Search

Begin New Search Topic Democracy Political Geography United States of America

31. Governing the Global Commons: Challenges and Opportunities for US-Japan Cooperation

Author:
Kristi Govella, John Bradford, Kyoko Hatakeyama, Saadia M. Pekkanen, Setsuko Aoki, James Lewis, and Motohiro Tsuchiya
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
The global commons—domains beyond the sovereign jurisdiction of any single state but to which all states have access—are essential to the stability and prosperity of the international order. In addition to the high seas, outer space, the atmosphere, and Antarctica, which are defined as global commons by international law, analysts have also suggested that other domains such as cyberspace may also qualify as potential commons. These domains provide essential public goods such as trade routes, transportation and communication networks, fish stocks, satellite imagery, global positioning, and e-commerce infrastructure that benefit countries around the world. To successfully manage the resources of the global commons and ensure open access to their spaces, effective governance structures must exist to accommodate and integrate the interests and responsibilities of state and non-state actors. Consequently, states have tried to come to agreements in each domain about how to enable broad access, avoid conflict, and enable cooperation. Over time, these discussions have resulted in the creation for each domain of a “regime,” a set of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge (see Box 1). These regimes can take shape in the form of international law, national law, local regulations, private standards, and institutional bodies. They differ dramatically in maturity and complexity: the governance regime of the oceans has developed over the course of centuries, while the rules and norms of cyberspace have only had a few decades to coalesce. However, all these regimes attempt to solve similar dilemmas surrounding shared access and resources.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Science and Technology, Democracy, Economy, Trade, and Defense Cooperation
Political Geography:
East Asia, Asia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

32. China's Contribution to the Stabilization of 'Democratic' Afghanistan

Author:
Lukasz Jurenczyk
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:
Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:
The People’s Republic of China and Afghanistan established diplomatic relations in 1955. In the following decades of the Cold War, however, relations between the countries were limited, which was due to the main directions of the foreign policies of both countries. Afghanistan focused on balancing the influence of the USSR and the US on its territory. China, in turn, adopted a rotational stance towards superpowers, and in the region, it strengthened political, economic and military cooperation with Pakistan (Zaborowski 2012, 142). In the 1970s, China supported the pro-communist Shu’lai Javid (Eternal Flame) party operating in Afghanistan. Members of Parcham, the pro-Moscow wing of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), contemptuously described its members as Maoists (Levi-Sanchez 2017, 46). During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Beijing allowed Xinjiang Uyghur Muslim fighters to pass through the Wakhan Corridor into Afghanistan to support the mujahideen insurgency there. At that time, political relations between states were maintained only at the consular level.By February 1989, the Soviets withdrew their troops from Afghanistan, and in September 1992 the last communist president - Mohammad Najibullah (09.1987-09.1992) was overthrown. However, this did not end the civil war, as individual mujahideen groups fought for influence in the country. The war destabilized not only Afghanistan, but also the border areas of neighboring countries, including the Western border of the PRC. In 1992, the President of Afghanistan - Burhanuddin Rabbani (06.1992-09.1996) tried to normalize relations with Beijing, but due to increasing military operations in 1993 China withdrew its diplomatic representation from Kabul. When the Taliban took power in Afghanistan in 1996, the country fell into international isolation in which China participated. During the Taliban regime, Afghanistan hosted al-Qaeda, which trained around 1,000 Uyghur fighters in the camps there. In Beijing, this caused serious concern and encouraged the Chinese authorities to intensify security cooperation with Pakistan. According to leaders of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), most of the security problems in the Muslim-dominated Xinjiang province were to be caused by neighboring Afghanistan. For example, the 1997 incidents in the province, known as the Yining riots, were considered to be Taliban-inspired (Cheema 2002, 308)
Topic:
Diplomacy, Hegemony, Democracy, and Stabilization
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, China, Middle East, Asia, North America, and United States of America

33. Civics for Adults: A Guide for Civics Content Providers

Author:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
This guide is focused on fostering greater understanding among adults of the nuts and bolts of our democratic republic and how individuals can and must hold institutions accountable and move us toward a more perfect union. Reinvigorating civics knowledge and civic skills has become a national and economic security imperative. The urgency requires reaching not just K-12 students but also adults. This guide is for civics experts and content providers developing or adapting civics resources to engage adults in their workplaces and their communities. The guide can also be used by businesses, government (including the military), and others seeking to provide civics knowledge and skills to employees, partners, and associates
Topic:
Education, Democracy, and Civic Engagement
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

