Posted December 9, 2009
American Power - Foreign Policy | Diplomacy | Arms Control | Defense | Human Rights | Intelligence | Terrorism
Countries/Regions: Afghanistan | Iran | Iraq | Middle East | North Korea | Russia | Turkey
American Power: The Next American Century
"The 20th century was famously called 'The American Century.' With some forethought and planning, American leadership could continue into the next one as well."
- Pillars of the Next American Century
Kurth, James
The American Interest, November/December 2009, v5, #2, pp4-13
"The United States can still be the most prominent—although not dominant—of the great powers, and it can still offer the most attractive way of life. But to do this, America will have to become more American than it has been in recent years. This means it will have to renovate or reinvent certain pillars that raised the United States to the heights of global power and prosperity in the second half of the 20th century. These pillars remain the only solid and enduring supports for a prominent American role in the 21st century, so we need to be clear about what they are."
James Kurth is Professor of Political Science and Senior Research Scholar at Swarthmore College.
-What is Power?
Inboden, William
The American Interest, November/December 2009, v5, #2, pp15-27
"What is power, and how much of it does America (still) have? In a time of great flux in the international system, and amid proliferating predictions of American decline, these questions have of late commanded more attention than usual."
William Inboden is Senior Vice President of the Legatum Institute.
-Same Old Songs: What the Declinists (and Triumphalists) Miss
Friedberg, Aaron L.
The American Interest, November/December 2009, v5, #2, pp28-35
"For those who cut their professional teeth on the America-in-decline debate of the 1980s and early 1990s, the re-emergence of this topic in recent years has provoked feelings of nostalgia mixed with an undercurrent of anxiety. Now, as then, historical analogies are batted about with reckless abandon. Pessimistic prophecies are advanced from many quarters and, especially from the left side of the political spectrum here and abroad, with a certain grim satisfaction: An arrogant, overstretched America is about to get its comeuppance. Once again, debunkers have emerged (mostly from the Right) to challenge these predictions and to remind all who will listen of the American system’s remarkable resilience."
Aaron L. Friedberg is a Professor of Politics & International Affairs at Princeton University. Order Articles A1/05-09
Boom Box USA: Surrogate Broadcasting as a Tool of U.S. Soft Power
Gedmin, Jeffrey
Foreign Affairs, September/October 2009, v88, #5, online edition
"Government-sponsored surrogate broadcasting of accurate and reliable news remains the most effective and cost-efficient way to promote democracy and advance U.S. security interests in countries lacking independent media. The objective of surrogate broadcasting programs, such as Radio Farda in Iran, is not to overthrow a foreign government -- 'when informed citizens are free to choose,' Gedmin writes, 'they invariably choose freedom over tyranny and prefer decent, accountable government to the arbitrary whims of authoritarian leaders.' Surrogate broadcasting plays a role in Afghanistan, countering the Taliban’s own information war, and in Russia, where public opinion toward the U.S. and toward democracy is ambivalent."
Jeffrey Gedmin is President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Fulltext A2/05-09
Arms for the World: How the U.S. Military Shapes American Foreign Policy
Cohen, Michael A.
Dissent, Fall 2009, v56, #4, pp69-75
"The expanded role of the armed forces in key aspects of American foreign policy
may seem like a temporary overreaction to the attacks of September 11, 2001. But
the military's dominant role in fighting the "war on terror" is the outgrowth of developments that were underway well before the fall of 2001. First and foremost was the maintenance of a large standing military force in peacetime."
Michael E. Cohen is a Senior Research Fellow at the New American Foundation, where he directs the privatization of Foreign Policy Initiative. Fulltext A3/05-09
Hillary's Challenge: Would Putting Women First Make for Better Foreign Policy
Goldberg, Michelle
The American Prospect, August/September 2009, v20, #6, pp23-27
"This article focuses on Secretary of State Clinton’s quest to promote women’s rights internationally. [A]s Clinton attempts to advance women's rights in other areas of foreign policy, including those that haven't traditionally put much emphasis on gender, such as peace and security and agricultural development. Despite her deep personal convictions, the supportive political environment, and the growing consensus about the importance of women's rights to global development, she is going to face real obstacles. American conservatives are determined to fight not only international family planning but also multilateral treaties on women's rights. Fundamentalists in Muslim countries often react furiously to attempts to empower women and accuse local feminists of being agents of Western imperialism, which complicates American efforts to bolster them. And Clinton is going to have to contend with a State Department culture that isn't used to paying much attention to women's issues."
