Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Publication Year within 25 Years

631. Toward a Regional Framework for the Middle East: Takeaways from other Regions

Author:
Ross Harrison
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Middle East Institute (MEI)
Abstract:
This Policy Paper is part of the Middle East Institute's Regional Cooperation Series. Throughout 2016, MEI will be releasing several policy papers by renowned scholars and experts exploring possibilities to foster regional cooperation across an array of sectors. The purpose is to highlight the myriad benefits and opportunities associated with regional cooperation, and the high costs of the continued business-as-usual model of competition and intense rivalry. While the prospects for creating a regional architecture in the Middle East may seem grim currently, it is a crucial time to begin thinking about regionalization as a long-term project. The ongoing conflicts in the Middle East are likely to continue over the course of the coming decades, but it is possible that game-changing events could occur that create the political will necessary for adversaries like Saudi Arabia and Iran to cooperate. By looking at steps taken in Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America, this paper analyzes the conditions conducive to creating a regional order and how they arise at critical moments in history. Getting regionalization right can help create a pathway toward a regional institutional architecture and will be fundamental to establishing stability in the region.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Regional Cooperation, Water, and State
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, Libya, Yemen, and Syria

632. IRMO Brief 02/16

Author:
Janko Bekić and Marina Funduk
Publication Date:
02-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
On 29 September 2015, representatives of twelve Central and Eastern European countries held the �irst exploratory meeting of the Adriatic-Baltic-Black Sea (ABB) Initiative, aimed at strengthening the political and economic cooperation of EU member states located between the three seas. The meeting was held in New York, on the sidelines of the 70th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, under the initiative of Croatian president Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović. The other heads of state attending the meeting were Polish president Andrzej Duda, Romanian president Klaus Iohannis and Bulgarian president Rosen Plevneliev. Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia dispatched ministers of foreign affairs, whereas Austria, Slovenia and the Czech Republic were represented on a lower level. The meeting was also attended by representatives of the Atlantic Council think tank. Bolstering cooperation between Central European states on the north-south axis has been the declared foreign policy goal of Croatian president Grabar-Kitarović ever since she assumed of�ice in February 2015 . Bolstering cooperation between Central European states on the north-south axis has been the declared foreign policy goal of Croatian president Grabar-Kitarović ever since she assumed of�ice in February 2015. Since then, she has found a staunch ally in Polish president Duda, who took of�ice in August of that same year and stressed that he was striving for the creation of a partner bloc between the Baltic, Black and Adriatic seas. This development is noteworthy for two reasons: �irstly, it represents a widening of the foreign policies of their predecessors – Ivo Josipović of Croatia and Bronislaw Komorowski of Poland. In his �ive-year term, Josipović focused mainly on reinvigorating the ties among former Yugoslav republics, whereas Komorowski concentrated on aligning Warsaw’s interests with those of the European Union’s leading capitals, Berlin and London.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Regional Cooperation, and United Nations
Political Geography:
Europe, Eastern Europe, Croatia, Central Europe, Baltic Sea, Adriatic Sea, and Black Sea

633. The Return of Geopolitics to Southeast Europe

Author:
Sandro Knezović
Publication Date:
04-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
A few months ago, the newspapers in Southeast Europe reported extensively on an arms race in the region, sparked by Croatian attempts to acquire the US artillery system M270 MLRS and Serbia’s reaction to that event. Of�icials in Belgrade found the aforementioned move assertive and, by way of response, announced the procurement of Russian-made S-300 within the wider programme of rearming with Russian military equipment. Those who wanted to dig more deeply into trying to �ind evidence for a developing arms race cited the fact that Serbia, on the occasion of the visit of Russian President Putin, had organised a military parade to commemorate the liberation of Belgrade from Nazi occupation. That was followed by Croatia’s military parade on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the military-police operation ‘Storm’. The display of military strength, they concluded, was another sign of growing military rivalry between the two states which had the capacity to dramatically destabilise the fragile peace in the region. Those with more detailed knowledge of the region remind us that neither Croatia nor Serbia - especially the latter - had the political, economic or human capacity to engage in a military con�lict, especially given the existing international presence and strategic set-up in the region. Numerous experts rightfully pointed to the prevailing low level of cross-border political dialogue and the fact that political elites in the region had frequently used populist rhetoric to fuel the support of their electorate, focusing less on the real substance of the dispute with the neighbour. Lastly, but certainly not of least importance, was the fact that, both countries, together with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro, had taken on international obligations to safeguard a stable military balance, thus preventing any potential escalations and destabilisation in the region. The so-called 1996 Florence Agreement on Sub-Regional Arms Control, derived from Article IV of the Dayton Peace Agreement, set the basic framework for negotiations on the limitation of arms. The Amendments to that agreement, signed at the 21st OSCE Ministerial Council in Basel (December 2014), imposed full responsibility on signatory states for regional stability and arms control.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Military Strategy, and Populism
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Bosnia and Herzegovina