34. The Importance of Democracy Promotion to Great Power Competition in Latin America and the Caribbean

Author:
Rebecca Aaberg
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
There are many reasons to believe democracy and democracy promotion are imperative in the great power competition with China, which is occurring with ever-greater intensity in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). LAC has played host to great power competition in previous eras, but in grand strategic terms, competition with China in the twenty-first century is fundamentally different than the rivalry of the Cold War against Soviet Russia. Whereas during the Cold War the United States supported friendly, anti-communist military regimes in LAC, success against China in the twenty-first century will necessitate robust support for democracy, liberal institutions, and democracy promotion. The Kirkpatrick Doctrine—which advocated for supporting “friendly authoritarian” regimes that went along with Washington’s aims—applied so deliberately to LAC during the Cold War, is outmoded and likely to be highly counterproductive today. On the contrary, there are many reasons to believe that successfully countering China in great power competition will be intimately linked to the democratic health of LAC as a region. This is the democracy imperative. This paper begins with background on U.S. policy toward LAC during the Cold War. Then, it places the question of a Kirkpatrick Doctrine for the twenty-first century within the context of great power competition with China and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has prompted the Biden administration to consider re-engaging pariah regimes such as the Maduro dictatorship in Venezuela. The paper will then adumbrate reasons why great power competition with China is fundamentally different than previous iterations of competition against Soviet Russia, which saw U.S. support for anti-communist military regimes.
Topic:
Security, Hegemony, Democracy, and Competition
Political Geography:
Latin America, Caribbean, North America, and United States of America

35. Consistent Partiality: US Foreign Policy on Palestine-Israel

Author:
Sarah Whitson and Peter Beinart
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Center for Security, Race and Rights (CSRR), Rutgers University School of Law
Abstract:
Although the Biden administration talks about supporting democracy and human rights, it has maintained unconditional US support for Israel even as human rights organizations label it an apartheid state. What are the political and ideological foundations of America’s hostility to Palestinian freedom? And what would it take to change them? Does the US’s unconditional support for Israel serve America’s national interests? Join the Center for Security, Race and Rights as we address these questions with two internationally known experts.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Apartheid, Human Rights, Politics, Democracy, Ideology, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America

36. Five Strategies to Support U.S. Democracy

Author:
Rachel Kleinfeld
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
American democracy is at a dangerous inflection point. The moment requires a step-change in strategy and support. Without such momentum, the country faces a democratic setback potentially as serious as the ones already occurring in India and Hungary (both now ranked only “partially free” by Freedom House) and the nearly one-hundred-year reversal that occurred following America’s Reconstruction era. Many Americans view this moment with concern, but their worry is measured: America’s system is creaky, but the world’s oldest democracy has strong institutions and will pull through. However, since the end of the Cold War, most democratic failure globally has been caused by elected governments using legal methods, such as gerrymandering and technical rule changes, to derail democracy. Their destructions of their own democracies have been supported by pluralities or majorities of their citizenries, whose polarization leads them to back policies that harm democracy to ensure their side prevails. America is on precisely this path. The age and consolidation of U.S. democracy provides resilience—but Americans should not expect too much from the country’s historical strength. Many of the laws that form institutional guardrails were written poorly in the aftermath of the Civil War, with loopholes that are easily challenged given a lack of precedent. Moreover, the country’s age means that much of what are presumed to be laws and institutions are, in fact, simply norms. These norms are eroding quickly. Other organizations and philanthropists already understand the danger America is in. They are pouring time and money into getting more people to vote, particularly minorities and swing voters, to win back democracy. These efforts are necessary—but not sufficient. America’s democratic decline has accelerated despite record numbers of people, minorities, and swing voters voting. And for those on both sides of the aisle for whom these voting measures are proxies for partisan preferences they believe will save U.S. democracy, democratic decline in many states has accelerated despite Democratic control of both chambers of Congress and the presidency at the national level. The community supporting U.S. democracy needs a better strategy.
Topic:
Democracy, Domestic Politics, and Democratic Backsliding
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

