DOCUALERT
-April 2010-
INFORMATION RESOURCE
CENTER
U.S. EMBASSY
MADRID
|
|
DOCUALERT is a
monthly information service highlighting documents from government agencies and
think tanks and articles from leading U.S. journals. The materials cover
international relations, U.S. foreign and domestic policies and trends. Full
text of some of these articles can be ordered from parejamx@state.gov
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND U.S.
FOREIGN POLICY
REPORTS
Key Facts about the National Security
Summit. The White House.
April 13, 2010.
Work Plan of the Washington Nuclear Security Summit. The White House. April 13, 2010.
Nuclear Posture Review Report. U.S. Department of Defense. April 2010.
Digest of United States Practice in International Law 2008. Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State. March
29, 2010.
Jones, Bruce.
Making Multilateralism
Work: How the G-20 Can Help the United Nations.
The Stanley Foundation. April 2010.
Wehrey, Frederic, et. al. The Iraq Effect: The Middle East After the Iraq War.
The Rand Corporation. March 25, 2010.
U.S. Policy Towards the
Islamic Republic of Iran. Testimony of Ambassador
William J. Burns before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate.
April 14, 2010.
U.S.-Iranian
Relations: An Analytic Compendium of U.S. Policies, Laws, and Regulations. The Atlantic Council. Web posted on March 9, 2010.
Maloney, Suzanne. The Economics of Influencing Iran. The Brookings Institution. March
22, 2010.
Al-Anani, Khalil. The Myth of
Excluding Moderate Islamists in the Arab World. Saban Center for Middle East Policy, The Brookings Institution. March 2010.
Kimmage, Daniel. Al-Qaeda Central and the Internet. New America Foundation.
March 16, 2010.
McNamara,
Sally. EU Foreign Policymaking Post-Lisbon: Confused and Contrived. The Heritage Foundation. March 16, 2010.
Witkowsky, Anne; Garnett, Sherman; McCausland, Jeff. Salvaging
the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty Regime: Options for Washington.
The Brookings Institution. March 2010.
Slocombe,
Walter B.; Heuser, Annette. NATO's
Nuclear Policy in 2010: Issues and Options. The
Atlantic Council. March 2010.
Graff, Corinne. Poverty, Development
and Violent Extremism in Weak States. The Brookings Institution. March 2010.
Nichol, Jim. Central Asia’s
Security: Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests. Congressional
Research Service, Library of Congress. March 11, 2010.
Houser, Trevor. Copenhagen,
The Accord and the Way Forward. Peterson Institute for International Economics. March
2010.
O’Rourke,
Ronald. Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for
Congress. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
March 30, 2010.
ARTICLES
Mankoff, Jeffrey. Reforming the Euro-Atlantic Security Architecture. The Washington Quarterly.
April 2010.
Nunn, Sam. NATO Nuclear Policy and Euro-Atlantic Security. Survival. April 2010.
Cirincione, Joseph. Taking the Field: Obama's Nuclear Reforms. Survival. April 2010.
Kupchan, Charles
A. Enemies Into Friends. Foreign Affairs. March/April 2010.
Ceasari, Jocelyne. A Cultural Conundrum: The Integration of Islamic Law in
Europe. Harvard International Review. Winter 2010.
El-Khawas,
Mohamed A. Obama and the Middle East Peace
Process: Challenge and Response. Mediterranean
Quarterly. Winter 2010.
Thier, J. Alexander. Afghanistan’s Rocky Path to Peace. Current History. April 2010.
Ryan, Missy. Imagining Iraq,
Defining Its Future. World Policy Journal. Spring 2010.
Pollack, Kenneth M.; Sargsyan,
Irena L. The Other Side of
the COIN: Perils of Premature Evacuation from Iraq. The Washington Quarterly.
April 2010.
Cox, Daniel G. The Struggle Against Global Insurgency. Joint Force Quarterly. 1st Quarter 2010.
Hamid,
Shadi; Brooke, Steven. Promoting Democracy to Stop Terror, Revisited. Policy Review. February/March 2010.
