Should European Union (EU) member states 're-nationalise' foreign aid? Considering the dismal record of the aid managed by the European Commission, this is a legitimate question that European leaders nevertheless seem unwilling to address seriously. Like in America, there is heightened debate across Europe on the purpose of the aid it provides to developing countries. The current debates on poverty reduction, debt relief and, more broadly, the effectiveness of development assistance have brought renewed light on foreign aid.
A key element of the EU's free trade and preferential trade agreements is the extent to which they deliver improved market access and so contribute to the EUs foreign policy objectives towards developing countries and neighbouring countries in Europe, including the countries of the Balkans. Previous preferential trade schemes have been ineffective in delivering improved access to the EU market. The main reason for this is probably the very restrictive rules of origin that the EU imposes, coupled with the costs of proving consistency with these rules. If the EU wants the 'Everything but Arms' agreement and free trade agreements with countries in the Balkans to generate substantial improvements in access to the EU market for products from these countries then it will have to reconsider the current rules of origin and implement less restrictive rules backed upon by a careful safeguards policy.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Government, Human Rights, International Trade and Finance, Migration, and Political Economy
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
With approval rates higher than ever thanks to the war against terrorism, President George W. Bush finally did in December 2001 what he had threatened to do on different occasions but what many others thought - or hoped - was only bluff: withdrawing unilaterally from the 1972 Anti- Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Regardless of the rationale or emotions behind or against this decision, it ended a period of uncertainty. Although in principle the Bush administration can still change its mind until June 2002 when the six months withdrawal period expires, most observers believe that this will not happen. Indeed, there are already plans on the table to start building a new test site at Fort Greely in Alaska in the Summer of 2002 that from 2004 onwards could be used as a base for a small ground-based mid-course National Missile Defense (NMD) launch site if needed.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars against each other since 1947, the first two of which were over Kashmir. In the past fifteen years, the two countries have been embroiled in four military crises, which the United States has played an increasingly assertive role in managing and resolving. A chief component of recent American administrations' foreign policy goals in South Asia, including the current Bush administration, has been to avert the fourth war in the subcontinent. However, attitudes in India and Pakistan are changing, and the internal situation in Kashmir is more fluid than it has been for years. After September 11, America has been able to maintain close ties to both countries. Washington should move beyond managing the crisis and help develop a road to peace in the region.
Topic:
Security and Foreign Policy
Political Geography:
Pakistan, United States, America, South Asia, Washington, India, and Kashmir
Marina Ottaway, Thomas Carothers, Amy Hawthorne, and Daniel Brumberg
Publication Date:
10-2002
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The increasingly popular idea in Washington that the United States, by toppling Saddam Hussein, can rapidly democratize Iraq and unleash a democratic tsunami in the Middle East is a dangerous fantasy. The U.S. record of building democracy after invading other countries is mixed at best and the Bush administration's commitment to a massive reconstruction effort in Iraq is doubtful. The repercussions of an intervention in Iraq will be as likely to complicate the spread of democracy in the Middle East as promote it. The United States has an important role to play in fostering democracy in the region, but the task will be slow and difficult given the unpromising terrain and lack of U.S. leverage over key governments.
Pakistan has become a strategic U.S. ally in the war against al Qaeda. For now, Washington's support of General Pervez Musharraf's military regime is untempered by any insistence on the restoration of democracy. But military rule is likely to increase hostility between Pakistan and India and undercut efforts to root out Islamic extremists, who have been the armed forces' political allies in the past.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and Democratization
Political Geography:
Pakistan, United States, America, South Asia, and Washington
For such a short period, the changes wrought by the events of 9/11 have been immense. It is too soon for judgments of historic import, though. At such a near distance one is tempted to over-ascribe cause and effect, to ignore roots of change that reach farther back, and to overlook unrelated developments of deep importance. And in the sense that “9/11” means the attacks and their aftermath, it is still unfolding. Its eventual significance will depend on future events and policy choices, key among them indicated here. Still, it is revealing to see the global upheaval at a glance, even if a report at this date should be thought of as only pencilled in.
Lee Feinstein, David Albright, James C Clad, and Lewis A Dunn
Publication Date:
06-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The shifting geopolitical furniture on the subcontinent since last September's terrorist attacks has placed the United States in the unaccustomed position of having good relations with India and Pakistan at the same time. This has helped to forge a consensus in the United States on some of the core challenges India and Pakistan face, and on the approach Washington must pursue to advance its long-term goals for the region.
The threat of direct terrorist attack against the United States proved to be real. And the subsequent anthrax cases point to the possibility of a future bioterrorist attack, including use of the deadly smallpox virus. The nature of terrorism is such that it is impossible to accurately predict the probability of such an attack, but the potential consequences are catastrophic. Therefore, it is a serious threat that deserves serious attention.
The United States possesses the most powerful military on earth, one that has proved its potency in ousting the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. Yet, even as the military was gearing up to perform so well, some people were calling for a return to conscription or, more dramatically, for institution of mandatory national service for all young people.