Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Publication Year within 5 Years

1981. Renewing transatlantic strategy on Iran

Author:
Ellie Geranmayeh, Barbara Slavin, and Sahil Shah
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The election of former Vice President Joe Biden in the United States presents the prospect of major changes in US foreign policy, especially toward Iran. These changes cannot begin to be implemented until after Inauguration Day in January of the new year, while an urgent need exists for other players to bridge the gap. None are better suited to this task than the US’s closest allies in Europe which have already played a significant role in the negotiations that led to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Britain, France and Germany – the E-3 – and the European Union have also worked tirelessly to keep the JCPOA alive in the face of the unilateral US withdrawal from the agreement in 2018, the imposition of draconian sanctions by the Trump administration and escalating tensions in the Middle East. A new report by Ellie Geranmayeh, Barbara Slavin, and Sahil Shah presents a series of recommendations for the E-3 and the EU to preserve the JCPOA, promote regional peace and development and boost people-to-people contacts with Iran in concert with the new US administration. Taken together, these steps would amount to a renewed transatlantic diplomatic agenda through which the United States and European allies can stabilize the nuclear file and then build on the resulting diplomatic momentum to address other concerns with Iran.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Transatlantic Relations
Political Geography:
Europe, Iran, Middle East, and United States of America

1982. Mapping China’s Global Future: Playing Ball or Rocking the Boat?

Author:
Axel Berkofsky and Giulia Sciorati
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI)
Abstract:
China’s future role on the global stage hinges upon a mixture of strengths and weaknesses. Beijing’s meteoric rise in economic terms has been coupled by increasing military expenditures and a more assertive foreign policy stance. But the country is also facing a potential backlash, exemplified by protests in Hong Kong, while it remains to be seen whether (and how) the governance of the coronavirus outbreak will affect China's image abroad. This report sets out to explore some of the key aspects of China’s regional and global foreign policy. It analyses the core tenets that motivate and shape China’s preferences, ideals, and actions, and explores how they interact with its partners, allies, and rivals.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Governance, Military Spending, COVID-19, and Future
Political Geography:
China and Asia

1983. Forward to the Past? New/Old Theatres of Russia’s International Projection

Author:
Aldo Ferrari and Eleonora Tafuro Ambrosetti
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI)
Abstract:
The Covid-19 emergency will likely exacerbate many longstanding vulnerabilities that Russia has been facing for years: excessive dependence on energy exports, clashes with the West, demographic problems, and a constant foreign policy overreach. On foreign policy, however, Russia is not expected to take a step back. Today's Russia is back in many “old” theatres where the Soviet Union was actively engaged. More than a quarter of a century after the fall of the USSR, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has made restoring his country's great power status a primary goal of his 20 years in power. What are the elements of continuity and change between Russia’s foreign policy and the Soviet Union’s? What are the political, historical, military and economic dimensions of Russia’s return to old Soviet theatres of influence? And how does this interact with Moscow's long-standing narrative of a return to a multipolar world?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Power Politics, COVID-19, and Multipolarity
Political Geography:
Russia

1984. Reconsidering Russian Foreign Policy in the 21st Century

Author:
Teimuraz Papaskiri
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
The Russian occupation of Crimea in February-March 2014, marked the beginning of a new phase of tension between the Western world and Russia. Although it was predicted several years prior to the conflict that Ukraine would be Russia’s next victim,1 nobody paid much attention to these warnings. Thus, the Russian moves proved surprising for most Western societies, especially for the leaders of Western countries. It effectively ended the inefficient policy of “reset”, which was actually stillborn, because of the inability of the American administration to understand Vladimir Putin’s person and his goals. In June 2001, Putin met US President George W. Bush, who said after this meeting: “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.”2 President Bush was ridiculed for these words, yet even nine years later, he did not acknowledge his mistake. In 2010, he said: “I did not make a mistake in [my] assessment of Russian leader Vladimir Putin [...] Putin became a different person [...] I think, to a certain extent, he changed.”3 It seems that George W. Bush was not able to figure out that it was not Putin who had changed. It was the fact that U.S. and Eu- ropean leaders did not grasp which country Vladimir Putin was “deeply committed” to. For the Russian president, “his country” meant the Soviet Union, not the Russian Federation. He even officially declared that, “the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopo- litical catastrophe of the century”.4 (Emphasis added – T.P.) This phrase was not just mere nostalgia for the “good old times”, otherwise no one in his right mind would ever call the break-up of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” When talking about the 20th century, during which two world wars cost more than 80 million lives combined, the break-up of one empire with nearly no casualties cannot be considered “the greatest catastrophe.” Therefore, those words meant that Putin’s intention was to re- store, at least, to some extent, the “old greatness” of the Soviet Empire.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Hegemony, Empire, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe

