Number of results to display per page
Search Results
422. Financing the answer to climate change: challenging but feasible
- Author:
- Clémentine d'Oultremont
- Publication Date:
- 10-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- An agreement on climate finance is crucial to ensure an equitable approach between developed and developing countries in the fight against climate change. Given their economic capabilities and their historical responsibility for global warming, developed countries are expected to bear the majority of the costs associated with global climate action. The Cancun Agreements formalise a commitment by developed countries to jointly provide USD 30 billion for the period between 2010 and 2012 and USD 100 billion annually by 2020 for developing countries. This funding will be balanced between adaptation and mitigation and is destined primarily for the most vulnerable developing countries. The objective is to help developing countries adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and to undertake mitigation actions so as to bring them towards a low-carbon economy.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Development, Economics, Emerging Markets, Industrial Policy, and Treaties and Agreements
423. Death of an Institution. The end for Western European Union, a future for European defence?
- Author:
- Graham Messervy-Whiting and Alyson J. K. Bailes
- Publication Date:
- 05-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- On 31 March 2010 the ten Member States of Western European Union (WEU) announced that the last organs, staffs and activities of that institution would be laid to rest by 30 June 2011. Having resiled from the Modified Brussels Treaty (MBT) of 1954 which created WEU as a successor to the Western Union of 1948, these nations are now working to dispose of the staff, premises and archives at WEU's Brussels offices and its Parliamentary Assembly in Paris. Little public interest has been shown in these moves, perhaps because WEU's operational and political work had already been taken over by the European Union (EU), in the frame of its new European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), at the end of 1999.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Regional Cooperation, and Treaties and Agreements
- Political Geography:
- Europe
424. African dynamics at the climate change negotiations
- Author:
- Jean-Christophe Hoste and Andrew Anderson
- Publication Date:
- 11-2011
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- The climate change negotiations in Cancun saved the multilateral negotiation process under the UNFCCC, but what were the African political dynamics at the negotiations? In this Africa policy brief the international climate change negotiations are analysed as a “political marketplace” where international, regional and national agendas meet and have an impact that goes far beyond the theme of the negotiations. It addresses three questions to understand the African political processes at the climate negotiations. First, why did the African Union endorse the Copenhagen Accord after COP 15? Second, why was Kenya so active in the high-level segment of the negotiations in Cancun? Third, what could South Africa do to bring the negotiations forward in Durban?
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Globalization, International Cooperation, Politics, and Treaties and Agreements
- Political Geography:
- Kenya, Africa, South Africa, and Durban
425. First Joint Russian-U.S. report on Cyber Conflict
- Author:
- Karl Rauscher and Andrey Korotkov
- Publication Date:
- 02-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- EastWest Institute
- Abstract:
- In the spirit of the reset of relations between Moscow and Washington, Russian and U.S. security and cyber experts undertook to model new cooperative behavior for dealing with the most challenging security topic of our age: cybersecurity. Until now, the conventional wisdom has been that setting the “rules of the road” for cyber conflict would be both tedious and extraordinarily difficult. In this first effort, the joint team demonstrated that progress can be and is being made. This paper presents five joint recommendations that are immediately actionable and, if implemented, would be effective in preserving key humanitarian principles of the Laws of War. The progress demonstrated here can serve as a catalyst for further progress to achieve that goal. This joint paper presents the consensus findings of the Russian and U.S. experts on the Rendering of the Geneva and Hague Conventions in Cyberspace. The work is a product of a Track 2 bilateral program that seeks to open dialogue, build sustainable trust and have a positive impact in the most difficult, most critical areas for international security. In recent history, Russia and the United States have had an outsized influence on international issues. When these two countries can agree on a common approach to any particular problem, other countries are prone to listen seriously. For that reason, top experts from Russia and the United States agreed to tackle the problem of cybersecurity together. The hope is that other countries will join in this process.
- Topic:
- Science and Technology, Treaties and Agreements, and Bilateral Relations
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, Europe, Washington, and Asia