37. How Inequality and Polarization Interact: America’s Challenges Through a South African Lens

Author:
Brian Levy
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Over the past decade, toxic interactions between persistent inequality, racial tensions, and political polarization have undercut the promise of South Africa’s so-called rainbow miracle transition from apartheid to democracy. South Africa’s recent history sheds light on the United States’ recent political travails. It illustrates how interactions between inclusion and inequality on the one hand and political ideas and entrepreneurship on the other can fuel positive spirals of hope, economic dynamism, and political legitimacy—but can also trigger vicious, downward spirals of disillusion, anger, and political polarization. South Africa was able to transition from a society structured around racial oppression into a nonracial democracy whose new government promised “a better life for all.” Especially remarkable was the speed with which one set of national ideas appeared to give way to its polar opposite. From a society marked by racial dominance and oppression, there emerged the aspiration to build an inclusive, cooperative social order, underpinned by the principles of equal dignity and shared citizenship. In the initial glow of transition, South Africa’s citizens could hope for a better life for themselves and their children. In time, though, the promise wore thin. It became increasingly evident that the economic deck would continue to be stacked, and that the possibility of upward mobility would remain quite limited. Fueled by massive continuing inequities in wealth, income, and opportunity, South Africans increasingly turned from hope to anger. In the United States, a steady and equitably growing economy and a vibrant civil rights movement had fostered the hope of social and economic inclusion. But that hope turned to anger as the benefits of growth became increasingly skewed from the 1980s onward. In 2019, the U.S. economy was more unequal than it had been since the 1920s. Younger generations could no longer expect that their lives would be better than those of their parents. Such economic adversity and associated status anxiety can trigger a heightened propensity for us-versus-them ways of engaging the world. In both South Africa and the United States, polarization was fueled by divisive political entrepreneurs, and in both countries, these entrepreneurs leveraged inequality in ways that added fuel to the fire. In the 2010s, South Africa went through a new ideational reckoning, in part to correct the view that the transition to democracy had washed the country’s apartheid history clean. But opportunistic political entrepreneurs also pushed an increasingly polarized and re-racialized political discourse and pressure on public institutions, with predictable economic consequences. South Africa’s economy slid into sustained stagnation. Paralleling South Africa, America’s divisive political entrepreneurs also cultivated an us-versus-them divisiveness. However, unlike in South Africa, political entrepreneurs and economic elites in the United States also used divisive rhetoric as a way to persuade voters to embrace inequality-increasing policies that might otherwise not have won support. By the late 2010s, the risks were palpable in both South Africa and the United States of an accelerating breakdown of the norms and institutions that sustain inclusive political settlements. For South Africa, the reversals were not wholly unexpected, given the country’s difficult inheritance—though a recent turn away from angry populism suggests that, paradoxically, the rawness and recency of the anti-apartheid struggle and triumph might perhaps offer some immunization against a further-accelerating a downward spiral. But for the United States, the converse may be true. Increases in inequality since the 1980s, and their attendant social and political consequences, have been largely self-inflicted wounds. Complacency bred of long stability may, for decades, have been lulling the country into political recklessness at the inequality-ethnicity intersection, a recklessness that risks plunging the country into disaster. But this paper’s analysis is not all gloom and doom. South Africa’s escape from the shackles of apartheid teaches that, even in the most unlikely settings, downward spirals of despair and anger can transmute into virtuous spirals of hope. The country’s first fifteen years of democracy also show that, once a commitment to change has taken hold, making the shift to an inclusion-supporting economy is less daunting than it might seem. Reforms that foster “good enough inclusion” can be enough to provide initial momentum, with the changes themselves unfolding over time—and an initial round of change can bring in its wake a variety of positive knock-on effects. But lessons can be overlearned. Mass political mobilization was pivotal to South Africa’s shaking loose the shackles of apartheid—and new calls to the barricades might seem to be the obvious response to current political and governmental dysfunction. However, different times and different challenges call for different responses. In both contemporary South Africa and contemporary America, the frontier challenge is not to overthrow an unjust political order but to renew preexisting formal commitments to the idea that citizenship implies some shared purpose. Renewal of this kind might best be realized not by confrontation but rather by a social movement centered around a vision of shared citizenship, a movement that views cooperation in pursuit of win-win possibilities not as weakness but as the key to the sustainability of thriving, open, and inclusive societies.
Topic:
Governance, Democracy, Inequality, Institutions, and Polarization
Political Geography:
Africa, South Africa, North America, and United States of America

38. The International Dimension of the U.S. Strategy on Countering Corruption

Author:
Mateusz Piotrowski
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The first Strategy on Countering Corruption, adopted on 6 December 2021, assumes that by making better use of existing international regulations and organisations, as well as by establishing new mechanisms, the U.S. will tighten global anti-corruption cooperation. The American goal is to limit the freedom to conduct financial operations by authoritarian states, mainly China and Russia, and at the same time to strengthen democratic countries and promote democracy. For Poland, this is an opportunity to tighten bilateral and multilateral cooperation with the United States.
Topic:
Corruption, International Cooperation, Authoritarianism, Democracy, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
Russia, China, North America, and United States of America