Jacobson, Michael. Terrorist Financing and the
Internet. Studies
in Conflict and Terrorism. April 2010.
Gregg, Heather. Fighting the Jihad of the Pen: Countering Revolutionary Islam's
Ideology. Terrorism
and Political Violence. April 2010.
Horgan,
John; Braddock, Kurt. Rehabilitating the Terrorists?: Challenges in Assessing the Effectiveness of
De-radicalization Programs. Terrorism and
Political Violence. April 2010.
Simon, Joel. Repression
Goes Digital. Columbia Journalism Review.
March/April 2010.
U.S. DOMESTIC POLICY AND TRENDS
REPORTS
Foreign-Born
Workers: Labor Force Characteristics - 2009. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. March
19, 2010.
Singer, Audrey; Mollenkopf,
John. Immigration,
Incorporation and the Prospects for Reform. The Brookings Institution. March 24, 2010.
Who's Winning the
Clean Energy Race?: Growth, Competition and
Opportunity in the World's Largest Economies. Pew Charitable Trusts. March 24, 2010.
Winning
the Race: How America Can Lead the Global Clean Energy Economy. Apollo
Alliance; Good Jobs First. March 2010.
Wolverson, Roya. Backgrounder - U.S.
Multinationals and Tax Reform. Council on Foreign Relations.
March 31, 2010.
Schacht, Wendy H. Industrial
Competitiveness and Technological Advancement: Debate Over
Government Policy. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
February 23, 2010.
Darmody, Brian. The Power of Innovation. Association of University Research Parks. February 25, 2010.
Acs, Gregory; Nichols,
Austin. America Insecure: Changes in the
Economic Security of American Families. The Urban
Institute. Web posted March 24, 2010.
Wial,
Howard; Friedhoff, Alec. MetroMonitor: Tracking Economic
Recession and Recovery in America’s 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas.
Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings
Institution. March 2010.
Stoll, Michael;
Raphael, Steven.
Job
Sprawl and the Suburbanization of Poverty. Metropolitan
Policy Program, The Brookings Institution. March
30, 2010.
Edwards, Kathryn Anne; Hertel-Fernandez,
Alexander.
The Kids Aren't Alright: A Labor Market Analysis of Young
Workers. Economic Policy Institute. April 7,
2010.
America's
Tomorrow: A Profile of Latino Youth. National Council of La Raza. March 2010.
Hoffman,
Linda. Maximizing the Potential of
Older Adults: Benefits to State Economies and Individual Well-Being. National Governors Association.
April 1, 2010.
Schaeffer, Adam. They Spend WHAT?: The Real Cost
of Public Schools. The Cato Institute. March
10, 2010.
Guernsey, Lisa; Mead, Sara. A Next Social Contract for the
Primary Years of Education. New America Foundation. March 31, 2010.
Boris, Elizabeth T.; Roeger,
Katie L. Grassroots Civil Society:
The Scope and Dimensions of Small Public Charities. The Urban Institute. February 2010.
State of the News Media 2010: An Annual
Report on American Journalism. Pew Project for
Excellence in Journalism. March 15, 2010.
Rainie, Lee; Anderson, Janna. The Impact of the Internet on
Institutions in the Future. The Pew
Research Center's Internet & American Life Project; Elon
University’s Imagining the Internet Center. March 31,
2010.
Nelson, Rick
“Ozzie”; Bodurian, Ben. A Growing Terrorist Threat?: Assessing "Homegrown" Extremism in the United
States. Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). March 2010.
ARTICLES
Friel, Brian, et.al. Who Won? How 25 Players
Fared In The Health Debate. National
Journal. March 27, 2010.
Miller, Gregory D. The Security Costs of Energy Independence. The Washington Quarterly. April 2010.
Martinez, Andres. The Next American Century. Time. March 22, 2010.
Cook, Charles E., Jr. Preparing for the Worst: Democrats’ Fears of the 2010 Midterm
Elections. The Washington Quarterly.
April 2010.
Sabato, Larry J. Governorships 2010: The Changing of the Guard. Sabato's
Crystal Ball. March 18, 2010.