634. Kurds in Iraq seek independence 100 years after Sykes-Picot

Author:
Janko Bekić
Publication Date:
05-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
In February, Masoud Barzani, President of Iraqi Kurdistan, announced that a referendum on the independence of the autonomous region would be held by the end of 2016. He stressed that Kurdistan had the same grounds for demanding statehood as Scotland, Catalonia or Quebec. Equally, he opined, the right of the Kurdish people to decide their own fate was unnegotiable. During an earlier encounter with Western journalists, Barzani pointed to the upcoming centenary of the Sykes-Picot agreement (16 May 1916), which divided Ottoman assets in the Middle East into British and French zones of interest, laying the foundations for the creation of multi-ethnic and multi-religious Iraq and Syria. The President of the Kurdistan Region underlined that 2016 would be the year in which the Franco-British agreement of World War I would be annulled and the policy of “compulsory co-existence” in the Middle East �inally abandoned. The purpose of this brief is to succinctly discuss the case made for Kurdish independence, but also the many obstacles on the way towards it. Solid arguments in favour of secession Mr. Barzani’s central argument in favour of Kurdish statehood is the fact that international borders in the Middle East largely do not correspond to popular will; i.e. they have no legitimacy, only legality. Historically, they are by-products of foreign – Ottoman, and later Western European – rule. As such, they are open for revision, especially if the states in question have a track record of discriminating, forcibly assimilating, or – in the worst case – physically exterminating segments of the population. Another argument made by Mr. Barzani is one concerning “compulsory co-existence”. It's well-known that international power brokers are rather conservative when it comes to recognizing border changes or granting independence to secessionist entities. As a rule, these are considered only in instances of grave human rights violations, and only as a last resort. The Westphalian sovereignty of states has been greatly eroded by the concept of humanitarian intervention. However, international borders are still considered to be sacrosanct and – generally – untouchable. This often leads to the involuntary co-existence of ethnic, national and/or religious groups with no sense of shared identity or mutual interests. In such unfavourable conditions, democracies – if they exist – are little more than tyrannies of the majority.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Human Rights, and Autonomy
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, Syria, and Kurdistan

635. United States After the Presidential Election 2016: Continuation or Abandonment of Obama’s Foreign Policy

Author:
Krševan Antun Dujmović
Publication Date:
08-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
With the Presidential Elections coming closer, the global attention is shifting more and more to the United States. During the terms of George W. Bush, especially during his second tenure, the image of the US as an untouchable superpower was somewhat mitigated. In 2001 the US witnessed the largest attack on its territory since Pearl Harbor and military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq took a heavy toll in human lives and material and �inancial expanses. Upon this, the campaign in Iraq had no legal foundation, and that caused a rift with the European allies, especially with two big continental powers Germany and France, and the consequences are still largely felt to date. The legitimacy and the credibility of the US as the global strong leader was further watered down with the �inancial crunch originating on Wall Street, spilling over to the rest of the world, especially the European Union (EU). At the moment when American image and credibility hit the ground, the White House saw a new president Barack Obama, the �irst African American to sit in the Oval Of�ice. In the internal policy, Obama’s two terms saw the American economy gaining an undisputed strength. Unemployment rate and de�icit were cut in half, exports and the dollar were on the hike, just like the GDP growth and the real estate market. Obama’s foreign policy showed to be much more diplomatic and arguably more ef�icient than that of the Bush administration.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, Elections, and Europe Union
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Middle East, North America, Washington, and D.C.

636. Understanding China’s Foreign Policy Goals in Asia Through the South China Sea Disputes

Author:
Srdan Ulijević
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
Ever since the launch of the Reform and Opening policy in 1978 China has been under close scrutiny of scholars and policymakers for its potential to transform the world’s economic, political and military relations. As the country’s economy grew larger and its political clout became more in�luential, international relations scholars had been applying various models and theories in order to understand and possibly predict China’s foreign policy behavior. Questions pertaining to whether China will be a status quo or revisionist power in the international system became even more relevant after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. With its sizeable landmass, strategic geopolitical location, large population and rapidly modernizing economy, China had all the trappings of a potential superpower. With its sizeable landmass, strategic geopolitical location, large population and rapidly modernizing economy, China had all the trappings of a potential superpower. By joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, China had effectively secured the key economic component necessary to achieve the crux of its grand strategy – to build comprehensive national power as well as to increase its in�luence in international fora. As a result of the WTO membership, China’s economy was propelled to new heights and its GDP grew more than eight times between 2001 and 2014. On the diplomatic front, multilateral and bilateral cooperation proliferated, with countries from every continent �locking to Beijing to sign trade deals. The EU offered to share its normative experience in regional cooperation while the US openly invited China to become a “responsible stakeholder” in 2005. For its part, China initiated a series of bold diplomatic moves towards the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), branded by the media and policymakers as the charm offensive policy. The charm offensive period lasted from 1997 to 2008 and paved the way for China’s deeper economic, political and military cooperation with Southeast Asian countries. The policy fueled dreams of China becoming the engine of ASEAN’s future economic growth and prosperity.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, and United States of America