Michelle Goldberg is a Senior Correspondent at The American Prospect. Fulltext A4/05-09
Without Conditions
Malhotra, Deepak
Foreign Affairs, September/October 2009, v88, #5, pp84-90
"Diplomacy appears ready to make a comeback. The US, after years of reluctance, is reconsidering the role of negotiation in confronting extremism and managing international conflict. India has resisted an aggressive response to the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai and is open to diplomatic engagement with Pakistan over Kashmir. Participants in the six-party talks have been scrambling to decide whether, when, and how to engage North Korea since its nuclear test of May 2009. Determining the precise conditions for such talks is never easy. The cessation of violence is perhaps the most common precondition that governments evaluate when considering diplomatic engagement. But it is far from the only one. A wise foreign policy errs on the side of negotiation and removes as many impediments to diplomacy as possible. Carelessly conceived preconditions remain among the greatest barriers to achieving negotiated peace. Curtailing their use, if not discarding them altogether, would herald a new era in foreign policy -- one both more ambitious and, ultimately, more successful."
Deepak Malhotra is Associate Professor at Harvard Business School. Fulltext A5/05-09
The Last Mission: Richard Holbrooke’s Plan to Avoid the Mistakes of Vietnam in Afghanistan
Packer, George
New Yorker, September 28, 2009, v85, #30, pp39-54
This article discusses the efforts of Richard Holbrooke, special representative
of the Department of State of U.S. president Barak Obama to Afghanistan and
Pakistan. An experienced, ambitious, aggressive, talented
and loyal diplomat, Holbrooke joined the Foreign Service at age 21 and served in Vietnam.
He negotiated the Bosnia settlement in 1995. He is quoted saying that the
impediments to success in Afghanistan are Taliban sanctuary in Pakistan,
civilian casualties and corruption. The articles concludes: "Holbrooke must know that there will be no American victory in this war; he can only try to forestall potential disaster. But if he considers success unlikely, or even questions the premise of the war, he has kept it to himself. [...] He said, 'I still believe in the possibility of the United States, with all its will and all its strength, and I don't just mean military, persevering against any challenge. I still believe in that.'"
George Packer is a staff writer at The New Yorker. Fulltext A6/05-09
Public Diplomacy: Ideas for the War of Ideas
Krause, Peter; Van Evera, Stephen
Middle East Policy, Fall 2009, v16, #3, pp106-135
"U.S. public diplomacy toward the Muslim world includes 11 main projects with a total budget of roughly $400 million. They divide into five media projects; three international exchange programs; a group of micro-programs to support pluralism, prosperity and gender equity; language-training programs; and the overseas work of ambassadors and other State Department officials. Some of these efforts are successes, others are dismal failures. International exchanges and language training earn especially good marks, while U.S. media efforts deserve very poor ones. The most successful programs are far too small to have much beneficial impact. Thus, current U.S. efforts to shape opinion in the Arab/Muslim world are largely ineffective due to either poor execution or inadequate funding."
Mr. Krause is a Ph.D. candidate in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) political science department. Dr. Van Evera is Ford international professor
of political science at MIT, acting director of the MIT Security Studies Program,
and chair of the Tobin Project national security working group. Fulltext A7/05-09
Back from the Brink: A Talk with Hans Blix
Andelman, David A; Pauker, Benjamin
World Policy Journal, Fall 2009, v26, #3, pp15-20
"The big debate these days seems to be the issue of whether we can realistically move toward a world of zero nuclear weapons or whether we will find ourselves with a number of new, nuclear states. Is “zero” a viable scenario or is the existence of multiple nuclear states—hence a complex web of deterrence—more manageable, more secure, and more stable in the end?"
Hans Blix served as Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and in 2000–03 as Head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), where he headed the international inspection efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Most recently, he served as the Chairman of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, a private global initiative to prevent their spread. Blix
was interviewed by telephone from Stockholm by
World Policy Journal editor David A. Andelman
and managing editor Benjamin Pauker,
with the participation of Jackie Simon, United
States bureau chief of Politique Internationale. Fulltext A8/05-09
How to Manage a Nuclear Iran
Schulte, Gregory L.
Foreign Policy, October 2009, online edition
"On Sept. 25, flanked by his French and British counterparts, Barack Obama announced that Iran was building a second underground facility for uranium enrichment. The U.S. president warned that Iran's decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) represented a direct challenge to the nonproliferation regime."
Ambassador Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency from July 2005 to June 2009, is a senior visiting fellow at the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction at the National Defense University (NDU). Fulltext A9/05-09
Rethinking U.S. Nuclear Posture (Transcript of a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event)
Acton, James (Moderator) Speakers: Gerson, Michael S.; Lewis, Jeffrey G.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 29, 2009, online edition, 30p (PDF)
"The United States is currently in the process of rethinking its nuclear posture. On the heels of President Obama’s speech in Prague, in which he endorsed the goal of abolishing nuclear weapons. Against this background, Michael Gerson and Jeffrey Lewis examine two fundamental aspects of US nuclear posture. Gerson looks at the purpose of American nuclear weapons and ask whether the US should use threaten to use nuclear weapons only in response to a nuclear attack. Lewis looks at the vexed issue of extended deterrence and examines how alliance relations can be better handled."