Katel, Peter. Tea Party Movement: Will Angry Conservative Reshape The
Republican Party. The CQ Researcher, March 19, 2010.
Munro, Neil. IT Industry, Hispanics Team Up On Immigration. National
Journal.
April 10,
2010.
Nelson, Arthur C. The New Urbanity: The Rise of
a New America. The Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science. November 2009.
Sassen, Saskia. Cities Today: A
New Frontier for Major Developments. The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science. November 2009.
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND U.S.
FOREIGN POLICY
REPORTS
Key Facts about
the National Security Summit
The White House. April 13, 2010.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/key-facts-about-national-security-summit
"In
April 2009, in Prague, President Obama spoke of his vision of a world without
nuclear weapons even as he recognized the need to create the conditions to
bring about such a world. To that end, he put forward a comprehensive agenda to
stop the spread of nuclear weapons, reduce nuclear arsenals, and secure nuclear
materials. In April 2010, the United States took three bold steps in the
direction of creating those conditions with the release of a Nuclear Posture
Review that reduces our dependence on nuclear weapons while strengthening the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and maintaining a strong deterrent; signing a
New START treaty with Russia that limits the number of strategic arms on both
sides, and renews U.S.-Russian leadership on nuclear issues; and now has
convened a gathering of world leaders to Washington to discuss the need to
secure nuclear materials and prevent acts of nuclear terrorism and
trafficking."
Work Plan of the
Washington Nuclear Security Summit
The White House. April 13, 2010.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/work-plan-washington-nuclear-security-summit
"This
Work Plan supports the Communiqué
of the Washington Nuclear Security Summit. It constitutes a political
commitment by the Participating States to carry out, on a voluntary basis,
applicable portions of this Work Plan, consistent with respective national laws
and international obligations, in all aspects of the storage, use,
transportation and disposal of nuclear materials and in preventing non-state
actors from obtaining the information required to use such material for
malicious purposes."
Nuclear Posture Review Report
U.S.
Department of Defense. April 2010 [PDF format, 72 pages]
http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf
“The 2010 Nuclear Posture
Review (NPR) outlines the Administration’s approach to promoting the
President’s agenda for reducing nuclear dangers and pursuing the goal of a
world without nuclear weapons, while simultaneously advancing broader U.S.
security interests. The NPR reflects the President’s national security
priorities and the supporting defense strategy objectives identified in the
2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. After describing
fundamental changes in the international security environment, the NPR report
focuses on five key objectives of our nuclear weapons policies and posture:
1. Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear
terrorism; 2. Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear
weapons in U.S. national security strategy; 3.
Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force levels;
4. Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring
U.S. allies and partners; and 5. Sustaining a
safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal. While
the NPR focused principally on steps to be taken in the next five to ten years,
it also considered the path ahead for U.S. nuclear strategy and posture over
the longer term. Making sustained progress to reduce nuclear dangers, while
ensuring security for ourselves and our allies and partners,
will require a concerted effort by a long succession of U.S. Administrations
and Congresses.”
Digest
of United States Practice in International Law 2008
Office
of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State. March 29, 2010.
http://www.state.gov/s/l/2008/index.htm
The
Office of the Legal Adviser releases this publication to provide the public
with a historical record of the views and practice of the Government of the
United States in public and private international law. The Digest is published
under a co-publishing agreement between the International Law Institute and
Oxford University Press. “This volume provides a historical record of developments
occurring during the period when my predecessor, John B. Bellinger,
III, served as Legal Adviser. For the first time, this edition is fully
available not just in print, but also on the State Department’s website;
earlier volumes are being posted on that site as well. By posting the Digest
on-line, we seek to ensure that U.S. views of international law are readily
accessible to our counterparts in other governments and international
organizations, judges, practitioners, legal scholars, students, and other
users, both within the United States and around the world. Significant legal
developments occurred throughout 2008, including ones relating to international
terrorism and piracy, conflict resolution, nonproliferation of nuclear weapons,
and international human rights and humanitarian law.”