39. Atticism and the Summit for Democracy

Author:
Damjan Krnjevic Miskovic
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
When in the course of reading the two most authoritative accounts that together chronicle the war of the Spartans and the Athenians and how they waged it against each other—i.e., the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides and the Hellenica by Xenophon—we come across the word attikizo and its cognates on at least seven different occasions: five in the former work and twice in the latter, by our count (see Thuc. III.62.2, III.64.5, IV.133.1, VIII.38.3, and VIII.87.1; Xen. Hell. I.6.13 and VI.3.14). A straightforward definition of this Thucydidean neologism is “to become like or join or side with the Athenians; to work for the interests of Athens.” However, as Victor Davis Hansonpoints out in A War Like No Other (2005), attikizo also has a normative connotation: it a “special word of sorts for Athenian expansionism.” We can thus allow ourselves to take the noun ‘Atticism’ to mean, figuratively, “alignment to a stronger power by a subordinate one acting under constraint at a time of crisis.” We may note, besides, that the classical Greek understanding of crisis connotes not just a meaning of momentous decisionand thus uncertain outcome, resulting in the need to exercise prudential judgment; it is also a key Hippocratic term used to refer to a sudden change in the health of a body towards either recovery or a turn for the worst. Crisis thus understood does not perforce imply predetermined reason or directionality. It is with this in mind that we can begin with preparations to conduct a little thought experiment on the strategic implications of the Summit for Democracy, which the Biden Administration staged online in December 2021 with much fanfare. In so doing, we can do worse than to call to mind a slight modification of something Barack Obama once said to Mitt Romney: “the 2000s called, and they want their foreign policy back” because, in many ways, the Summit for Democracy is reminiscent of various proposals put forward by Washington insiders in the first years of the third millennium for the establishment of some sort of U.S.‑led global coalition of democratic states. As we shall see, the speeches and deeds of the Biden Administration have provided enough evidence to suggest it may embrace some of the more dangerous elements of said proposals in the time ahead. This, in turn, may leave it open to the charge of advocating or suborning Atticism in the pursuit of its “America is Back” foreign policy posture. To get a sense of the possible effects thereof on U.S. national interests hereafter, we shall proceed with an inquiry into the scale, scope, and prudence of what we understand to be the Biden Administration’s essential ambition. We shall at times proceed in a contemporaneously unconventional approach on the grounds that operating in this manner can shed light on such matters in ways that conventional ones cannot, or at least cannot do as well. Genealogy of Morals Before coming to the various proposals made in the 2000s for the establishment of some sort of U.S.‑led global coalition of democratic states—an examination of which should prepare us to conduct our little thought experiment per se—we observe that “America is Back” represents most obviously a political aspiration to repudiate the foreign policy posture of the antecedent administration, which had conducted its external affairs according to the “America First” slogan that may be said to have been encapsulated by words spoken by Donald Trump in September 2019 during an address to the UN General Assembly: “The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.” But we suggest that “America is Back” may also be understood to be a reference to the spirit of an earlier moment in world politics in which it could be said that America had in fact recuperated or perpetuated its standing and come back (or out) on top.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Hegemony, Democracy, and Political Crisis
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

40. Democracy in Africa is Like a Flashlight without Batteries

Author:
Mark Wentling
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
Promoting democracy has been a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy for decades. This has been true for the dozen U.S. missions in which I have served in Africa over the past half century. Unfortunately, my experiences have left me doubtful about the results achieved by the hundreds of millions of dollars the U.S. has invested to promote democracy in Africa. I arrived in 1970 as a U.S. Peace Corps Volunteer, West Africa. In my village, I learned that you obeyed the chief’s decisions no matter how illogical they might be. I also learned that it was considered impolite to criticize any of the chief’s decisions. Today it is still best to obey the chief, although he is now influenced by the central government. The overriding concern of the chief and his representative council of elders was to maintain a peaceful and stable environment, acknowledging that no progress could be achieved without stability. As central government influence increased, local leaders offered their support in return for new schools, water wells and health clinics. The goal of this tribute system of “patronage governance” was not democracy but justice, a concept embedded in the local culture while “democracy” was an imported notion.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Democracy, and Memoir
Political Geography:
Africa and United States of America