James Acton is an Associate at the Nonproliferation Program, Carnegie Endowment. Michael S. Gerson is a Research Analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses. Jeffrey G. Lewis is Director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative, New American Foundation. Fulltext A10/05-09
Nuclear Abolition, A Reverie
Iklé, Fred C.
The National Interest, September/October 2009, #103, pp4-9
"The fact that nuclear weapons have not been used for sixty-four years gives us hope. [...] In any event, as long as nuclear use can be prevented, abolition is less important. Preserving the tradition of nonuse is vital to the international community. Let us do all we can to maintain this dispensation. It is the most important tacit consensus among all nuclear powers, essential for the survival of a civilized world. It has lasted more than six decades and has taken us safely through all the crises of the cold war and the dramatic changes that followed."
Fred C. Iklé is a Distinguished Scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He was Undersecretary of Defense for policy in the Reagan Administration. Fulltext A11/05-09
Pay to Play: How U.S. Nonproliferation Policy Is Linked to Civilian Nuclear Power
Slawter, Bruce
American Interest, September/October 2009, v5, #1, pp79-84
"The U.S. commercial nuclear power industry has languished for years, notes the author, a result of huge cost overruns on plants built in the 1970s and 1980s, and of notable accidents such as those at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The decline of expertise and research in the U.S. nuclear power industry is now translating into erosion of our ability to influence nonproliferation internationally, notes Slawter, as other countries, notably France, Japan, Russia and now China surpass the U.S. in certain areas of reactor development. Slawter notes that what is emerging is a “pay-to-play” arrangement -- in order to be recognized as a nuclear authority, countries have to invest in their own nuclear technology."
Bruce D. Slawter served as the Director for International Nuclear Energy Policy at the U.S. Department of Energy from 2007-2008. Fulltext A12/05-09
The Armageddon Test: Preventing Nuclear Terrorism
Mowatt-Larssen, Rolf
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September 2009, v65, #5, pp60-70
"9/11 exposed the asymmetric vulnerabilities of a highly interdependent global system; terrorism became a strategic threat to world order. In this light, obtaining one nuclear weapon represents an opportunity for terrorists to achieve their most ambitious aims—with a single attack, they can change the world and control the course of history."
Rolf Mowatt-Larssen is a Senior Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Fulltext A13/05-09
American Grand Strategy after Iraq
Kreps, Sarah
Orbis, Fall 2009, v53, #4, pp629-645
"To the extent that a grand strategy can be discerned in the first year of the Obama Administration, its defining features are not a break from the past but continuity. As the President himself has analogized since taking office, crafting grand strategy is like parallel parking. He has only been able to make changes to grand strategy around the margins since a number of existing commitments limit his freedom of action. This article first identifies the structural determinants of grand strategy, pointing to the international distribution of power, American bureaucracy, and public as the key sources of strategic constraint and opportunity. It then shows how shifts in these factors—comparatively less U.S. power, an overstretched military organized around counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an American public weary from an aggressive grand strategy—produced a shift in grand strategy that predated the 2008 election and that remains consistent with the current strategic setting. It is for these reasons that the 2008 “change” election has produced considerable continuity in American grand strategy." Sarah Kreps is an Assistant Professor, Dept. of Government, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Order article A14/05-09
The New Problem of Artic Stability
Blunden, Margaret
Survival, October/November 2009, v51, #5, pp121-142
"There is growing recognition of the new strategic significance of the Arctic. Tensions have been rising between Russia and the four other Arctic Ocean littoral states as climate change alters the region's geostrategic dynamics. There are unresolved disputes among the four NATO members, the fault lines between the NATO states on the one hand and Russia on the other appear to be deepening, and the sense of common space is under pressure. Military conflict, while not likely, cannot entirely be ruled out. There is a risk that the overall strategic objective of maintaining stability could be forgotten. Growing military activity, closer security coordination among the Western states, and inflammatory rhetoric could set off a vicious circle, jeopardising the wide-ranging collaboration put in place since the end of the Cold War."
