Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy

401. A More Focused and Resilient U.S.-India Strategic Partnership

Author:
Arzan Tarapore
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security
Abstract:
The United States has made a “strategic bet” on India. This bet—“that India’s greater role on the world stage will enhance peace and security"—was a central pillar of the Obama administration’s rebalance to Asia, and it remains a central pillar of the Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy. For nearly two decades, Washington has embraced the strategic logic that it should facilitate the rise of India as a great power because a stronger India is indispensable in counter-balancing Chinese power and ambitions. In this policy of strategic altruism, Washington should not be overly concerned with specific Indian preferences, strategies, or capabilities—the general growth in Indian power would help to uphold a favorable regional balance of power. Recently, this strategic logic has begun to show signs of strain. In part, this is the result of emerging policy divergences on a range of issues from bilateral trade to Indian arms purchases from Russia.4More fundamentally, aside from differences in policy preferences, analysts question whether India will have the capacity to play a significantly greater role in global and regional security. India’s economy and military capabilities have expanded, but only incrementally and arguably at a pace insufficient to keep up with China’s growing power and assertiveness—or with American expectations. Even the firmest proponents of this strategic bet, like senior analyst Ashley Tellis, have openly pondered, “if India continues along this path, does our bet on it become a failed bet?"6 As Indian capabilities and U.S. expectations evolve, how can the two countries work together to uphold a favorable balance of power in the Indo-Pacific? It is time for Washington to reframe its strategic bet on India. A close U.S.-India strategic partnership remains critical to meet the challenge a revisionist China poses. But the United States must adjust its policy approach to ensure the partnership is more focused on priority goals, and more resilient to inevitable disruptions. A more focused and resilient partnership would prioritize certain strategic tasks and geographic areas; in particular, the United States and India should cooperate to develop a denial strategy in the Indian Ocean.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, and Partnerships
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, North America, and United States of America

402. Escalation or Negotiation? Conclusions of a Tabletop Exercise on the Future of U.S.-Iran Relations

Author:
Elisa Catalano Ewers, Ilan Goldenberg, Nicholas Heras, and Kaleigh Thomas
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security
Abstract:
On May 21, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) hosted an all-day tabletop exercise (TTX) in Washington, D.C., to game out three scenarios related to the crisis surrounding U.S.-Iran tensions over Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and destabilizing regional policies. The intent was to understand how key players would respond and act in these potential scenarios. The TTX included seven teams: the United States, Iran, Europe (representing primarily France, Germany, and the United Kingdom but also the European Union), China, Russia, Israel, and the Gulf Arab States (one player as Saudi Arabia/UAE and the other player as Oman). Teams featured American and foreign regional and functional experts with a deep experience in their respective areas. Players were asked to play the most realistic version of their government.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

403. Maintaining America’s Coercive Economic Strength: Five Trends to Watch in U.S. Sanctions

Author:
Howard Berman, Paula J. Dobriansky, Sue E. Eckert, Kimberly Ann Elliott, David L. Goldwyn, Peter Harrell, Theodore Kassinger, George A. Lopez, Richard Nephew, Michel Rademaker, Frederick Reynolds, Elizabeth Rosenberg, Daleep Singh, Julianne Smith, Adam Szubin, and Rachel Ziemba
Publication Date:
03-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security
Abstract:
U.S. foreign policy officials have embraced economic sanctions as a tool of choice for American foreign policy. Decisionmakers have deployed sanctions against strategic adversaries and national security threats ranging from Russia to non-state actors such as terrorist groups, drug cartels, and businesspeople who engage in corrupt activities. The appeal to both policy leaders and key constituent groups of the potent economic impacts of sanctions in several recent high-profile cases, particularly those of Iran, Russia, North Korea, and Venezuela, combined with broad bipartisan support for aggressive use of U.S. sanctions, suggests that the United States will favor this policy tool and be an active practitioner in the years ahead. This brief describes five of the most prominent and influential trends that could affect U.S. sanctions and other coercive economic measures in the future. The five trends are: (1) a shift toward more aggressive use of U.S. unilateral sanctions; (2) the growing role of Congress in enacting sanctions and managing their implementation; (3) an increased potential for unintended consequences as a result of growing complexity in sanctions; (4) accelerating efforts of foreign governments to insulate trade and payment channels from U.S. sanctions; and (5) new technological developments that may have the potential to both enhance and weaken the impact of U.S. sanctions in the years ahead.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, National Security, Sanctions, Elections, and Economy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

404. Economic Dominance, Financial Technology, and the Future of U.S. Economic Coercion

Author:
Peter Harrell and Elizabeth Rosenberg
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security
Abstract:
Coercive economic measures, such as sanctions, investment restrictions, trade controls, and tariffs, have become an increasingly important tool of U.S. foreign policy in recent years. Recent years have witnessed a strengthening of U.S. coercive economic measures, which are likely to remain powerful in the near and medium term. Over the longer term, purely commercial factors are likely to support continued U.S. coercive economic power. However, choices by both U.S. policymakers and foreign governments will be the primary determinant of whether coercive economic measures remain powerful tools of U.S. foreign policy over the longer term. Shifts in the nature of U.S. coercive economic power could prompt some shifts in the balance and nature of the type of coercive economic measures the United States deploys.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Science and Technology, Tariffs, and Trade
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

405. Solving the Syrian Rubik’s Cube: An Instruction Guide for Leveraging Syria’s Fragmentation to Achieve U.S. Policy Objectives

