Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Publication Year within 5 Years

1961. The Russian Way of War in Syria: Implications for the West

Author:
Robert E. Hamilton
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI)
Abstract:
The Russian Federation’s intervention in Syria is a watershed event. However the war there ends, its impact on Russia is likely to be profound. For the first time in its post-Soviet history, Russia’s military is fighting outside the borders of the former Soviet Union. In doing so, it is exercising military capabilities that had atrophied from long lack of use. Moscow is also rebuilding its diplomatic muscle through its role in Syria by managing a diverse coalition, leading a parallel peace process, and forcing the United States to take the Kremlin’s preferences into account when making decisions in the Middle East. Through Syria, Russia has reemerged on the geopolitical stage. The war is not over, and there are many ways in which things could still go badly for Russia. Moscow may find that a return to geopolitical prominence entails costs and risks at least as great as the rewards that status brings. Nevertheless, the West will be dealing with a Russia that has changed fundamentally through its experience in the war. Understanding these changes and their implications for Western governments is the focus of this conclusion chapter. It is structured around two questions. First, what does Syria tell us about how Russia fights its wars? Second, how has Russia’s experience in Syria affected the capabilities of its armed forces? Answering these questions should increase our understanding of Russia as a geopolitical actor and allow Western governments to make more effective policy on issues where Russia is a factor.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, War, Armed Forces, Military Intervention, and Syrian War
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, Middle East, and Syria

1962. Recalibrating US-Africa Policy

Author:
James Barnett
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
For better or worse, US-Africa policy will not be an urgent priority for the Biden-Harris administration when it takes office in January. Domestic challenges, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic and attendant economic crisis, will dominate the administration’s focus from day one. In the realm of foreign affairs, issues ranging from transatlantic relations to East Asian security are likely to command the attention of administration officials during its first months in office. Nevertheless, the day-to-day demands of the executive branch should hopefully not distract the new administration from the many challenges and opportunities Africa presents to US foreign policy. Some of these challenges are already being discussed in Washington, at least in broad terms. China’s continued efforts to build influence across Africa and the expansion of Salafi-jihadi insurgencies in various parts of the continent have been on the radar of US policymakers for several years. However, an exclusive focus on easily identifiable enemies and competitors misses the situation’s big picture and carries significant risks. Many of the impediments to US foreign policy in Africa are rooted in larger structural and ideological issues that Washington has little ability to affect in the short-term. Similarly, a black-and-white view of international politics elides the many ways external interventions impact Africa. For example, several of Washington’s Middle Eastern partners have waged proxy conflicts in East Africa that are detrimental to regional stability and, by extension, US interests. A better approach to US-Africa relations must begin, first and foremost, with a deeper understanding of the continent’s complex politics and its role within the wider international system.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, National Security, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Africa, China, and United States of America

1963. The Role of China in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Beyond Economic Interests?

Author:
Katarzyna Sidlo
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
IEMed/EuroMeSCo
Abstract:
China is a relative newcomer to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Indeed, as it is not in China’s immediate neighbourhood, for a long time its importance to Beijing remained low. This began to change in the early 2000s. Due to its impressive economic expansion, marked by joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, China’s energy consumption growth rate accelerated, making the energy-rich region increasingly crucial to China’s energy security. Thus, the destabilization that came to the MENA with the Global War on Terror declared by the United States as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attack, endangered its interests. At the same time, however, having significant Muslim minorities of its own, China was keen to maintain the security of its Muslim-majority provinces and used the GWOT as justification for curbing the threat of its internal, separatist “Islamic terrorism”. Eventually, then, to accommodate its growing interest in the region, China expanded its “greater neighbourhood” to include the MENA as well (currently, a good part of Europe has also been declared a part of it). Presently, while still not a key partner for Beijing, the region is one of the main suppliers of China’s gas and oil, an increasingly important export destination, a territory of continuous construction activity of Chinese companies under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and an object of a large-scale Chinese charm offensive. Slowly, it is becoming an object of Beijing’s security interests as well.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, Hegemony, and Influence
Political Geography:
Africa, China, Middle East, Asia, North Africa, and MENA