426. Decision-Making in Security and Defence Policy. Towards Supranational Intergovernmentalism?
- Author:
- Jolyon Howorth
- Publication Date:
- 03-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The Kolleg-Forschergruppe (KFG)
- Abstract:
- For scholars and practitioners of European politics alike, the distinction between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism has always been fundamental. This distinction has underpinned the various schools of European integration theory, just as it has remained crucial for European governments keen to demonstrate that the member states remain in charge of key policy areas. Nowhere is this considered to be more central than in the area of foreign and security policy, which has consciously been set within the rigid intergovernmental framework of Pillar Two of the Maastricht Treaty and, under the Lisbon Treaty, remains subject to the unanimity rule. And yet, scholarship on the major decision-making agencies of the foreign and security policy of the EU suggests that the distinction is not only blurred but increasingly meaningless. This paper demonstrates that, in virtually every case, decisions are shaped and even taken by small groups of relatively well-socialized officials in the key committees acting in a mode which is as close to supranational as it is to intergovernmental. The political control of foreign and security policy, which is considered sacrosanct by member state governments, is only rarely exercised by politicians at the level of the European Council or Council of Ministers.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Regional Cooperation, and Treaties and Agreements
- Political Geography:
- Europe
427. The Need to Pursue Mutual Interests in U.S.-PRC Relations
- Author:
- Thomas J. Christensen
- Publication Date:
- 04-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- United States Institute of Peace
- Abstract:
- Sino-U.S. cooperation should be based on the pursuit of mutual interests rather than on a framework of mutual respect for “core interests,” as pledged in the 2009 Joint Statement. There is a perception in Beijing that when China assists the United States with problems on the international stage it is doing the United States a favor, and thus it expects returns in kind. This is inaccurate since almost everything that the United States asks of China is directly in China's own interest. If the Six-Party Talks process fails permanently, many countries, including China and the United States, will suffer costs. The biggest losers will be the North Korean people, but second will be China, not the United States. The Chinese government has been increasingly sensitive to a domestic political environment of heated popular nationalism, expressed in the media and on the blogosphere. China suffers from a stunted version of a free press, in which most criticism of government policy is from a hawkish, nationalist direction. A cooperative U.S.-China relationship should be built around the pursuit of mutual global interests. The two countries have worked together successfully on several projects, including antipiracy operations in the Gulf of Aden, and there is potential for further cooperation on issues such as climate change, nuclear nonproliferation, and counterterrorism, to name a few.
- Topic:
- International Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, and Bilateral Relations
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, Beijing, and North Korea
428. Making Peace in Afghanistan: The Missing Political Strategy
- Author:
- Minna Jarvenpaa
- Publication Date:
- 02-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- United States Institute of Peace
- Abstract:
- The proposition that a political settlement is needed to end the war in Afghanistan has gained increasing attention in recent months. Channels for preliminary talks with Taliban leaders have been sought and a High Peace Council created. However, despite upbeat military assessments, the insurgency has expanded its reach across the country and continues to enjoy sanctuary in Pakistan. Afghans increasingly resent the presence of foreign troops, and the Taliban draw strength from grievances by ordinary Afghans against their government. External money to supply military bases and pay for development projects often ends up fueling conflict rather than creating stability. For their part, President Karzai and many Afghan political elites lack genuine commitment to reform, calling into question the viability of a state-building international strategy and transition by 2014. Missing is a political strategy to end the conflict that goes beyond dealing with the Taliban; it must define the kind of state that Afghans are willing to live in and that regional neighbors can endorse. Knowing that such a settlement could take years to conclude does not diminish the urgency of initiating the process. Given doubts about Karzai's ability to manage the situation effectively, the international community needs to facilitate a peace process more pro-actively than it has. To be sustainable, the process will need to be inclusive; women's rights, human rights, and media freedoms cannot become casualties of negotiations. Afghanistan's international partners should commit to a peace process and lay the groundwork to appoint a mediator. This includes gauging the interests of parties, identifying actual participants in talks, and structuring an agenda. In the meantime, international military efforts must be realigned to avoid action that contradicts the ultimate aim of a peace settlement.
