Search

Begin New Search Topic Strategic Interests Political Geography North America

91. The Meaning of Setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan

Author:
Carter Malkasian
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
From 2011 to 2017, similar processes played out in Iraq and Afghanistan that are deeply significant yet understudied. Between 2011 and 2014, after much effort and some success, the United States drew down its military forces in both countries. Hopes were high that the Iraqi and the Afghan government could take over. Their armies and police were vastly superior in numbers, equipment, and training to those of their adversaries. Nevertheless, the Iraqi and Afghan states both came to the brink of collapse. Gains that had come at high cost and sacrifice for the United States unraveled. Terrorist threats re-emerged. The United States re-entered the conflicts. So far, it has not fully withdrawn. Why these events came to pass has not yet been fully studied. This article explores what happened and the implications for U.S. strategy.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Military Intervention, Civil-Military Relations, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

92. The Relevance of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for the United States in the 21st Century

Author:
Joel R. Hillison
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
The “America First” approach to foreign policy seems to call into question the value of institutions like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU). However, in a more competitive and uncertain strategic environment, NATO and the EU remain vital to promoting U.S. interests.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, Military Strategy, Armed Forces, European Union, Strategic Interests, and America First
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

93. Common Ground for the United States, Japan, and China in Southeast Asia

Author:
Brian Harding
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Over the past decade, Southeast Asia’s economic and geopolitical profile in the world has risen dramatically. Its $2.5 trillion economy is a rare bright spot for global growth.1 Plus, the increasingly integrated Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, is a rare example of a regional political structure writing its own destiny—in this case, the agenda for the emerging regional security architecture of the Asia-Pacific.2 The region has also emerged, however, as a nexus for a range of transnational threats, ranging from trafficking in illicit goods to extreme weather events that are a result of climate change.3 Yet the region’s vital sea lanes have only grown more important, with more than half of the world’s merchant tonnage and one-third of global maritime traffic transiting the region every day on their journey from the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean to the economic powerhouses of Northeast Asia.4 The world has taken note of the opportunities presented by increased involvement in Southeast Asian affairs, as well as the challenges the region faces. Governments and multinational companies across the world are ramping up engagement with the region bilaterally with individual countries and multilaterally with ASEAN. Southeast Asian countries wholeheartedly welcome this global interest for both economic and strategic reasons. Economically, despite the region’s promise, all but Singapore and Brunei are developing countries in desperate need of foreign investment to continue their upward trajectories. Most critically, the region faces a multitrillion-dollar infrastructure gap that constrains economic growth and perpetuates inequality.5 With indigenous capital and even the commitments of international development banks unable to meet demand on this scale, investment by major powers is essential for the region to achieve its potential. Strategically, Southeast Asian countries welcome engagement by a wide range of outside powers to ensure that the region’s partnerships are highly diversified. As a grouping of small countries with modest military and economic power, robust partnerships with a range of actors ensure that no single outside power can dominate regional affairs. In essence, the region prefers a balance of power—or in Indonesian parlance, dynamic equilibrium. While welcoming and encouraging international involvement in regional affairs, Southeast Asian nations also naturally seek to do so on their own terms. For countries making national decisions regarding foreign investment or security cooperation with an outside power, these smaller countries can often find themselves in a position of weakness relative to the outside power. However, collectively, ASEAN provides a platform that allows each country to punch above its weight, providing a venue to make certain issues ASEAN issues rather than national issues for the purpose of creating greater leverage with outside powers. Quite remarkably, despite its flaws, the bloc has managed to maintain its position in the region as the driver of Asia-Pacific regionalism, while outside powers routinely reiterate the importance of “ASEAN centrality.”6 This report outlines findings from a recent trilateral dialogue, organized by the Center for American Progress, of Southeast Asia experts from the United States, Japan, and China. It describes the current state of U.S., Japanese, and Chinese engagement in Southeast Asia and presents four areas for potential U.S.-Japan-China collaboration with Southeast Asian partners on shared challenges.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Partnerships, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, North America, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

94. Iran Is ‘On Notice’—What’s Next?

Author:
Brian Katulis and Muath Al Wari
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
President Donald Trump has pledged to address Iran’s destabilizing policies in the Middle East. His first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, infamously put Iran “on notice” in early February.1 But more than two months into his presidency, it has become clear that the Trump administration lacks a comprehensive strategy to deal effectively with Iran while moving forward in the fight against the Islamic State, or IS, and long-term efforts to stabilize the region. Already, the United States risks ramping up military operations in a way that could contribute to the fragmentation of the Middle East’s state system and open the space for the continued rise of nonstate actors. Without a broader regional strategy that links military approaches to diplomatic efforts in conflict resolution, tactical and operational shifts in U.S. military policy in the Middle East could make the region even more unstable.2 Congress, then, should adopt a look-before-you-leap approach when it comes to the idea of new sanctions against Iran.3 Such an approach would allow Congress to carefully hone any new measures to deal effectively with Iran’s policies. Congress also has an important role in asking tough questions about proposed increased military operations in places such as Yemen, Syria, and Iraq.4 Furthermore, Congress should carefully scrutinize Trump’s proposed budget cuts to funding for national security institutions central to the fight for stability in the Middle East. These cuts would prolong the fight against ISIS and weaken America’s hand in dealing with Iran using a multifaceted, integrated approach.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