1964. Infrastructures and Power in the Middle East and North Africa

Author:
Silvia Clombo and Eduard Soler I Lecha
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
IEMed/EuroMeSCo
Abstract:
Geopolitics is back. A more aggressive great power competition and the disruptive effects of new technologies have given new impetus to the analysis of the impact of geography on political decisions. Over the last decade, the Mediterranean and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region have experienced profound and far-reaching social, political and economic transformations that have contributed to unprecedented levels of volatility and uncertainty. Some of these shifts have reshaped many of the traditional features of the geopolitical order in place in the region for decades, while others might have the potential to do so in the near future. Increased competition among regional actors but also new stakes by emerging global powers are redefining the contours of regional geopolitics and the way in which this region relates to broader global trends. Infrastructures is one of the areas where the effects of those global and regional dynamics are more visible and this is why a good grasp of the geopolitics of infrastructures can help us understand the broader geopolitical shifts in the Middle East and North Africa better. This is the main goal of this Joint Policy Study that ultimately aims to fill a gap in the scholarly work on the Mediterranean and the MENA region by delving into issues of geopolitical competition, conflict and cooperation from the point of view of the use of strategic infrastructures. This exercise continues and complements other collective endeavours, namely the MENARA project, which have sought to make sense of the acceleration of changes in the region since 2011 and have analysed them as a continuation of pre-existing trends and as part of larger transformations at a global scale. The geopolitical relevance of infrastructures is nothing new, as evidenced by the centuries-old competition for control of some strategic passageways such as the Strait of Gibraltar, the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, the Strait of Hormuz, the Straits of Tiran or the Suez Canal. While acknowledging some constant features, our analysis also takes into consideration the impact of new trends at the global and regional levels. Moreover, while the study of infrastructures has been a key feature in classical geopolitics, there are aspects often associated with critical geopolitics – the geopolitics of cooperation and the relevance of actors other than states such as transnational corporations, cities or civil society groups to provide a few examples that stand at the core of our analytical approach to the topic.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, and Infrastructure
Political Geography:
Africa, Middle East, North Africa, and MENA

1965. The Case for Withdrawing from the Middle East

Author:
Justin Logan
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
The Middle East is a small, poor, weak region beset by an array of problems that mostly do not affect Americans—and that U.S. forces cannot fix. The best thing the U.S. can do is leave. The immense cost and evident fruitlessness of U.S. wars in the Middle East are widely lamented in American politics, but not enough to extricate U.S. troops. And even beyond the wars, U.S. policy in the region is an expensive and unnecessary disaster. The cost of maintaining forces to protect the Middle East from itself is extraordinary, even in peacetime. Conservatively, attempting to control the Middle East costs Americans on the order of $65–70 billion each year, apart from the trillions spent on wars there. The number should be closer to zero. Nothing about the Middle East warrants the U.S. investment there over the past 30 years. The few important interests there—preventing major terrorist attacks, stopping the emergence of a market-making oil hegemon, curbing nuclear proliferation, and ensuring no regional actor destroys Israel—do not require American troops. The roughly 60,000 U.S. troops in the region should leave. American efforts to manage the Middle East make nothing about oil, Israel, or terrorism better. The U.S. would be better off withdrawing all forward-deployed troops from the region, while maintaining access agreements for naval ports with the consent of host countries. Withdrawing ground forces from the Middle East will make it harder for the U.S. to start or join any wars there. Shrinking the U.S. armed forces to reflect the lack of threat from the Middle East will free up resources for any number of higher priorities at home or abroad.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Defense Spending
Political Geography:
Middle East, North America, and United States of America

1966. A Plan for U.S. Withdrawal from the Middle East

Author:
Mike Sweeney
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
Thinking through the process of transiting U.S. forces completely out of the Middle East gives additional depth to conversations on force reductions and further normalizes the idea that the United States can eventually leave the region. The underlying social and economic forces that produced the Arab Spring demonstrations of 2011 have not been adequately addressed. They will likely spark additional instability in the years ahead. This fact should affect not only U.S. considerations about decamping the region, but also the pace and speed of a withdrawal. Iranian missile capabilities—as demonstrated in the retaliatory attacks following the death of Qassem Soleimani–allow Tehran to increasingly contest U.S. presence in the region. This will be a long-term factor in U.S. basing decisions, regardless of force levels. The center of gravity for U.S. presence in the Middle East is the “core four” of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). They account for more than half the total number of U.S. troops in the region and also host the most substantial physical basing infrastructure. The direction of a U.S. withdrawal should be away from the center and toward the periphery, with forces flowing from the Persian Gulf west and south toward redoubts in Jordan and Oman. A measured timetable of four years would allow the United States to significantly reduce its presence by as much as 50,000 military personnel when rotational deployments (like carrier deployments) are factored in. At the end of the four-year period, the United States would be postured to return to a role as offshore balancer with an option to completely withdraw from the region.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Armed Forces, and Instability
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