Margaret Blunden is an Emeritus Professor of the University of Westminster, London. Order article A15/05-09
How to Measure the War
Campbell, Jason; O'Hanlon, Michael E.; Shapiro, Jeremy
Policy Review, October/November 2009, #157, pp15-30
"How to tell if a counterinsurgency campaign is being won? Sizing the force correctly for a stabilization mission is a key ingredient - and it has been the subject of much discussion in the modern American debate. But in fact, there is no exact formula for sizing forces. Even if there were, getting the numbers right would hardly ensure success. Troops might not perform optimally if poorly prepared for the mission; the security environment might pose too many daunting challenges for even properly sized and trained forces to contend with; indigenous forces might not be up to the job of gradually accepting primary responsibility for their country's security themselves; and the politics of the country in question might not evolve in a favorable direction due to the actions of internal or external spoilers. So to know if we are being successful, we must also track and study results on the ground."
Jason Campbell and Jeremy Shapiro are the authors of the Brookings Institution's Afghanistan Index. Campbell and Michael Johansson author the Iraq Index there and are beginning a Pakistan Index this fall. Fulltext A16/05-09
New Tools for Old Traumas: Using 21st Century Technologies to Combat Human Rights Atrocities
Dreier, Sarah; Schulz, William F.
Center for American Progress, October 26, 2009, online edition, 40p (PDF)
"Steady increases in technological sophistication over the past 10 to 20 years have helped millions of people come a bit closer to realizing social and economic rights such as the rights to food, clothing, housing, and medical care. These technological advances are also having a major impact on the struggle for civil and political rights."
William F. Schulz is a Senior Fellow in human rights policy at the Center for American Progress and served as Executive Director of Amnesty International USA from 1994 to 2006. Sarah K. Dreier is a researcher at the Center for American Progress. Fulltext A17/05-09
Human Rights Issues:
Jost, Kenneth
CQ Researcher, October 30, 2009, v19, #38, pp909-932
"Human rights advocates are voicing disappointment with what they have seen so far of President Obama's approach to human rights issues in forming U.S. foreign policy. They applaud Obama for working to restore U.S. influence on human rights by changing President George W. Bush's policies on interrogating and detaining terrorism suspects. But they also see evidence that the Obama administration is reluctant to challenge authoritarian governments for clamping down on political dissidents or rigging elections. As one example, these critics complain that Obama should not have tried to curry favor with the Chinese government by postponing a meeting with the Dalai Lama until after the president visits China in November. Administration officials insist Obama is devoted to human rights and democratization and cite among other moves the decision to join the United Nations Human Rights Council. Conservative critics, however, say the council is a flawed institution and the United States should have stayed out."
Kenneth Jost is an Associate Editor on the CQ Researcher staff. Order article A18/05-09
The U.S. Intelligence Community and Foreign Policy: Getting Analysis Right
Lieberthal, Kenneth G.
Brookings Institute, 21st Century Defense Initiative, September 2009, online edition, 81 (PDF)
"The Intelligence Community (IC) of the United States has been undergoing major
reforms since 2005 when President George W. Bush signed the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act. Under the new Director of National Intelligence,
the shortcomings in intelligence analysis that came to light in the wake of the
9/11 and Iraq WMD intelligence failures are being addressed through revamped
analytic standards, increased resources for the IC, and numerous organizational
and procedural changes. These analytic transformation initiatives seek to reduce
barriers among organizations and individuals across the IC and to more
effectively prioritize missions."
Dr. Kenneth G. Lieberthal is Director of the John L. Thornton China Center and Senior
Fellow in Foreign Policy and Global Economy and Development at Brookings. Fulltext A19/05-09
Intelligence Factory: How America Makes its Enemies Disappear
Bartosiewicz, Petra
Harper's Magazine, November 2009, v319, #1914, pp42-51
"The author examines the US government's complaint against Aafia Siddiqui, who
is awaiting trial in a Brooklyn detention center on charges of attempting to
murder a group of US Army officers and FBI agents in Afghanistan. According to
the complaint, on the evening of July 17, 2008, several local policemen
discovered Siddiqui and a young boy loitering about a public square in Ghazni.
She was carrying instructions for creating 'weapons involving biological mater,' descriptions of US 'military assets,' and numerous unnamed 'chemical substances in gel and liquid form that were sealed in bottles and glass jars.' It is clear that the CIA and the FBI believed that Siddiqui to be a potential source of intelligence and, as such, a prized commodity in the global war on terror."
Petra Bartosiewicz is a writer living in Brooklyn. Order article A20/05-09
In the Quicksands of Somalia
Bruton, Bronwyn
Foreign Affairs, November/December 2009, v88, #6, pp79-94
"The US government needs to change its Somalia policy -- and fast. For the better part of two decades, instability and violence have confounded US and international efforts to bring peace to Somalia. The international community's repeated attempts to create a government have failed, even backfired. The US' efforts since 9/11 to prevent Somalia from becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda have alienated large parts of the Somali population, polarized the country's diverse Islamist reform movement into moderate and extremist camps, and propelled indigenous Salafi jihadist groups to power. For now, the US should commit itself to a strategy that promotes development without regard to governance."