Making Multilateralism Work: How the G-20 Can
Help the United Nations
Jones, Bruce. The Stanley Foundation. April 2010 [PDF format, 12
pages]
http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/publications/pab/Jones_PAB_410.pdf
“The
moves in 2008-09, prompted by the global financial crisis, to convene the G-20
at the level of heads of state constituted the first major adaptation of global
arrangements to better fit with the fact of the emerging powers. Clearly it
will not be the last. G-20 negotiations have already given a critical impetus
to governance reforms at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and The World
Bank. Criticisms of the G-20 from within the UN focus on its illegitimacy
(defined in UN-centric terms) and its potential usurpation of functions
formally tasked to UN bodies by the Charter. The fundamental problem with the
nascent rivalry between the G-bodies and the UN bodies is an underlying
misconception of their comparative advantages and of the potential relationship
between them. Rather than viewing the G-20 as a threatened usurper of the
United Nations, this paper takes a different starting point. It regards the
universality of the United Nations, apart from certain operational weaknesses,
as an enduring political strength of the organization. It also assumes that the
G-20 (like the G-8 before it) will have minimal operational or actionable roles
and will depend on the formal institutions to implement most, if not all, of
its major initiatives. Given their nature, then, there is a necessary
relationship between the G-20 and similar bodies and formal, inclusive
institutions. An important factor for the G-20/UN relationship, in particular,
is the struggle to maintain UN legitimacy and effectiveness, given the world body’s recent overstretch and underperformance, as well as
stalled reforms. A better way to think about the relationship between the two
entities is to ask if the G-20 helps the United Nations perform and reform.” Dr.
Bruce Jones is Director and Senior Fellow of the New York University Center on
International Cooperation and Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution, where
he directs the Managing Global Insecurity project.
The
Iraq Effect: The Middle East After the Iraq War
Wehrey, Frederic, et. al. The Rand Corporation.
March 25, 2010 [PDF format, 217 pages]
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG892.pdf
“The conflict in Iraq has
reverberated across the Middle East, affecting the balance of power between
neighboring states, their internal political dynamics, how their publics view American credibility, and the strategies and
tactics of al-Qa'ida. No matter how the internal
situation in Iraq evolves, its effects on the broader region will be felt for
decades, presenting new challenges and opportunities for U.S. policy. A better
understanding of how regional states and nonstate
actors have responded to the Iraq conflict will better prepare the United
States to manage the war's long-term consequences. To that end, the authors
conducted extensive fieldwork in the region and canvassed local media sources to
inform their analysis. Among their key findings: The war has facilitated the
rise of Iranian power in the region, but Iran faces more limits than is
commonly acknowledged; the war has eroded local confidence in U.S. credibility
and created new opportunities for Chinese and Russian involvement; the war has
entrenched and strengthened neighboring Arab regimes while diminishing the
momentum for political reform; and the war has eroded al-Qa'ida's
standing in the region, but the network and its affiliates are adapting with
new tactics and strategies.” Frederic Wehrey is a senior
policy analyst with RAND Corporation.
U.S.
policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran
Testimony of Ambassador William J. Burns before the
Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate. April 14, 2010
[PDF format, 6 pages]
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/04%20April/Burns%2004-14-10.pdf
Ambassador
William J. Burns, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, U.S.
Department of State, testified on the U.S. policy towards Iran. “Iran represents a paramount priority for United States
foreign policy. President Obama has been clear that Iran must not develop
nuclear weapons. He has sought to strengthen our diplomatic options for dealing
with the challenges posed by Iran, and offered Tehran a pathway toward
resolving the concerns of the international community. From his earliest days
in office, the President has made clear that the United States is prepared to
deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran on the basis of mutual interest and
mutual respect. As part of this principled engagement, the United States has
been a formal party to the P5+1 talks with Iran since April 2009. We have
recognized Iran’s right under the NPT to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
With our partners in the international community, we have demonstrated our
willingness to negotiate a diplomatic resolution to the deep differences
between us. We embarked upon this effort to engage with the Islamic Republic
with no illusions about our prospective interlocutors or the scope of our
30-year estrangement.”
