Myriad dangers beset the global economy. The US Federal Reserve is trying to curb its ultra-easy money policy, a delicate operation that could plunge the world into recession if done too abruptly. The euro zone might fall back into turmoil. Japan's experiment with “Abenomics”1 could go sour. China's banking system looks shaky. Emerging economies are suffering large scale withdrawals of foreign funds.
Topic:
Debt, Development, Economics, International Monetary Fund, Foreign Aid, Fragile/Failed State, and Financial Crisis
Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies
Abstract:
In the media, news commentators continue to refer to Srebrenica as a lesson that should never be repeated again. Indeed, such “never again” statements have re-emerged in light of current events unfolding in Syria, as the international community debates what type of intervention should be used to stop further violence. The media have gone so far as to call the Syrian regime's possible use of chemical weapons against its population a “Srebrenica moment” — that is, a moment when moral outrage of civilian deaths leads to a push for military intervention (Lerman and Lakshmanan 2013). While little action has materialized in the case of Syria, the Srebrenican “never again” lesson is also far from being either agreed upon or learned from in Bosnia itself.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Crime, Genocide, Human Rights, and War
Political Geography:
Europe, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Yugoslavia, Balkans, and Syria
In July 2012, in an internal document, the European Commission's Directorate-General for Trade suggested that future EU investment agreement s (EUIAs) should incorporate regulatory flexibility in the same way in which EU free trade agreements (FTAs) safeguard parties' policy space. Since it is expected that a number of treaties on the EU's negotiating agenda will be concluded in the near future, and given the policy shift that has already taken place in Canada and the US, it is time to start thinking about a new balance in a move away from investment treaties' traditional laissez-faire liberalism toward WTO law's embedded liberalism, a model whereby liberalization is embedded within a wider framework that enables public regulation in the interest of domestic stability.
Topic:
Economics, Globalization, International Trade and Finance, World Trade Organization, and Foreign Direct Investment
The U.S. government interferes with the market for foreign laborers by restricting the number and mix of immigrants and setting tight quantitative limits on foreign-born guest workers. This has created a mismatch between the demand for foreign workers from U.S. businesses and their supply, directly leading to the illegal immigration situation we confront today. The current system inefficiently limits the gains that our economy could achieve from employing larger numbers of foreign workers, and it disproportionately harms small U.S. businesses. The economic fears associated with increased guest workers or immigrants are unfounded. The current Senate immigration reform proposal would be a marginal improvement but does not go far enough. Red Card, an alternative guest worker proposal, would better coordinate labor markets. Ultimately, an immigration market free from government limitations and interference would be the most efficient solution.
Topic:
Economics, Labor Issues, Immigration, and Governance
It seems apparent that innovation will be required across the energy sector in order to help it meet the twin challenges of rising energy demand and climate change. But seemingly well-meaning policies can turn out to have an adverse effect on innovation and the world's current economic woes may limit the pace of investment. In which energy sources is innovation most needed? How can governments get the policy framework right for stimulating innovation, and then put it to work?
Topic:
Climate Change, Economics, Energy Policy, and Foreign Direct Investment
The U.S. is currently leading a multinational effort to squeeze Iran and force them to give up its weapons program. Here's how to make the case for that approach and why it makes sense: A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. Sanctions are working—they are wrecking the Iranian economy—but they need more time to have their full impact. We can blunt Iran's capabilities by strengthening our allies' missile defense systems. Military strikes now could exacerbate the problem, but all options must remain on the table.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Nuclear Weapons
The U.S. is currently leading the effort to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons program and protect our allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Here is how to discuss this important issue: North Korea's missile and nuclear programs threaten our interests and our allies. We will defend our friends—and ourselves—starting with our planned deployment of more missile interceptors in Alaska. The U.S. has been making progress toward convincing the international community to crack down on Pyongyang even further. Given the threat, we must maintain a robust military presence in Asia to maintain the peace in the Asia-Pacific region. We must work with China—North Korea's only ally—to achieve a lasting end to Pyongyang's continuing nuclear intransigence.
President Obama drew a "red line" for Syria: if the Assad regime used its chemical weapons, such a move would "change [the] calculus" for an American response. As the UN and others investigate whether Assad has indeed crossed that red line, the U.S. must consider its options—because a failure to act could undermine our credibility. But "further action" is a broad category in the Syrian conflict. Our options range from increasing non-lethal aid to deploying troops in Syria. In this guide to the debate, we provide answers to six key questions: What are America's security interests in Syria? Which rebel groups should we support? What are Syria's military capabilities? What is the status of Syria's chemical weapons? What are the international community's options? What are America's options?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
It's time to move beyond the partisan finger-pointing over the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya. Policymakers should instead consider pragmatic solutions to reduce the chances of such an attack occurring in the future. Here are four ways for policymakers to make this case: It's time to stop the finger-pointing. We must protect our diplomats better. We must position rapid reaction teams better. We need to build better leadership at the State Department.
Despite serious, continuing concerns with the Egyptian government—including a return to authoritarianism and the president's use of anti-Semitic slurs—America should not gut its foreign aid to Cairo. Here's how to make the case against punishing the Egyptian government and in favor of continuing U.S. assistance: Egypt plays a critical role in the region and in America's security interests there. U.S. businesses get a return when we provide aid to Egypt. The bulk of our aid goes to the most stable pillar of secular Egyptian society: the military. Things could get much, much worse in Egypt—and for us.