Bronwyn Bruton is an International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Fulltext A21/05-09
Al Qaeda, Deterrence, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Stone, John
Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, September 2009, v32, #9, pp763-775
"This article takes issue with the frequently-made assertion that Al Qaeda cannot be deterred from employing weapons of mass destruction. It argues that Al Qaeda’s leadership employs terroristic violence in a manner calculated to achieve a set of political goals. They are, in other words, rational actors who are sensitive to the potential costs and benefits associated with their actions, and thus are to some extent deterrable. The article examines a number of ways in which the lack of discrimination and proportionality associated with weapons of mass destruction might be expected to produce more problems than benefits for Al Qaeda and thus deter their use. It also considers some ways in which the West might seek to bolster these deterrent effects."
Dr. John Stone joined the Department of War Studies at King's College in 1997. He is currently conducting research into the role of deterrence in combating terrorism. Order article A22/05-09
The Contours of Al Qaeda's Media Strategy
Ciovacco, Carl J.
Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, October 2009, v32, #10, pp853-875
"Al Qaeda has crafted a successful media strategy that is adeptly suited for the war of ideas against the United States. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have demonstrated a great ability to lead plural groups and exploit innovation with the use of technology. This article explores how they have connected with diverse audiences around the world with a constant message. The repetition of their platform themes and use of “message projection opportunities” demonstrate a great understanding of human nature, marketing strategy, global media, and world politics. In line with Prospect Theory, bin Laden and Zawahiri's messaging strategy emphasizes stemming losses over solidifying gains. Only through a better understanding of Al Qaeda's media strategy and all of its strengths, weaknesses, and idiosyncrasies can the United States truly recognize what it is up against and begin to construct an effective and comprehensive counter strategy."
Carl J. Ciovacco graduated from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. He has served as an American military officer in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and has advised the Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina on counterterrorism issues. Order article A23/05-09
Countries/Regions:
Afghanistan: How Much Is Enough?
Simon, Steven; Stevenson, Jonathan
Survival, October 2009, v51, #5, pp47-67
"US President Barack Obama's current policy favours escalation in Afghanistan. The idea is that as the United States' military presence in Iraq is drawn down, the use of force can be refocused on Afghanistan to forge a more viable state. The principal instruments of this policy are more American troops with better force protection (a customised version of the counter-insurgency 'surge' employed with ostensible success in Iraq) and firmer bilateral diplomacy with Pakistan. The administration's policy appears to be overdetermined. The premise of the policy is that the United States must 'own' Afghanistan in order to defend its strategic interests. But that premise begs the question of whether US strategic interests actually require the United States to assume the grand and onerous responsibility of rebuilding the Afghan state. They do not."
Steven Simon is Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Jonathan Stevenson is a Professor of Strategic Studies at the US Naval War College. Fulltext A24/05-09
War Lords as Bureaucrats: The Afghan Experience
Mukhopadhyay, Dipali
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2009, online edition, 32p
"Afghanistan’s weak central government and limited resources make the informal
networks employed by local warlords a viable option for governance. The
country’s former warlords, made powerful governors by President Hamid Karzai,
use both formal and informal powers to achieve security objectives and deliver
development in their provinces."
Dipali Mukhopadhyay is a Ph.D. student in the area of security studies at The Fletcher School. Fulltext A25/05-09
The Paradox of Iran's Nuclear Consensus
Barzegar, Kayhan
World Policy Journal, Fall 2009, v26, #3, pp21-30
"In the aftermath of Iran's post-election drama, some Western observers have
argued that the apparent weakening of the Iranian elite's policy consensus, and
also by implication the legitimacy of the incumbent government of Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, will enable the West to acquire leverage vis-a-vis the nuclear
issue. In fact, the reality is quite different. Divisions within the Islamic
Republic, if they truly exist, will not provide the space for reconsidering the
nuclear question. Only when there is an internal consensus among Iran's elite
and the possibility of negotiating from a position of strength will Tehran come
to a genuine and definitive agreement with the US over the nuclear issue."
Dr. Barzegar is an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the Islamic
Azad University, Science and Research Campus; a Senior Research Fellow at the
Centre for Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies; and an
Associate Fellow at the Centre for Strategic Research (CSR). Fulltext A26/05-09
Diplomacy and Deterrence
Parasiliti, Andrew
Survival, October/November 2009, v51, #5, pp5-13
"The Obama administration is not ready to concede an Iranian nuclear weapon. But absent diplomatic progress, the United States may have to accept Iran as a threshold or ‘virtual’ nuclear power. Neither sanctions nor deterrence is likely to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear-weapons capability, although deterrence might prevent the country from detonating a nuclear device or formally declaring its nuclear status. Washington has so far not threatened the use of force in Iran and is wary of the potentially negative consequences for US interests and allies of a military option that is not even certain to eliminate Iran’s nuclear-weapons capability. A diplomatic breakthrough, however slim the perceived possibilities, is still the best option to halt Iran’s nuclear-weapons ambitions."