U.S.-IRANIAN
RELATIONS: AN ANALYTIC COMPENDIUM OF U.S. POLICIES, LAWS, AND REGULATIONS
The Atlantic Council. Web posted on
March 9, 2010 [PDF format, 166 pages]
http://www.acus.org/files/publication_pdfs/65/US-IranRelations.pdf
This Compendium contains the text of major
regulations, laws, and other documents governing U.S. interactions with Iran.
Also provided are the text of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, agreements
between Iran and several other countries on various issues, and other documents
that represent major policy decisions in U.S. relations with Iran. “Adversarial
relationships, such as those between the United States and Iran, are always
subject to sudden change. In cases where this has occurred, adjusting to that change
has always been more complicated than anticipated. In the case of the United
States and Iran, we must factor in the additional complication of three decades
of estrangement that began with the November 4, 1979 seizure of the U.S.
Embassy in Tehran, and a subsequent break in official relations that continues
today. Increasingly frequent official contact concerning Iran’s nuclear program
and its influence in Iraq and Afghanistan only increases the urgency of
considering the implications of a changed relationship. Although the timing and
conditio ns of a tipping point toward better
U.S.-Iran relations cannot be fore seen, and although
a worsening of those relations is also possible, it is nevertheless useful to
think about how we would proceed in a more positive direction.”
THE ECONOMICS OF
INFLUENCING IRAN
Maloney, Suzanne. The
Brookings Institution. March 22, 2010 [PDF format, 8 pages]
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/03_economic_pressure_iran_maloney/201003_economic_pressure_iran_maloney.pdf
“Influencing the Islamic
Republic of Iran has proven to be a perennial conundrum for American presidents.
The complexity of Iranian politics and the intractability of the problems posed
by Tehran’s revolutionary theocracy may explain why, over the course of three
decades, each U.S. administration has been forced to revise its initial approach to Iran in hopes of achieving better
outcomes. The overall result has been an
American tendency to oscillate between engagement and
pressure, with frustratingly limited results. In the wake of a year of
fruitless efforts to engage the Islamic Republic of Iran, sanctions have
emerged as the new centerpiece of the Obama administration’s
approach to dealing with Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. While sanctions
have had an uninspiring track record, recent events have caused many to
reexamine the possibility that this time they may prove effective. Iran’s
domestic turbulence has changed the context, raising hopes that new
international measures can impact the regime’s nuclear calculus as well as
bolster Iran’s nascent opposition movement. In addition, Iran’s internal upheaval
and American diplomacy have also helped to create new traction within the
international community for tough penalties on Te hran.
However, despite what many see as an auspicious environment for sanctions, the
diplomatic landscape will remain challenging and achieving broad multilateral
implementation of strenuous measures is unlikely. Moreover, Tehran’s engrained
aversion to compromise suggests that even tough new economic restrictions are
unlikely to resolve or reverse its most problematic policies.” Suzanne Maloney is a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy and
formerly served on the policy-planning staff of the State Department.
The Myth of Excluding Moderate
Islamists in the Arab World
Al-Anani, Khalil. Saban Center for Middle East Policy, The
Brookings Institution. March 2010 [PDF format, 28
pages]
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2010/03_moderate_islamists_alahani/201003_moderate_islamists_alanani.pdf
“The
map of Islamist movements in the Arab world has changed over the course of the
past three decades. There are wide gaps between those movements that use
violence, look to change political regimes by force, and seek confrontation
with the West, such as al-Qa’ida, and those movements
that seek to practice politics peacefully, have respect for the sovereignty of
the state, and are willing to work with the reigning political regimes. These
latter, moderate groups share a belief in coexistence with the West. Since the
September 11, 2001 attacks, American confusion over moderate Islamist groups
has caused U.S. policymakers to accuse them of bearing at least some
responsibility for the existence of extremist movements in the Middle East.