- Topic:
- NATO, Treaties and Agreements, War, Armed Struggle, and Counterinsurgency
- Political Geography:
- Pakistan, Afghanistan, United States, and Taliban
429. Creating New Facts on the Ground
- Author:
- Ashley J. Tellis
- Publication Date:
- 05-2011
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- Although meaningful cooperation in the region surrounding Afghanistan is of vital importance, it has been elusive because Afghanistan\'s key neighbors have significantly divergent aims. Engineering a successful regional solution would require the United States to fundamentally transform either these actors\' objectives or their dominant strategies. Achieving the latter may prove more feasible, most crucially vis-à-vis Pakistan. The region\'s history of discord is mainly rooted in the troubled relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Although Pakistan\'s involvement in Afghanistan is colored by its rivalry with India, its relations with Afghanistan are a geopolitical challenge independent of India because of its fears of disorder along its western borders, the unwelcome idea of “Pashtunistan,” and a related long-standing border dispute. Pakistan\'s reaction to these problems has only exacerbated them. As Islamabad, by supporting the Taliban insurgency, has sought to exercise preponderant, if not overweening, influence over Kabul\'s strategic choices, it has earned Kabul\'s distrust, deepened the Kabul–New Delhi partnership, and increased the risk to its relations with Washington—not to mention threatening the lives of U.S. and other coalition forces operating in Afghanistan. Despite widespread support in Afghanistan for ending the war through a negotiated settlement if possible, the Afghan Taliban leadership is unlikely to consider reconciliation unless it is faced with the prospect of continued losses of the kind sustained as a result of coalition military operations in 2010. A regional solution is similarly unlikely as long as Afghanistan and its neighbors, including India, perceive Islamabad as bent on holding Kabul in a choking embrace. Solving these problems lies beyond the capability of American diplomacy, and right now even of the promised diplomatic surge. The best hope for progress lies in continuing military action to alter the realities on the ground— thereby inducing the Taliban to consider reconciliation, while simultaneously neutralizing the Pakistani strategy that is currently preventing a regional solution. To increase the probability of military success, however, President Obama will need to forgo the politically calculated drawdown of combat troops this summer and instead accept the advice of his field commanders to maintain the largest possible contingent necessary for the coming campaign in eastern Afghanistan. Hard and unpalatable as it might be for the president, this course alone offers a solution that will protect the recent gains in Afghanistan and advance American interests over the long term.
- Topic:
- Conflict Resolution, Diplomacy, Peace Studies, Treaties and Agreements, War, and Insurgency
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, United States, America, and Washington
430. Gambit or Endgame? The New State of Arms Control
- Author:
- Alexei Arbatov
- Publication Date:
- 03-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- The pursuit of nuclear arms control has enjoyed something of a renaissance recently, with the signing of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in spring 2010 in Prague. Whether that momentum will dissipate after New START or lead to further nuclear arms control agreements depends on several factors: The new U.S. and Russian nuclear doctrines. While there is always some distance between a state's declared policy and that policy's implementation, both documents show that, behind their more ambitious disarmament rhetoric, the United States and Russia maintain conservative nuclear policies that make radical nuclear disarmament unlikely—to say nothing of a nuclear-weapon-free world. The peculiarities of the recently signed and ratified New START agreement. Among these are the modest cuts stipulated by the treaty relative to its predecessors; the acrimonious ratification debates in both the U.S. and Russian legislatures; and the dim prospects for a follow-on agreement (in sharp contrast to the mood prevailing after past START agreements). The dynamics of obsolescence and modernization of U.S. and Russian strategic offensive forces. The United States should have little problem cutting its forces to get below New START's limits. Russia, however, will have problems, not in reducing its numbers, but in raising them to treaty ceilings, due to their removal of obsolete weapons from service and slow deployment of new systems. Either Russia can negotiate a New START follow-on treaty with even lower ceilings or it can accelerate the development and deployment of new systems. While the former is obviously a more attractive alternative, it would require the United States and Russia to resolve many thorny arms control issues, such as ballistic missile defense, conventional strategic weapons, and tactical nuclear weapons. Ballistic missile defense. President Obama's decision to modify the Bush administration's ballistic missile defense plans in Central Europe opened the way for New START and eased Russian concerns, even if they could never have been allayed entirely. Moscow believes that U.S. ballistic missile defense programs are ultimately designed to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent, and it is far from clear that U.S. proposals to jointly develop such capabilities with Russia would allay those concerns—or that the idea even makes any sense. Russia's perceptions of U.S. conventional strategic weapons. Russian officials are especially concerned about the U.S. Prompt Global Strike concept and do not trust American assurances that such capabilities are only directed at terrorists and rogue states. There has already been some progress made in dealing with these weapons in negotiations, and future progress on this issue will likely depend on legal agreements and confidence-building measures to scale U.S. capabilities in ways that would threaten Russia's (or China's) strategic deterrent. Joint development of ballistic missile defenses with Russia. This issue could seriously complicate Washington's and Moscow's strategic relations with China and India. Officials on both sides would do well to start small and proceed step-by-step, using incremental successes to build the momentum necessary to work through more difficult issues. Non-strategic—that is, tactical—nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, the United States and Europe relied on tactical nuclear weapons to counterbalance Warsaw Pact superiority in conventional forces in Europe; today, the situation is reversed, with Moscow relying on tactical nuclear weapons as a counterbalance not only to NATO conventional superiority but also to U.S. strategic nuclear superiority and long-range precision-guided weapons. No one now knows which weapons systems should be categorized as non-strategic, and how limits across regions could be accounted for and verified. In addition, reviving the moribund Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty is essential to dealing with the issue of tactical nuclear weapons.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, China, Europe, Washington, and Moscow