Andrew Parasiliti is Executive Director at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and Corresponding Director, IISS-Middle East. Order article A27/05-09
Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses
Katzman, Kenneth
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress (CRS), October 5, 2009, online edition, 62p (PDF)
"President Obama has said his Administration shares the goals of previous Administrations to contain Iran’s strategic capabilities and regional influence. The Administration has not changed the previous Administration’s characterization of Iran as a “profound threat to U.S. national security interests,” a perception generated not only by Iran’s nuclear program but also by its military assistance to armed groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the Palestinian group Hamas, and to Lebanese Hezbollah. The Obama Administration formulated approaches to achieve those goals that differ from those of its predecessor—in particular through expanded direct diplomatic engagement with Iran and, prior to Iran’s disputed June 12, 2009, presidential elections, put this outreach into practice with messages to the Iranian people by President Obama, and through invitations to and contact with Iranian diplomats at multilateral meetings. Attempting to convince Iran that the Administration is not hostile to Iran, the Administration also downplayed Bush Administration policies to add international sanctions on Iran, to fund civil society activists there, and to openly discuss potential U.S. military action against Iranian nuclear facilities."
Kenneth Katzman is a Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs at CRS. Fulltext A28/05-09
After the Elections: A New System Emerging in Iran
Taheri, Amir
American Foreign Policy Interests, September 2009, v31, #5, pp291-298
"This examination of the changes that have occurred in the relationship between
the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the supreme guide during the
past 30 years suggests that the Islamic Republic as a theological entity died
just before noon on June 19, 2009."
Amir Taheri is an Iranian-born journalist and author based in Europe. Order article A29/05-09
The Battle for Baghdad
Pollack, Kenneth M.
National Interest, September/October 2009, #103, pp8-17
"Iraq has made a great deal of progress since 2006 and the evidence indicates it could make a great deal more. But it is not going to make progress if left to its own devices. If the United States walks away from Iraq or if we are evicted too soon, the old patterns of Iraqi politics will subvert the new patterns of democratization and the country could easily become yet another data point on the academic graphs that demonstrate how pitifully few countries can escape the civil-war trap. In 2002, the United Srates turned away from Afghanistan prematurely to focus on Iraq. The result was a tragedy for us and for the people of Afghanistan. In 2009, we are courting the risk of turning away from Iraq prematurely to focus back on Afghanistan. Should we do so, the result could be a disaster - for us, for the Iraqis, for the entire Middle East and potentially for the world."
Kenneth M. Pollack, a contributing editor to The National Interest, is the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at die Brookings Institution. Fulltext A30/05-09
U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq: What Are the Regional Implications?
Dobbins, James F.; Laipson, Ellen; Cobban, Helena; Korb, Lawrence J.
Middle East Policy, Fall 2009, v16, #3, 27p
The following is an edited transcript of the fifty-seventh in a series of
Capitol Hill conferences convened by the Middle East Policy Council.
James F. Dobbins is Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at RAND Corporation; former Assistant Secretary of State and special envoy to Afghanistan. Ellen Laipson is President and CEO of the Stimson Center and the former vice-chair of the National Intelligence Council. Helena Cobban is a Publisher, JustWorldNews.org; author, Re-engage! America and the World After Bush. Lawrence J. Korb is Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and the former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. Fulltext A31/05-09
Middle East: Islamists and the Grave Bell
Gause, F. Gregory III
National Interest, September/October 2009, #103, pp44-55
"Recent elections in Lebanon and the events surrounding the elections in Iran have led many U.S. opinion-makers to argue once again that democracy in the Middle East will lead to the decline of Islamist regimes due to popular opposition. The author notes that if most Arab countries had true democracy, Islamist parties would gain even more ground, in countries with authoritarian regimes that are U.S. allies. He believes that our interests are best served by promoting civil society in those countries whose leadership is resistant to change; the U.S. must walk a fine line between its desire to promote democracy, and its interests that are not always best served by pushing for elections in the Middle East."
Gregory F. III Gause is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont and currently Visiting Professor of International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Fulltext A32/05-09
Israel: Israel's Future and Iran's Nuclear Program
Weiss, Leonard
Middle East Policy Journal, Fall 2009, v16, #3, pp79-89
The author argues that "characterizing Iran's nuclear program as an "existential threat" to Israel is an attempt to obtain support for sanctions and/or military action against Iran by conflating the physical destruction of Israel by a surprise nuclear attack, which Washington should actively work to prevent, with the demographic threats to the Zionist project, which the United States is under no obligation to alleviate."