1985. Remarks on Regional Security

Author:
Graeme P. Herd
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
I am delighted to be in Warsaw on this panel. In 1994 when I graduated with a PhD, and held my first academic post, the first international conference I went to was in Wrocław, and obviously I had to travel through Warsaw. So, it’s really nice to be back in Poland and have the opportunity to present in the capital when older and wiser. Today, I am going to try and look at how we understand the rationality, the logic of Russia’s foreign policy, particularly the destabilization efforts against neighbours and come to a conclusion has to how sustainable and long-term this approach will be. Will it gradually diminish or is it set to stay as it is or even increase? To try and understand Russia’s foreign policy, we need to look into the domestic eco- nomic, political, and social system created by a system-forming figure that is President Vladimir Putin. The two key data points here really are two strategic vulnerabilities that Russia has to deal with. The first is the hydrocarbon dependence, 50% of GDP and 70% of exports, and 98% of corporate tax. The vulnerability is that Russia is dependent on hy- drocarbon revenues but cannot affect the price of oil globally (which sets the price of gas). Oil can be priced at $110pb or at $25pb and the shift can take place over a matter of months. The second vulnerability is the popularity of the president. When Putin has de-modernized Russia, de-institutionalized and de-globalized Russia it means that if his popularity decreases then you have an existential crisis within the federation. The destabi- lizing question is: “If not Putin, then whom?” There are no contingency plans, no succession mechanism to replace the leader. So, essentially we are looking at Russia’s foreign policy operating in a context where the economy is in the toilet as reflected in a 0.2% average GDP growth since 2009; 2012 – 0% growth and since 2012 when Kudrin resigned from the government. Normally, the popularity of a president – as was the case in the first 8 years of Putin’s presidency from 2000 to 2008 – tracks the economy, or maybe lags a little bit behind. As economic performance increases and revenues distributed to the population, so the popularity of the president. So, this is very abnormal politics.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Regional Cooperation
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe

1986. Armenia's Foreign Policy: Where values meet constraints

Author:
Alexander Iskandaryan
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Argentine Council for International Relations (CARI)
Abstract:
The official foreign policy doctrine of Armenia is called "complementarism"; the idea at the core of this approach is that various foreign policy dimensions can and should complement each other and need not be perceived as mutually exclusive.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Politics, and Complementarism
Political Geography:
Russia, Caucasus, and Armenia

