Search

Begin New Search Topic Strategic Stability Publication Year within 5 Years

31. Breaking the Law of Opposite Effects: Europe’s Strategic Autonomy and the Revived Transatlantic Partnership

Author:
Iulian Romanyshyn
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
Abstract:
The post-Cold War transatlantic relations have been marked by something akin to the law of opposite effects. When the relationship is vibrant, Europe’s defence cooperation stagnates. When the relationship is in trouble, Europeans pull themselves together to advance their security and defence interests. During the Clinton presidency, Europeans comfortably outsourced military crisis management in the Balkans to Washington. In contrast, a major transatlantic rift over the Iraq war during the Bush administration triggered the adoption of the European Security Strategy and a bulk of EU military operations under the banner of the European Security and Defence Policy. EU-US relations were back on an even keel during the Obama era, the time when Europeans haphazardly reduced their defence budgets and lost a great share of their military capabilities. Enter Donald Trump. During the deepest crisis of confidence among transatlantic allies in decades, Europeans re-energized their defence integration with a set of new initiatives, such as permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF). It is therefore somewhat logical and far from unexpected that when Joe Biden emerged as the winner of the 2020 US presidential elections, there is yet again a heightened risk that Europeans would fall back into a lazy, self-defeating mindset of dependency on the US military shield. Breaking this pattern of reverse effects and avoiding European complacency is crucial for a healthy transatlantic partnership, but it requires concerted efforts on both sides of the Atlantic.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, European Union, Transatlantic Relations, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

32. A Course Correction for the Sahel Stabilisation Strategy

Author:
International Crisis Group
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
Since 2013, when it sent troops to Mali, France has led international efforts to root out Islamist militancy from the Sahel. Yet the jihadist threat has grown. Paris and its partners should reorient their military-centred approach toward helping improve governance in the region.
Topic:
Terrorism, Military Strategy, Violent Extremism, Political stability, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
Europe and France

33. Syria: Shoring Up Raqqa’s Shaky Recovery

Author:
International Crisis Group
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
After suffering grievously under ISIS, and during the battles to defeat it, Raqqa is being rebuilt. The calm is tenuous, however. The U.S. and partners should work toward long-term stability in Syria’s north east, through investment and talks about sustainable governance and security arrangements.
Topic:
Economics, Governance, Recovery, Sustainability, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
Middle East and Syria

34. Arms Control and Strategic Stability with Russia: The View from Europe

Author:
Jon B. Wolfsthal and Andrea Kendall-Taylor
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
The United States and its NATO partners have successfully managed the challenge of deterrence and reassurance for generations. The risk of conflict, even nuclear conflict, with Russia remains all too real, especially as political and military competition continues to escalate, and as new technologies and capabilities come online that could further raise the risk of direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia. Ensuring clear, consistent, and constructive communication among officials and experts within the transatlantic security community about the potential dangers posed by Russian behavior, and how to effectively pursue greater stability together, will be essential if the alliance is to remain successful in the decades to come. The following assessment is informed by conversations among such experts committed to that goal. The memo identifies European allies and partners’ views, interests, and concerns about America’s emerging dialogue with Russia on arms control and strategic stability. It is intended to inform U.S. approaches to alliance management and consultation with European allies as well as potential talks and negotiations with the Russian Federation. Although the expert discussions occurred before Russia’s military buildup on Ukraine’s border resumed in October 2021, the insights the working group produced remain relevant so long as the U.S.-Russia arms control and strategic stability dialogue persists.
Topic:
NATO, Arms Control and Proliferation, Strategic Stability, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America

35. Syria: Shoring Up Raqqa’s Shaky Recovery

Author:
International Crisis Group
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
After suffering grievously under ISIS, and during the battles to defeat it, Raqqa is being rebuilt. The calm is tenuous, however. The U.S. and partners should work toward long-term stability in Syria’s north east, through investment and talks about sustainable governance and security arrangements.
Topic:
Terrorism, ISIS, Strategic Stability, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Middle East and Syria

36. Framing Climate Change: The Need for a Human Security Perspective

Author:
S. Nanthini and Tamara Nair
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
Abstract:
Climate change has now become the defining issue of the time – and one of the biggest threats to humanity. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report has proven to be a “reality check”, making it clear that climate change is already affecting the world by laying out its various manifestations including temperature increases, sea level rise and changes in rainfall patterns. With the stress placed on the economic, social and political systems that underpin the international system, it is now becoming increasingly clear that climate change is a development, economic, health, and security risk, – essentially a human and national security risk. The impacts of climate change range from the direct, as seen by the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather phenomena, to the indirect, such as migration, resource scarcity and conflict – situations in which climate change acts as a ‘threat multiplier’. As such, it is now imperative to take into account the ways in which climate change is discussed, moving the discourse beyond the environmental, scientific and securitisation framings, which have dominated academic and policy discussions, into one that is more humanistic, taking into account the present and emerging vulnerabilities that are being generated through “dynamic social, political, economic, institutional, cultural and technological conditions and their historical legacies”. With the renewed interest in human security as seen in the release of the 2020 Human Development Report and its focus on the Anthropocene, as well as the latest IPCC findings released in August 2021, there is an urgency in focusing on, not only human-induced climate change but also in addressing the impacts of this climate variability on the global populations, especially the millions of vulnerable people that will be directly (and indirectly) affected. This NTS Insight will explore how investigating the impacts of climate change through a human security lens, in addition to the current narratives, might ensure the security and stability of communities in a new climate future.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Environment, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
Global Focus