1967. The Past in the Present: Ancient Patterns in the Emergent Middle East

Author:
Andrew Gilmour
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Humanitas
Institution:
The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
Abstract:
In all spheres of human life decision making can be more or less well informed and prudent. Sometimes ignorance or the passion of the moment yields disastrous results. Sometimes wise, circumspect decisions avert catastrophe. In politics and especially in foreign policy, the consequences of either good or bad leadership are potentially far-reaching. Those charged with making big decisions need to be as prepared as possible to understand the circumstances in which they are operating and to estimate the likely outcome of their actions. The effects of ignorance, superficiality, and rashness can be devastating. What best prepares foreign policy decision makers to carry out their duties responsibly is a topic of great importance. Here the purpose is to draw attention to one of the requirements for sound decision-making, that of understanding the extent to which the past, sometimes the ancient past, influences the present. A leader ignorant of that which came before may instead turn to a superficial or accustomed theory or set of assumptions, perhaps derived from a cherished ideology.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Governance, Leadership, and Ideology
Political Geography:
Middle East

1968. Beyond International Relations Theory

Author:
William Smith
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Humanitas
Institution:
The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
Abstract:
Theories of American foreign policy are somewhat arbitrarily divided into two opposing camps: idealism and realism. Idealism involves constructing a world we hope would exist, such as freedom and democracy sweeping the globe, and then recommending foreign policy prescriptions based on this imaginary world. While realism is more firmly grounded in the world as it actually exists, it can suffer from a form of nihilism, sometimes positing that foreign policy is exclusively found in the domain of power politics and does not involve morality. The great Harvard professor Irving Babbitt refused to concede that these two lenses were the only way to view world affairs. As a fierce critic of the Romantic movement, Babbitt was particularly alarmed by the tendency of Western leaders to offer policies that were based on chimeras conjured up in their idealistic imaginations. Babbitt refused to accept an amoral realism, however, because he believed that sound statesmanship was determined by the character of statesmen and that the choices they made would not simply be matters of prudence but also a matter of character. Power may be the operative principle…
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Hegemony, Leadership, and Ideology
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

1969. In the Era of U.S. Energy Abundance: The Role of the Caspian Region in U.S. Policy

Author:
Brenda Shaffer
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
For most of the last fifty years, international energy policy has been a major focus of U.S. foreign and national security policy.1 Washington has viewed en- suring the energy security of its allies—especially in Europe, Japan, and South Korea—as part of its own national security. In this approach to energy policy, the United States was unique and contrasted with most Western countries, which generally treated energy policy as part of their economic and/or environmental policies. Washington has engaged in international energy policy on the highest executive levels in the White House and established influential units within cabinet departments and agencies to promote international energy policies and to integrate them with U.S. national security and foreign policies. Within the Department of State, successive special ambassadors were appointed to promote various international and regional energy policies and, in 2011, a full Bureau of Energy Resources was established.2
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Energy Policy, National Security, and Oil
Political Geography:
North America, Caspian Sea, and United States of America

1970. Reflections on the U.S.–Mexico Relationship

Author:
Gerónimo Gutiérrez Fernandez
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
Gerónimo Gutiérrez Fernández served as Mexico’s Ambassador to the United States (2017-2018). He played a prominent role in the negotiation of the United States of America, Mexico and Canada Agreement (USMCA). Currently, he is managing partner of BEEL Infrastructure, a specialized advisory & asset management firm focused on the infrastructure sector in Latin America. He also provides strategic advice to businesses and governments on political risk, public affairs and communications and business development; and serves in the Board of Directors of U.S. – Mexico Business Association (AEM) and the Advisory Board of the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and Trade
Political Geography:
North America, Mexico, and United States of America