Moreover, because official American discourse conflates moderates and radicals,
and sees even moderates as serious threats to U.S. strategic interests in the
region, the United States has accepted or ignored Arab regimes’ repression of
Islamist movements. The danger is that the exclusion of moderate groups from
the political arena may cause them, and their constituents, to radicalize. The
current situation in the Arab world presents the following dilemmas: Can Arab
regimes, with the backing of the United States, successfully exclude moderate
Islamists from the political scene? What are the risks of doing so? What are
the effects of exclusion on the interests and image of the United States in the
region? Given these questions, how then should the United States deal with
moderate Islamists? This paper analyzes the dangers posed by excluding all
moderate Islamists from the political arena, and recommends measures by which
the United States can engage moderate Islamist parties in order to advance both
its democratic principles and national security int erests.” Hhalil al-Anani is a Senior Fellow at the Al Ahram
Foundation, based in Cairo. In 2008, al-Anani served
as Todd G. Patkin Visiting Fellow in Arab Democracy
and Development at the Saban Center for Middle East
Policy at the Brookings Institution.
AL-QAEDA CENTRAL
AND THE INTERNET
Kimmage, Daniel. New America Foundation. March 16, 2010 [Note: contains
copyrighted material] [PDF format, 19 pages]
http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/kimmage2.pdf
“Today, al-Qaeda—the media phenomenon and
the organization—faces grave challenges. The media landscape has changed, and
the medium that Osama bin Laden and his most active supporters exploited so
brilliantly to spread their message—the Internet—has evolved in ways that make
it harder for al-Qaeda to dominate. Al-Qaeda faces a triple communications
challenge: staying prominent in an ever more competitive online environment,
explaining how its current entanglement in the Afghanistan-Pakistan nexus makes
sense in the global jihadist narrative, and trying to change increasingly
negative views of suicide bombing and al-Qaeda itself in the Arab-Muslim
world.” Daniel Kimmage is an independent
consultant and a senior fellow at the Homeland Security Policy Institute at The George Washington University.
EU
Foreign Policymaking Post-Lisbon: Confused and Contrived
McNamara,
Sally. The Heritage Foundation. March 16, 2010.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/EU-Foreign-Policymaking-Post-Lisbon-Confused-and-Contrived
“The European Union finally succeeded in
ramming through introduction of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009. The treaty
was touted by the powers in Brussels as the vehicle that would create the
long-awaited "single phone line" to Europe. Lisbon was to streamline
the gargantuan EU bureaucracy and make communication between the two sides of
the Atlantic smooth and tidy. Instead, the mess is worse than before, with five
EU "presidents" tripping over each other and confusing Washington
with ill-defined, overlapping, and flat-out confusing roles and foreign policy
objectives. The Lisbon Treaty essentially allows the EU a foreign policy
power-grab, the driving force of which is the notion that the countries of
Europe will be stronger collectively than they
are separately. But sovereignty cannot be traded for influence, and the EU's
attempts to do so could threaten the security of Europe-- and of the United
States.” Sally McNamara is Senior Policy Analyst in European Affairs in the
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The
Heritage Foundation.
Salvaging the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty
Regime: Options for Washington
Witkowsky, Anne; Garnett, Sherman; McCausland, Jeff. The Brookings Institution. March 2010 [PDF format, 36 pages]
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2010/03_armed_forces_europe_treaty/03_armed_forces_europe_treaty.pdf
“When the Obama administration took office
in 2009, it made clear its view that arms control offers a useful tool for
advancing U.S. national security interests. In relatively short order, the
President and his administration stated their interest in reducing the number
and role of nuclear weapons; launched negotiations to conclude a successor to
the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START); announced a nuclear security
summit in Washington; and expressed their desire to secure ratification of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. As the administration has entered its second
year, it has begun considering other arms control challenges as well. One is
the question of conventional forces in Europe. To signal its importance, in
early February, Secretary Clinton announced the appointment of Ambassador
Victoria Nuland as Special Envoy for Conventional
Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). The CFE Treaty, signed in 1990, stabilized
military relations between NATO and the Warsaw Pact and resulted in the
destruction of tens of thousands of pieces of military equipment. Subsequently,
however, the end of the Warsaw Pact, collapse of the Soviet Union, and NATO
enlargement dramatically altered the European security landscape. This paper examines a set of issues crucial for understanding if and how
the treaty matters, possible U.S. options to address the current dilemma, and
the likely consequences if the treaty should fail to survive the current
challenges. Any debate over the CFE Treaty must
recognize the broader European security context. Policymakers should not set
out to save this treaty simply for the sake of preserving arms control in
Europe, as arms control can never be an "end" in itself. Arms control
grows out of a security context and helps to address the core dilemmas of that context
through negotiated constraints upon the treaty parties.