37. The Political Economy of Syria’s Physical Fragmentation and Dependence

Author:
Samir Aita
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
It is difficult to imagine how the Syrian conflict could be resolved through a political process alone that does not directly involve the combating forces in Syria – namely the Syrian army and its associated militias linked to the power system in Damascus, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and their Democratic Union Party (PYD) power system, as well as the “opposition” factions and their respective backers, i.e. Iran and Russia, the USA and Turkey. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine such a solution without addressing the political economy that has emerged and that now underpins these forces’ power, the warlords’ chaos-inducing advantages gained from the country’s physical fragmentation, the hidden or open bargains between these warlords and other powers, and the deterioration of Syrians’ living conditions to unbearable levels. The current situation, where the country’s physical fragmentation has reached relative stability, could persist for a long time at the people’s expense. However, several factors could reignite the conflict: growing competition over resources and rent-seeking activities, even within each area of influence; the ongoing decline in much-needed international aid; and the further deterioration of the situation expected in Lebanon and its consequences for Syria.
Topic:
Economics, Political Economy, Politics, Conflict, Peace, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
Middle East and Syria

38. Rethinking Stability in Africa

Author:
Michelle D. Gavin
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassadors Review
Institution:
Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:
In practice, shaking off unhelpful ideas about stability does not necessarily mean abrupt policy reversals; nor does it solve thorny dilemmas in which immediate security interests dictate one course, while commitment to sustainable and accountable governing regimes dictates another. But rethinking stability should inform diplomatic strategies that pay more careful attention to the tensions between the governed and the governing and the degree to which governing institutions are responding to or resisting popular demands. The United States should take care to conceive of, implement and publicly frame our partnerships on the continent as relationships with societies, not with specific leaders. Finally, if every challenge to a given leader or party is understood as a harbinger of chaos, alarms should be going off in Washington. Evidence of growing state fragility is not a reason to double down on supporting an individual or system of governance that engendered that weakness. When a head of state or government is deemed indispensable, policy has lost its way. Policymakers need to reckon with the truths that change is not synonymous with instability, and that the apparent safety of working with known quantities is often a costly illusion.
Topic:
Globalization, International Cooperation, Hegemony, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
Africa, North America, and United States of America

39. Strategic Risk Reduction between Nuclear-Weapons Possessors

Author:
Corentin Brustlein
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
The topic of nuclear risk reduction has gained momentum in the international security debate among policymakers, nongovernmental organizations, and experts. The current and expected demise of the traditional arms-control architecture, the renewed strategic competition, and the polarization of the multilateral debate on nuclear weapons have contributed to this renewed salience. Building upon the 2019 G7 Statement on Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, this report defines strategic risk reduction as the set of unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral measures that aim at lowering the likelihood of nuclear weapons use through improved communication, predictability, and restraint, and underlines the need to adopt a strategic approach to nuclear risk reduction. Risks emanating from conflict dynamics between nuclear powers are different in nature and severity from those arising from technical incidents. This report argues that in a context of growing geopolitical rivalries, diplomats should prioritize mitigating the former type of risk. Risk reduction efforts should aim at hindering the most dangerous behaviors in crisis time, through measures focusing both on nuclear forces and on nonnuclear capabilities, whose impact on strategic balances keeps growing. Strategic risk reduction can strengthen international security and strategic stability by complementing arms control measures and deterrence policies. It is therefore crucial to ensure that diplomatic initiatives aimed at limiting nuclear risks do not ultimately, and paradoxically, increase the risk of war. Historical experience shows not only the feasibility of such an approach, but also the concrete security benefits that can be derived from it, by channeling the behavior of nuclear powers in times of tensions, reducing the ambiguity inherent in certain strategies and behaviors, or laying the foundations for international regimes based on operational and strategic restraint as well as on transparency.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Disarmament, Deterrence, Strategic Stability, and Confidence Building Measures
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Russia, China, United Kingdom, India, North Korea, France, and United States of America

40. No One is Satisfied: Two Theories of the US-China Global Rivalry and the International Order

Author:
Younn Shwe Sin Htay
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
A remarkable shift is underway in the geostrategic relations between the United States, long a dominant global power, and China, a relentless economic engine with a rapidly growing military. Their competition promises to change the face of global politics in the 21st century. This paper examines that conflict from the perspectives of two discrete political theories: power transition theory and hegemonic stability theory, which come to different conclusions when applied to China and the United States separately. However, taken together with both nations in mind, they arrive at six possible futures, including regional warfare and a wholesale overhaul of the existing international order.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Hegemony, Strategic Competition, Strategic Stability, and International Order
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America