637. Russia’s Asia Pivot: Engaging the Russian Far East, China and Southeast Asia

Author:
Bhavna Dave
Publication Date:
05-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS)
Abstract:
The Russia-ASEAN summit being held in Sochi on 19-20 May 2016 to mark twenty years of Russia’s dialogue partnership with ASEAN is a further indicator of President Vladimir Putin’s ‘pivot to Asia’ policy, triggered also by its current confrontation with the west. Through this pivot, Moscow wants to assert Russia’s geopolitical status as a Euro-Pacific as well as Asia- Pacific power. It is a pragmatic response to the shifting of global power to Asia. It also builds on the growing Russo-Chinese relations to develop the Russian Far East, a resource-rich but underdeveloped region into the gateway for expansion of Russia into the Asia Pacific. At the same time, the growing asymmetry in achieving the economic and strategic goals of Russia and China has resulted in fears that the Russian Far East will turn into a raw materials appendage of China. Moscow lacks the financial resources to support Putin’s Asia pivot. Therefore, Russia needs to strengthen ties with other Asia-Pacific countries and ASEAN as a regional grouping so as to attract more diversified trade and investments into its Far East region. It is in this context that the Sochi summit takes on added significance. However, given Russia’s sporadic interest in Southeast Asia and its strategic role defined mainly by the limited potential of Russian energy and arms exports to ASEAN Member States, the PR diplomacy and summitry at Sochi may not deliver substantive outcomes for Russia. Nonetheless, Moscow aims to enhance its status in the east and seek business and strategic opportunities through the summit thereby compensating to some extent Russia’s loss following the sanctions imposed by the west over the annexation of Crimea.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Infrastructure
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, Europe, and Asia

638. The 2016 presidential campaign and the crisis of US foreign policy

Author:
Thomas Wright and Thomas Wright
Publication Date:
10-2016
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Lowy Institute for International Policy
Abstract:
The 2016 US presidential election is the most consequential election for international order since the Second World War. America’s status as a liberal superpower is on the ballot. To understand Donald Trump’s foreign policy, we must distinguish between his three core beliefs that he has held for many decades and rarely if ever waivered from, the central themes of his campaign, and other issues. His core beliefs are opposition to America’s alliance arrangements, opposition to free trade, and support for authoritarianism, particularly in Russia. If he is elected president and governs in a manner consistent with these beliefs, the United States will be transformed from the leader of a liberal international order into a rogue superpower that withdraws from its international commitments, undermines the open global economy, and partners with Putin’s Russia.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Elections, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
America

639. A Framework for U.S. Policy toward China

Author:
Jeffrey Bader
Publication Date:
03-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Brookings Institution
Abstract:
Serious people understand that the manner in which the United States deals with China will be a critical, if not the critical, overseas chal- lenge for the United States in the 21st century. China will likely be the largest economy in the world within one or two decades; the second or third strongest military soon, if not already; and competitive with the United States and Europe in global economic, and perhaps political and cultural, influence in some regions. China is ruled by a Communist Par- ty resistant to political liberalization at home and wedded to nationalist rhetoric and behavior in dealing with its neighborhood, enhancing the chances for rivalry with the United States. For those students of history who see conflict as the likely outcome when ris- ing powers encounter dominant powers, these are precursors of a dark future. How should we deal with China? What policy framework best optimizes our interests, which are multiple and not always consistent with each oth- er? Americans are in the midst of an ongoing presidential campaign that, in a better world, would be asking and answering such questions, but this is not such a campaign.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, and International Political Economy
Political Geography:
China and America

640. After The Jarabulus Offensive: How Far Will Turkey Shift Its Syria Policy?

Author:
Soner Cagaptay
Publication Date:
09-2016
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
The July 15 attempted coup, which exposed rifts within the Turkish military, coupled with the August 9 meeting between Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian president Vladimir Putin, and the Turkish incursion into Syria on August 24, appear to signal a change in trajectory for Turkey’s Syria policy. Since Erdogan’s ouster of Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu in May 2015, Turkey has already implemented some significant foreign policy shifts, including normalization with Israel and a desire to mend ties with Russia.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, Civil War, Peace Studies, and International Affairs
Political Geography:
Russia, Turkey, and Syria