Dr. Weiss is an affiliate of the Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, and a consultant to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Fulltext A33/05-09
Israel: Deep in the Basement: Israel's Harmonious Nuclear Ambiguity
Karpin, Michael
World Policy Journal, Fall 2009, v26, #3, pp31-40
"Today, Israel is the only country outside of the great powers whose right to
possess a doomsday weapon is accepted by the world's most influential countries.
Unlike Pakistan, India, and North Korea, Israel has not been asked to give up
its nuclear capability or bare its programs to the world's scrutiny. No major
power has censured Israel for producing the ultimate weapon, nor has it been
threatened by the United Nations with sanctions. Here, Karpin examines how
Israel became the Middle East's only nuclear power and succeeded in keeping its
atomic program secret."
Michael Karpin is an Israeli author and investigative journalist. Fulltext A34/05-09
Israel: Do Settlements Matter? An American Perspective
Kurtzer, Daniel C.
Middle East Policy, Fall 2009, v16, #3, pp89-97
"Since 1967, one of the most pervasive questions in the Arab-Israeli peace process has been whether or not Israeli settlements represent a fundamental blockage to progress. This question is surely on the agenda of the Obama administration as it weighs its options for advancing the prospects for peace. Thus, it is timely to review this matter in some detail."
Ambassador Kurtzer holds the S. Daniel Abraham Chair in Middle East Policy Studies at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. During a 29-year career in diplomacy, he served as the U.S. ambassador to Egypt (1997-2001) and Israel (2001-05). Fulltext A35/05-09
Pakistan: Terrain, Tribes, and Terrorists: Pakistan, 2006-2008
Kilcullen, David J.
Brookings Institute, Counterinsurgency and Pakistan Paper Series #3, September 10, 2009, online edition, 13p (PDF)
"Leading counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen argues that Pakistani security forces have performed inadequately against insurgents in the frontier with Afghanistan because poor governance and societal weaknesses have been exacerbated by decades of violence and lawlessness. Heavy-handed military tactics by the army have resulted in a perpetuation of violence, and have only further undermined local governance. A fundamental rethink of Pakistan’s political strategy is therefore necessary."
David Kilcullen is an author and a consultant on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. Fulltext A36/05-09
Saudi Arabia: The Saudi Terror Problem on the Rise Since September 11
The Institute for Gulf Affairs, September 2009, online edition, 11p (PDF)
"While the Saudi government continues to deny its sponsorship of terrorism, there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In the past eight years since 9/11, the Saudi government has not only ignored the rising numbers of extremists in its own population, but also encouraged spreading extremist ideas to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries around the world. In Iraq, Saudi citizens account for 42% of all foreign fighters. In Afghanistan, they comprise a large portion of Taliban’s foreign fighters, who make up 60% of its ranks. Terrorist indoctrination is reaching new heights in the age of the internet, providing terrorists with a new means to communicate, but more importantly, a way to recruit new fighters. Instead of trying to end the prevalence of extremists and despite what it says to the media, the Saudi government has been contributing to the increase in terrorists activities in the years since 9/11." Fulltext A37/05-09
What Do They Really Want?: Obama’s North Korea
Cha, Victor D.
Washington Quarterly,
October 2009, v32, #4, pp119-137
"Negotiating with North Korea is all about contradictions. What can be important
one day can become unimportant the next. A position they hold stubbornly for
weeks and months can suddenly disappear. But these contradictions tell us a lot
about core goals that may lie beneath Pyongyang’s rhetoric and the provocative
actions which culminated in a second nuclear test on May 25, 2009. Understanding
these core goals, moreover, offers insights into how spectacularly unsuccessful
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has been as he prepares to step do."
Victor D. Cha is the inaugural holder of the Korea Chair at CSIS, and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Pacific Council in Los Angeles. He was director of Asian affairs on the National Security Council from 2004—2007 and Deputy Head of the U.S. delegation to the Six-Party Talks. Fulltext A38/05-09
Playing the Same Game: North Korea's Coercive Attempt at U.S. Reconciliation
Michishita, Narushige
Washington Quarterly, October 2009, v32, #4, pp139-152
"The nuclear and missile capabilities of the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea (DPRK) are certainly improving, but that does not mean its strategy has changed. Those who argue that Pyongyang has abandoned diplomacy risk missing the point; nuclear weapons and missiles are still the means, not the ends. North Korea is actually taking necessary steps to prepare for future talks with the United States."
Narushige Michishita is an Assistant Professor of the Security and International
Studies Program at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) in
Tokyo. Fulltext A39/05-09
The Perilous Case of Kim Jong II
Green, Michael J.