Author:
Kaleigh Thomas and Nicholas Heras
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security
Abstract:
Eight years since the start of the Syrian crisis, the conflict in that country has transitioned from a war between the government of President Bashar al-Assad and its rebel opponents into an interstate competition among different foreign actors that have intervened in the war. The United States is a party to this competition because, through the campaign to counter the Islamic State group known as ISIS, Washington and its coalition partners have assembled a zone of control in northern and eastern Syria that encompasses nearly one-third of the country’s territory. Through this coalition zone, the United States has strong influence over the distribution of several key natural resources—oil, agricultural land, water, and electricity production—that are essential to stabilizing Syria and that are coveted by the Assad regime and its allies. Syria’s fragmentation therefore provides the United States and its partners with significant leverage to influence the end state that emerges as the outcome of the conflict. This potential leverage would be a powerful complement to the current American strategy to work toward the irreversible progress in the Geneva process through sanctions and maintaining an international consensus to deny Assad’s regime reconstruction assistance. Currently, the United States has committed to retaining a residual military presence in northern and eastern Syria to combat the re-emergence of ISIS or a successor organization, but without the United States investing financially in the rehabilitation and stabilization of those areas. Simultaneously, Washington seeks to force changes in the Assad regime’s behavior, policies, or composition by applying economic pressure via U.S. sanctions and closing off the regime’s access to reconstruction funding. This study examines how the United States can leverage Syria’s fragmentation to achieve U.S. policy goals through several policy options. The options are based on two key metrics: first, the level of U.S investment in Syria, and second, whether the United States should seek to change Assad’s behavior, remove Assad, or resign itself to the reality that he will stay and to re-engaging with him.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Syrian War, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:
Middle East and Syria

406. Bolton’s Stated Predicate for War With Iran Doesn’t Work

Author:
Oona A. Hathaway
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
The President’s National Security Advisor John Bolton has long been beating the drums of war with Iran. Those drums are growing louder. In the last month, Bolton has repeatedly threatened that Iran’s support for its “proxies” could bring “a very strong response”—even military force. By threatening military action against Iran in retaliation for the acts of groups it supports, Bolton is trying to frame a war on Iran as a justified—even righteous—act of self-defense even if he cannot prove that Iran itself has participated in any attacks. Such a war would, however, be illegal.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Law, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

407. The Missing State Department Memo on US Officials’ Possible Aiding and Abetting Saudi War Crimes

Author:
Oona A. Hathaway
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to consider dueling bills on Saudi Arabia. A bill sponsored by Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), would block arms sales to the Kingdom and in-flight refueling of Saudi aircraft. This largely mirrors a series of measures passed in the House on July 17 to block the sale of billions of dollars of arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. But in an unusual move, Committee Chairman Jim Risch (R-Idaho) broke comity to put forward his own separate bill focused more narrowly on the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi that would merely deny visas to a few Saudi government officials and require that the secretary of state conduct a review of the United States’ relationship with the country. In all likelihood, this is the bill that will advance, allowing the U.S. sales of arms to Saudi Arabia to continue.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Law, International Trade and Finance, Arms Trade, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Middle East, Saudi Arabia, North America, and United States of America

408. WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION AND THE FATE OF NONVIOLENT CAMPAIGNS: A REPORT ON THE WOMEN IN RESISTANCE (WIRE) DATA SET

Author:
Erica Chenoweth, Conor Seyle, and Sahana Dharmapuri
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Our Secure Future
Abstract:
The Women, Peace and Security agenda is a transformative policy mandate with a global constituency. It provides policymakers with the tools to end cycles of violent conflict, create more equitable peace processes, and promote gender equality on a global, national, and local scale. Passed in October 2000, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (UNSCR 1325) underscores women’s agency, voice, and capacities as intrinsic to creating more effective international peace and security–related policies. Since 2000, more than 80 countries have adopted national action plans and policies to robustly implement the Women, Peace and Security agenda. In 2017, the US Congress adopted the Women, Peace, and Security Act to incorporate the principle of gender equality into US foreign policy. As the global agenda on Women, Peace and Security is increasingly implemented, the transformational role of women as direct actors in issues of peace and security is becoming more obvious. This is certainly true in the case of formal institutions, where women are increasingly represented in higher positions internationally. It is also true in less formal, official domains: women have been at the forefront of civil resistance movements throughout history, and they have been visible leaders in contemporary nonviolent resistance movements from Sudan to Algeria and beyond.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Women, Peace, and Nonviolence
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus

409. SEIZING THE MOMENT? THE U.S. STRATEGY FOR WOMEN, PEACE AND SECURITY

Author:
Ambassador Donald Steinberg
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Our Secure Future
Abstract:
The White House has now released its long-awaited Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS). The strategy is mandated under the bipartisan Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017, which requires the Administration to develop a broad national strategy to support meaningful roles for women around the world in peace operations and political, civic, economic, and security systems. The White House has instructed the Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to produce specific implementation plans within 120 days. The short 15-page text is not the comprehensive strategy required by Congress, but rather a statement of principles and priorities that these four agencies are to use to adopt action plans. As such, it is vital that members of Congress and civil society organizations now assist these agencies in making time-bound, measurable commitments backed by accountability provisions and ample resources, and then hold the Administration’s feet to the fire.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Women, and WPS
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus

410. TRANSFORMING SECURITY: WOMEN DEFINE SECURITY DIFFERENTLY

Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Our Secure Future
Abstract:
The findings in this poll came from two online surveys conducted in the summer and fall of 2018 by the Women’s Alliance for Security Leadership/ICAN and World Pulse. Additionally, two focus groups were held in Jakarta, Indonesia in July 2018. The final survey included both qualitative and quantitative questions in five different languages: English, French, Portuguese, Spanish and Arabic. Most participants completed the English version. Participants were asked questions about how they define security, their security concerns and priorities, and security and representation. Women were recruited to participate through ICAN’s membership network, as well as through World Pulse’s networks and through promotions on social media platforms.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Gender Issues, Women, Peace, and WPS
Political Geography:
Global Focus