1987. The Berlin Pulse 2020 Special Edition: German Foreign Policy in Times of COVID-19

Author:
Pascal Lamy, Feng Zhongping, and Karen Donfried
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Körber-Stiftung
Abstract:
“Uncertainty is the only certainty” – these words are credited to the Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder, who died in the wake of an eruption of Mount Vesuvius in the year AD 79 which buried the city of Pompeii under volcanic ash. Whether or not the corona pandemic will be remembered 2,000 years from now, the virus reminds us of Pliny’s words: We may not yet know how SARS-CoV-2 will affect our societies, but affect them it will. Given this momentous event, like other organizations, we at Körber-Stiftung have had to respond with flexibility and a willingness to do things a little differently – one of the results is this special issue, juxtaposing German public opinion with international perspectives on the policy choices facing Berlin. This pandemic is occurring at a time of profound political change. Experts and policy-makers have pointed out for the better part of two decades now that whatever happens in China is likely to affect us. The absence of US leadership, a divided Europe, the increasing prevalence of international mistrust – like a focal lens, the coronavirus has shown us in all too much detail how these dynamics might play out over the next few decades. Germany has long struggled to adapt to these new realities. Germans have been told that their country will need to take on “more responsibility”, and that we will need to “take our fate into our own hands”. One example of how Berlin has tried to do so is through a renewed emphasis on multilateralism as a pillar of its foreign policy, not least by crafting the Alliance for Multilateralism. But how do these dynamics, and the spotlight they have cast on Berlin’s role in international affairs, square with public opinion? To answer this question remains the mission and idea of The Berlin Pulse.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Public Opinion, Multilateralism, Crisis Management, Transparency, COVID-19, Disinformation, and Health Crisis
Political Geography:
Africa, China, Europe, and Germany

1988. The Berlin Pulse 2020/21 (full issue)

Author:
Gro Harlem Brundtland, Paolo Gentiloni, Peter Altmaier, and H.R. McMaster
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Körber-Stiftung
Abstract:
In last year’s edition, we called 2020 an ‘eventful year’ with Germany’s presidency of the European Council and the US presidential election. But no one would have thought that a pandemic might be added to the list of major events affecting German foreign policy and political priorities around the globe. One year – and a COVID-19 special edition of The Berlin Pulse in between – later, international policy-making is slowly adjusting to the new level of uncertainty the pandemic brought into our lives. Despite these uncertain times, German public opinion on involvement or restraint in international crises remains solid as a rock: 44 percent of respondents say that Germany should get more strongly involved while 49 percent still prefer restraint. Since Körber-Stiftung posed this question for the first time in 2014, the public’s perspective has barely changed. In spite of this continuity, the present issue is also full of surprises and novelties. The idea of The Berlin Pulse is to identify potential gaps between German public opinion and expectations of international policy-makers. In 2020, another gap becomes an eye-catcher – the one between German and US public perceptions of the transatlantic partnership. A wide majority of US respondents considers Germany as a partner when tackling issues, such as protecting human rights and democracy (75 percent) or the environment (76 percent). By contrast, German respondents hardly reciprocate this feeling. With the US presidential election just behind us, an increasing US-Chinese rivalry in which Europe risks becoming – as Pauline Neville-Jones puts it – ‘the pig in the middle’ and crises beyond COVID-19 on the horizon, the present issue dedicates one chapter to each of these three developments to which German foreign policy needs to respond.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, Public Opinion, European Union, Multilateralism, Trade, Transatlantic Relations, and WTO
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, India, Germany, Syria, and United States of America

1989. Some Considerations on the Election of the BSEC Secretary General: The Georgian Perspective

Author:
Valeri Chechelashvili
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Multilateral diplomacy is an effective leverage to advance the foreign policy interests of a state in the network of international relations. This, similarly, applies to the regional level. Therefore, the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), despite the mostly justified criticism addressed towards it, in this sense remains in the focus of the attention of its member states.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Regional Integration, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:
Caucasus, Georgia, and Black Sea

1990. National Security Strategy of Armenia

Author:
Giorgio Bilanishvili
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
The National Security Council of the Republic of Armenia approved a new national security strategy on July 10, 2020. The work on this document has been going on for almost a year. By the order of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan, on July 17, 2019, an interagency commission was set up under the leadership of the Secretary of the National Security Council. It was instructed to develop a working version of the new national security strategy within one year. The previous National Security Strategy was approved by the National Security Council of Armenia a while ago on January 26, 2007. Thirteen years is quite a long period and the renewal of the national security strategy, in principal, should have happened earlier. Such a long pause indirectly indicates that the process of national security policy planning in the Republic of Armenia is not going appropriately. The purpose of this publication is to juxtapose and highlight the main differences between Armenia's national security strategies for 2007 and 2020 and also assess Armenia's external security environment based on the 2020 strategy.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, and National Security
Political Geography:
Eurasia and Armenia