflict with China. Determining command relationships, allocated resources, and authorities as part of a JTF structure and package will be critical to quickly transition such a force in response to a crisis or engage the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in conflict.
Topic:
Space Force, Strategic Competition, Joint Operations, People's Liberation Army (PLA), US Marine Corps, and Great Powers
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

26. Inevitable Fractures: The Ukraine War and the Global System

Author:
Ashley J. Tellis
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The divisions in contemporary geopolitics are an inevitable consequence of colliding ideas and interests against the backdrop of American primacy. The United States should accept their reality while advancing its own interests in a competitive strategic environment.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, Strategic Competition, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, North America, and United States of America

27. Disorderly Conduct: How U.S.-China Competition Upended the International Economic Order & What the U.S. Can Do to Fix It

Author:
Emily Kilcrease and Adam Tong
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
To gauge the health of the U.S.-China economic relationship, one can turn to the words of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who remarked in March 2024 that U.S. “tactics to suppress China . . . [were] reaching a bewildering level of unfathomable absurdity.”1 Rhetorical flourishes may be the one bright spot in the relationship. As tensions rise over economic restrictions and policies on both sides, economic relations have become a worrisome source of instability in the overall geopolitical relationship. The economic relationship has become increasingly dominated by security concerns, and integration is seen as not an opportunity but a risk to U.S. interests and values. The United States must develop a strong, pragmatic strategy for advancing its economic and security interests within the U.S.-China economic relationship, accounting for the fact that the security competition is now playing out across the economic landscape. To inform the development of an effective U.S. strategy for the economic relationship with China in the context of rising securitization, the United States must learn from its past attempts to advance its economic and security interests in the relationship. The first section of this report, “Where have we been?” examines past U.S. approaches, along with the challenges of pursuing similar policies in today’s geopolitical context. The second section, “Where are we going?” distills lessons from these past approaches and defines a new strategy for the United States, offering recommendations to implement it. Broadly speaking, prior U.S. strategies can be divided into two camps. First, the United States sought to bring the People’s Republic of China (PRC) into the rules-based order and incentivize it to be a responsible stakeholder.* When that failed, U.S. strategy pivoted to one of imposing costs on the PRC and taking actions to constrain behaviors that threatened U.S. economic security interests. Within those broad strategies, U.S. policymakers have pursued four main approaches, in differing combinations and intensity, all of which involve associated challenges. They are: Play by the rules: The intention of bringing the PRC into the rules-based international system was to create external pressure that would align PRC actions with U.S. economic and security interests. Key efforts under this approach included the U.S. support for the PRC’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the later U.S. attempts to negotiate a bilateral investment treaty. Challenges for the approach include the fact that rules have a weak ability to constrain state behavior in a geopolitically contested environment where national security risks arise from economic integration. We need to talk: In light of increasing complexity in the bilateral relationship, U.S.-PRC dialogues were intended to identify and advance mutual interests while providing a regular forum to attempt to resolve disputes. This is seen in the Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) in the Bush administration and the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) in the Obama administration. In other contexts, such as ongoing talks under the Biden administration, dialogues have served primarily to communicate the rationale for U.S. policy actions in an attempt to put a floor under the bilateral relationship.2 Challenges to this approach include that commitments made in a dialogue process may not be enforceable, the meeting can become the deliverable, and the dialogue process cannot alter underlying geopolitical shifts. Defense is the best offense: Defensive approaches relied on domestic U.S. authorities to counter specific harms created by PRC practices and policies. The United States has a wide range of economic tools (e.g., tariffs and trade remedies) as well as national security–based tools (export controls and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States [CFIUS] process for conducting national security reviews of foreign investments), all of which have been used with greater frequency over the past decade. Challenges when using these tools include the disruptive and potentially escalatory nature of defensive approaches, and the lack of clear frameworks to assess the effectiveness of defensive policies. Additionally, relying on unilateral approaches can create friction within potential economic alliances. In the United States, defensive approaches have often suffered from a blending of economic, national security, and values concerns, eroding the legitimacy of the national security argument. Have more friends: These strategies centered on efforts to shape the PRC’s external environment through the negotiation of ambitious trade and investment agreements with major trading partners, with the goal of increasing economic integration with close partners, creating indirect pressure on the PRC to level up to higher standards, and developing common approaches to address concerns with nonmarket economies. Such an approach is challenging because traditional ways of shaping the external environment have not directly addressed securitization of the U.S.-China economic relationship. U.S. domestic political realities impose a considerable constraint on the use of trade policy as a strategic tool.
Topic:
Economics, Bilateral Relations, Trade, Strategic Competition, and International Order
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

28. US-South Korea Cyber Cooperation: Towards the Higher-Hanging Fruits

Author:
Jenny Jun and So Jeong Kim
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
In the past decade, the US and South Korea faced a relatively narrow set of challenges in cyberspace, notably North Korea’s cyber crime facilitating sanctions evasion. In the next decade, however, the two countries will face a more diversified set of challenges with growing North Korean ties with Russia, its involvement in the war in Ukraine, and intensifying US-China competition. The US and South Korea must develop a joint playbook for responding to scenarios of disruptive cyber operations targeting South Korean public and private sectors and prepare for an even more difficult environment for curbing North Korea’s cyber crime as Russia provides a way out. Over the past two years, the US and South Korea have significantly deepened and broadened cooperation on cyber issues and have expanded cooperation further to trilateral and multilateral settings. The two countries established several regular high-level and working-level dialogues, have issued joint sanctions and threat advisories, and deepened mil-to-mil cooperation. However, 2024 has been a watershed in terms of shifting geopolitical dynamics on and around the Korean peninsula. Cyber threats will become more diversified, and the bilateral relationship will be tested at the seams without a clear joint strategic concept and operational plan.
Topic:
Sanctions, Geopolitics, Multilateralism, Strategic Competition, and Cyberspace
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

29. The EU Indo-Pacific Bid: Sailing Through Economic and Security Competition

Author:
Filippo Fasulo
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI)
Abstract:
Over the past five years, the Indo-Pacific region's importance for Europe has grown significantly. However, the launch of the EU Strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific in September 2021 and its subsequent implementation have been affected by growing polarisation between the US and China, and by a fast-changing scenario caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This Report examines the state and perspectives of the EU's Indo-Pacific strategy, 18 months after its launch. Are there avenues for cooperation with regional military initiatives, such as the QUAD? How is the economic landscape changing, in particular after the start of negotiations for the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF)? What are the main strategies of Indo-Pacific countries for the green transition? And how do the US, China, and ASEAN countries view and act in the Indo-Pacific region?
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Economy, Strategic Competition, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Europe, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

30. Mateship Amongst Competition: Recommendations for the U.S.-Australia Alliance

Author:
Randall G. Schriver and Wallace "Chip" Gregson
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
The U.S.-Australia alliance is one of the deepest and most comprehensive alliances in existence. In this report, a bipartisan study group co-chaired by Project 2049 Chairman Hon. Randall Schriver and LtGen Wallace “Chip” Gregson identify three key priorities for the U.S.-AUS alliance. Then, they explore recommendations to address these priorities in four main spheres: political, defense, trade, and resource security. Their recommendations range from minor adjustments of current alliance institutions to expansive changes such as the broadening of ITAR. They conclude by reaffirming the current strength of the U.S.-AUS alliance, and that its current challenges present an opportunity to demonstrate how like-minded allies can “lift as one” and deliver a robust, agile, and sustainable response in the face of an increasingly unstable security environment.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
Australia, North America, and United States of America