National Interest, September/October 2009, #103, pp36-42
"These days when North Korea conducts a nuclear or missile test, the preferred
metaphor in Washington is to compare Kim Jong Il to a spoiled child. President
George W. Bush used to say the North's "Dear Leader" was like a baby throwing food on the floor in the hope that the adults would pick it up. When asked about North Korea during a recent trip to the region, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that as a mother she was already familiar with small children acting out to gain attention. Meanwhile, foreign-policy experts have fought over diplomatic tactics for a decade: Should we engage Pyongyang bilaterally? Multilaterally? Not at all? Journalism's contribution has been a series of depressingly accurate but not terribly prescriptive accounts of how often the U.S. and Asian governments have been reduced to internal squabbling over North Korea policy."
Michael G. Green is a Senior Advisor and holds the Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Fulltext A40/05-09
U.S. Strategy Towards North Korea: Rebuilding Dialogue and Engagement
Wit, Joel S.
U.S.-Korean Institute at SAIS, October 2009, online edition, 84p (PDF)
"A U.S. policy based on containment and isolation alone concedes that North Korea will remain nuclear-armed and that its weapons program will further develop. That, in turn, will undermine stability in East-Asia, sow doubts in Tokyo and Seoul about relying too much on the United States for their security and jeopardize cooperation with China. A nuclear North will also undermine Washington’s global disarmament and non-proliferation agenda, particularly when viewed in conjunction with the danger of a nuclear Iran. The threat may become even more direct to U.S. security if the North perfects a long-range missile delivery system or exports fissile material or nuclear technology. An effective American strategy towards North Korea will require a combination of tough measures with serious dialogue and engagement."
Joel S. Wit is a visiting Fellow at the U.S.-Korean Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of advanced international Studies (SAIS) at the Johns Hopkins University. Fulltext A41/05-09
Russia's Spheres of Interest, Not Influence
Trenin, Dmitri
The Washington Quarterly, October 2009, v32, #4, pp3-21
"Russia's twenty-first century great power policies differ from traditional nineteenth and twentieth century ones. For example, its leaders are talking about a non-exclusive "sphere of interest,"
not an outdated "sphere of influence" as may imagine. Here is the difference."
Dmitri Trenin is the Director of the Moscow Center of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a member of the editorial board of the Washington Quarterly. Fulltext A42/05-09
Will Moscow Help with Trouble Spots?
Fedorov, Yury E.
Current History, October 2009, v108, #720, pp311-317
"Russia is content to play a parasitic role regarding the world’s trouble spots and Western—above all, American—involvement in them."
Yury E. Federov is an Associate Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. Order article A43/05-09
Russia Reborn
Trenin, Dmitri
Foreign Affairs, November/December 2009, v88, #6, pp64-79
"Two decades after the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan and the fall
of the Berlin Wall, and nearly 20 years after the breakup of the Soviet Union,
Russia has shed communism and lost its historical empire. But it has not yet
found a new role. Instead, it sits uncomfortably on the periphery of both Europe
and Asia while apprehensively rubbing shoulders with the Muslim world. Russia
would better serve its interests by strengthening its ties to the world's most
relevant and influential actors, rather than by focusing on power balances and
exclusive zones. And instead of favoring diplomacy at the United Nations merely
because it wields a veto in the Security Council, Russia needs to engage in
producing global public goods. Russia will certainly survive the present
economic crisis. But it does have a long way to go before it becomes a modern
state capable of pursuing a foreign policy that serves its needs, not its
nostalgia."
Dmitri Trenin is Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center. Fulltext A44/05-09
Turkey's Transformers
Abramowitz, Morton; Barkey, Henri J.
Foreign Affairs, November/December 2009, v88, #6, pp118-129
"In recent years, Turkey has earned kudos from the international community for its economic dynamism, its energetic and confident diplomacy, and its attempts to confront some of its deepest foreign policy problems, such as in northern Iraq and Cyprus. These days, as always, daunting domestic issues are bedeviling Turkey's progress. Increasingly polarized views about the leadership of the ruling Justice and Development Party (known as the AKP) have undermined the government's ability to spearhead profound political change. Meanwhile, the increasing independence of Turkey's foreign policy is reinforced by the population's nativism. A recent poll by a Turkish university showed the Turks' deep mistrust and dislike of foreigners, especially their country's closest allies, the Americans and the Europeans. Turkey has problems with the EU, too, partly because of the distance between the EU'S and Turkey's conceptions of liberal democracy. Without a successful reform effort, Turkey will continue to be just an aspirant to grandeur."
Morton Abramowitz is a Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation and was U.S. Ambassador to Turkey in 1989-91. Henry J. Barney is a nonresident Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Professor of International Relations at Lehigh University. Fulltext A45/05-09
|