95. The Big Melt: Curbing Arctic Climate Change Aligns with U.S. Economic and National Security Goals

Author:
Cathleen Kelly and Howard Marano
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The United States has long been a leader in advancing diplomatic cooperation, peace, stability, and environmental stewardship in the Arctic—from the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, to the creation of the Arctic Council in 1996, and the beginning of the U.S. chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2015.1 A new scientific assessment of rapid changes in the Arctic reveals that U.S. economic prosperity and national security may well hinge on continued U.S. leadership and cooperation in the region. The Arctic assessment by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, or AMAP, concludes with even higher confidence than in the past that rapid and persistent Arctic climate change is transforming the region with global economic, security, and environmental repercussions that will be more serious than previously predicted.2 The more than 90 authors of the “Snow, Water, Ice, Permafrost in the Arctic,” or SWIPA2, report concluded that Arctic warming will drive global sea levels to rise faster and higher than earlier estimates and that the region will see ice-free summers sooner than expected.3 The AMAP report also concludes that the global costs of Arctic climate change—including damages to infrastructure, homes, communities, and businesses from global sea level rise and more extreme weather—will be astronomical, reaching $7 trillion to $90 trillion between 2010 and 2100.4 Arctic warming will also have significant U.S. national security consequences, including flooding of U.S. coastal communities and military bases; increased instability in vulnerable regions; and strained U.S. humanitarian and disaster response resources.5 So far, the Trump administration’s Arctic policy has ignored these rapidly unfolding threats and focused entirely on easing offshore oil and gas drilling in the region, despite extreme risks. 6 This includes rescinding Obama administration accomplishments such as marine protected areas established to prevent oil spills in areas critical for subsistence hunting and fishing; terminating a new formal consultation mechanism with coastal Alaska Native tribes along the Bering Sea; and ordering Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke to review several drilling safety standards for potential cancellation.7 Meanwhile, perennially perilous conditions in the Arctic Ocean—including drifting sea ice, hurricane force winds, and extended periods of darkness—and a lack of emergency response infrastructure would mean any oil spill would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to respond to and clean up.8 Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has an opportunity to reaffirm the United States’ long-standing commitment to safeguarding the Arctic when he chairs the May 11 Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska. This meeting is the 10th gathering of foreign ministers and indigenous leaders from the eight Arctic nations: Canada, Norway, Russia, the United States, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and the Kingdom of Denmark, via its dominion over Greenland and the Faroe Islands. These countries make up the Arctic Council, the international body designed to address emerging challenges in the region.9 With costly and rapid Arctic climate change already underway, strong diplomatic partnerships are more essential than ever to prepare for warming effects and avert the most costly and dangerous repercussions down the road.10 At the May ministerial—which marks the end of the two-year U.S. Arctic Council Chairmanship—Secretary Tillerson is expected to reach a binding agreement with Arctic nations; Arctic Council observer countries; and indigenous leaders to strengthen international science cooperation in order to deepen the world’s understanding of rapid Arctic warming and its consequences.11 Past binding agreements adopted by the council secured commitments to strengthen oil spill response as well as search and rescue in the region.12 The eight countries are also expected to agree to meet a regional target to reduce black carbon pollution—a potent driver of Arctic warming. By locking in these agreements and working with other nations to curb global climate change, Secretary Tillerson can strengthen diplomatic ties with key allies while advancing U.S. economic, security, and environmental interests at home and at the top of the world.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Economics, Environment, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
North America, Arctic, and United States of America

96. The Dawn of a Brave Trump World

Author:
Yu Bin
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Comparative Connections
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
The end of 2016 was a period of extraordinary uncertainty in world affairs. Much of the world was engulfed by waves of refugees, terror attacks, and rising populism, culminating in the election of Donald Trump as president in the US. Against this backdrop, top Chinese and Russian leaders interfaced regularly. Military ties also gained momentum as the two armed forces conducted a joint exercise in the South China Sea and stepped up coordination in missile defense. Twenty years after their “strategic partnership of coordination,” the two countries still resist a formal alliance, but the perceived challenge to their national interests and strategic space by Western alliances seems to have led to more proactive and coordinated actions. Meanwhile, both Moscow and Beijing were anxiously awaiting the Trump presidency. Welcome to the brave new world of the reversed strategic triangle, Trump style.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Governance, Leadership, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

97. A Sharper Choice on North Korea: Engaging China for a Stable Northeast Asia

Author:
Mike Mullen, Sam Nunn, and Adam Mount
Publication Date:
09-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
A new Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Independent Task Force report, A Sharper Choice on North Korea: Engaging China for a Stable Northeast Asia, finds that the United States’ policy of “strategic patience” with North Korea will neither halt that country’s recurring and dangerous cycle of provocation nor ensure the stability of Northeast Asia in the future. To the contrary, the Task Force warns, “If allowed to continue, current trends will predictably, progressively, and gravely threaten U.S. national security interests and those of its allies.” Asserting that “China’s policy toward the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] will critically affect the fate of the region,” the Task Force urges U.S. officials to encourage China to work with the United States, Japan and South Korea to establish a nonnuclear and unified Korean Peninsula. “Encouraging a transformation of China’s policy toward North Korea should be the next administration’s top priority in its relations with China,” says the report. “If China, the United States, and U.S. allies can work together to pressure North Korea to abandon its nuclear program and mitigate its threatening military posture,” the Task Force contends, “a stable, prosperous Northeast Asia led by China and U.S. allies can emerge.” To the extent that China declines to cooperate and North Korea continues to refuse to negotiate, however, the report finds that United States will have no choice but to work with Japan and Korea to “consider more assertive military and political actions, including those that directly threaten the existence of the [North Korean] regime and its nuclear and missile capabilities.” The Task Force proposes that the United States take steps to sharpen the consequences for North Korea, by imposing escalating costs on continued defiance and offering incentives for cooperation.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, Peace, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

98. 2016 Opens with a Bang

Author:
Charles McClean and Sheila A. Smith
Publication Date:
05-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Comparative Connections
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
The US-Japan relationship was relatively steady in the early months of 2016 until the US presidential primaries began to stir things up. For the first time in decades, Japan became the focus of debate on the campaign trail when Donald Trump began to single out Japan on trade and on security cooperation. There was also a setback on the Futenma replacement facility when construction was halted following a compromise between the central government and Okinawa that calls for a court decision on how to proceed. Nevertheless, the two governments continued to refine alliance coordination in the face of North Korea’s nuclear test and missile launches and pursued maritime cooperation as Beijing’s behavior in the South China Sea continued to roil regional waters. With major elections on the horizon, both countries are likely to be consumed by politics in the coming months. The United States and Japan continued to refine alliance coordination in the face of North Korea’s renewed nuclear testing and missile launches. Tokyo and Washington also continued their maritime cooperation as Beijing’s behavior in the South China Sea continued to roil regional waters. Japan suffered an unexpected setback in its cooperation with Australia, however, as its bid to provide Canberra with its next-generation conventional subs was outdone by the French offer. The Futenma base standoff with Gov. Onaga took an unexpected turn when Prime Minister Abe Shinzo announced suddenly that he and the governor had agreed to a compromise settlement. Tokyo would halt construction and Naha would agree to merge the court cases and would fully comply with the court decision on how to proceed. Politics now consume both countries as both Japan and the US face elections later this year. Anticipation that Abe would call a double election this summer ended after Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga Yoshihide declared that only the regularly scheduled Upper House election would be held so that the government could concentrate on recovery efforts in Kumamoto Kyushu, the site of a deadly earthquake. Economic growth continues to elude the Abe Cabinet, and the prime minister still confronts the prospect of an additional consumption tax hike in the spring of 2017. In the US, the primaries are winding down with Donald Trump the expected nominee for the Republican Party and Hillary Clinton in the lead for nomination by the Democratic Party. The US-Japan alliance seems already to be suffering from “Trump shocks” even before the election decides the next US president.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

99. Prospects for a Strategic Partnership?

Author:
Scott Snyder and See-Won Byun
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Comparative Connections
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
President Park Geun-hye’s participation in China’s 70th anniversary celebrations of the end of WWII in September affirmed Seoul’s ties with China, while enabling Seoul to go on the offensive to win Beijing’s acceptance of a Seoul-led reunification of the Korean Peninsula. The escalation of inter-Korean tensions in late August revealed the dilemmas underlying Seoul’s regional diplomacy that continue to undermine coordination on North Korea and other security challenges. Nevertheless, both China and South Korea are engaging in parallel efforts to revive commercial ties with the North. Meanwhile, South Korea has made clear for now that its ability to engage China lies firmly on the foundations provided by a strong US-ROK security alliance; however, we expect that Beijing will continuously test Seoul’s allegiances. Although Workers’ Party of Korea Secretary Choe Ryong Hae represented Pyongyang at the war commemoration ceremonies and military parade in Beijing, replacing Kim Jong Un with Park on the rostrum and the absence of direct leadership exchanges between China and North Korea indicates Pyongyang’s continued political isolation. Likewise, nominal head of state Kim Yong Nam “exchanged greetings” with President Xi at Moscow’s own WWII commemorations on May 9 according to the DPRK state media, but both Beijing and Pyongyang downplayed the exchange. DPRK missile tests on May 9 and June 14 demonstrated Kim Jong Un’s growing nuclear drive and his dismissal of Chinese calls for regional stability. At ASEAN meetings on August 5-6 in Kuala Lumpur, PRC and ROK Foreign Ministers Wang Yi and Yun Byung-se joined regional partners in opposing North Korean actions. Later, an artillery exchange between the two Koreas on Aug. 20 threatened to escalate tensions on the peninsula and underscored the ongoing deadlock in regional diplomacy. North Korea bristled at Chinese statements calling on the two Koreas to “exercise restraint.” In fact, China and South Korea are conducting vibrant exchanges, while China’s interactions with North Korea are nowhere to be seen. Six months after Presidents Xi and Park declared the end of substantive talks, Commerce Ministers Gao Hucheng and Yoo Sang-jick signed the China-ROK Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in Seoul on June 1. Gao also met President Park and Foreign Minister Yun. China-South Korean political and military interactions indicate efforts to upgrade their partnership beyond trade. Top legislator Zhang Dejiang made a three-day visit to South Korea on June 10-12, meeting President Park, National Assembly Speaker Chung Ui-hwa, and ruling Saenuri Party leader Kim Moo-sung. On the military side, PRC Defense Minister Chang Wanquan met ROK Army Chief of Staff Kim Yo-hwan in Beijing on May 12, while ROK counterpart Han Min-koo met PLA Vice Chief of Staff Sun Jianguo at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore later that month. PLA Navy Commander Adm. Wu Shengli met ROK Navy Chief of Staff Adm. Chung Ho-seop in Beijing on June 11. Despite agreements on bilateral security cooperation, however, such exchanges did not produce any pledges on how to address immediate security threats from North Korea. South Korea’s military ties with the US emerged as a clear point of friction ahead of meetings between regional defense chiefs in May.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

100. The Case for RAIPON

Author:
Ron Wallace
Publication Date:
02-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
Canada is about to enter an entirely new phase of heightened diplomatic responsibilities in the circumpolar Arctic. This comes at a time when international attention to polar aboriginal, economic, strategic, SAR and environmental concerns approach new heights. Additionally, the deadline of December 2013 is fast approaching for Canada’s anticipated first submission under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for claims to subsea lands that extend beyond the existing 200 nm limits delineated by the current Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ) in the Arctic1. For Canada, these represent material social, economic, diplomatic and strategic interests. They also constitute an opportunity for Canada to exert tangible international leadership in the Arctic – a region that many Canadians consider to be a vital component of our national identity. Significantly, Prime Minister Harper has deftly selected an Inuk to lead Canada’s Chairmanship of the Arctic Council at a time when these, and other, international issues are assuming increasing importance throughout the Circumpolar Arctic. This paper touches on current affairs that may affect Canadian and US relations with Russia and is meant to place in perspective recent events that affect our circumpolar trading neighbours, including the fate of indigenous peoples of the Russian North. Under the renewed leadership of President Vladimir Putin, Russia has embarked on a determined course of heightened nationalism designed, among other things, to control “foreign influences” in Russia, especially those targeted NGOs and other agencies such as RAIPON (the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East) that have received external funding from the West. Such policies have material consequences for Russia’s civil and political institutions – including their indigenous peoples throughout Arctic Russia. Without understanding the events that have overtaken Russia since the rise of the Putin regime, the significance of the recent international uproar surrounding RAIPON might well be lost. Canada, with its increasingly high-profile participation on the Arctic Council, may have a unique opportunity to work with other international agencies, and through diplomatic channels, to prevent a further deterioration of the Russian-Western dialogue by seeking to elevate and inform future discussions about the circumpolar region. Recent events in Russia may force reconsideration by the West of Russia’s developing political and international strategic intentions, many of which involve the circumpolar Arctic region. In short, Canada has an opportunity to advocate for the meaningful participation of Russia’s indigenous peoples in the Arctic Council. Responsible Canadian leadership and advocacy in the Arctic Council could further elevate its work and also enhance Canada’s position at a time when the Arctic – and its peoples – has become a growing focus of international attention.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Canada, North America, and Arctic