Anne Witkowsky is Deputy Coordinator for Homeland Security and
Multilateral Affairs, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, U.S.
Department of State. Dr. Sherman Garnett is
Dean of the James Madison College at Michigan State University. Dr. Jeff McCausland is a Visiting Professor of
International Law and Diplomacy at the Penn State Dickinson School of Law and
School of International Affairs.”
NATO’S NUCLEAR
POLICY IN 2010: ISSUES AND OPTIONS
Slocombe,
Walter B; Heuser, Annette. The
Atlantic Council. March 2010 [Note: contains copyrighted material] [PDF
format, 6 pages]
http://www.acus.org/files/publication_pdfs/403/NATONuclearPolicy_SAGIssueBrief.pdf
“A critical question for the new Strategic
Concept is whether NATO’s nuclear policy as outlined in 1999 needs to be
altered and, if so, how. This issue brief outlines the questions that will need
to be addressed and offers recommendations for addressing nuclear policy in the
new Strategic Concept. Internal divisions within the Alliance will complicate
decision-making on nuclear issues. The United States and the United Kingdom,
the two states with nuclear weapons officially available to the Alliance, have
adopted a policy of combining “Global Zero” as a long-term goal, progress in
arms control and a diminished role for nuclear weapons, with maintaining a
strong strategic nuclear deterrent in the inte rim.
France, the other NATO nuclear state, remains committed to the independence of
its deterrent. Several NATO allies, including Germany, seek to distance
themselves from nuclear weapons by, among other measures, ending the current
nuclear sharing arrangements.” Walter Slocombe is
Secretary of the Atlantic Council Board. He served as Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy during the Clinton administration. Annette
Heuser is Executive Director of the Bertelsmann
Foundation in Washington, DC. Both authors serve on the Atlantic Council
Strategic Advisors Group.
Poverty, Development and Violent
Extremism in Weak States
Graff, Corinne.
The Brookings Institution. March 2010 [PDF format, 52
pages]
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2010/03_confronting_poverty_graff/2010_confronting_poverty.pdf
The
following is an excerpt from Chapter 3 of Confronting Poverty: Weak States and U.S. National Security (Brookings Institution Press, 2010), edited by Susan E.
Rice, Corinne Graff and Carlos Pascual. “This chapter focuses on the vulnerabilities of
weak states to extremism as a first step toward formulating more adequate,
long-term strategies against violent extremism in the developing world. The
United States must take the lead in making effective capacity building and
poverty alleviation in weak states a priority. This has not been the case to
date, except in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather,
U.S. global counterterrorism strategy aims primarily at intercepting individual
terrorists, at the expense of long-term gains in the wider fight against
violent extremism… The consensus appears to be that
poverty does not motivate individuals to participate in terrorism, and that
development assistance, therefore, has no place in a long-term
counter-terrorism strategy. On the contrary,
policymakers would be well advised to pay far greater attention to development’s
role in a long-term U.S. strategy against terrorism.”
Corinne
Graff is a fellow at the Global and Development Program at the Brookings
Institution.
She is now co-directing a project that explores the
implications of global poverty and weak states for U.S. national security.
Central Asia’s Security: Issues and Implications for
U.S. Interests
Nichol, Jim. Congressional Research
Service, Library of Congress. March 11, 2010 [PDF format, 70 pages]
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/139241.pdf
“This report discusses the internal and
external security concerns of the Central Asian states. Security concerns faced
by the states include mixes of social disorder, crime, corruption, terrorism,
ethnic and civil conflict, border tensions, water and transport disputes, the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and trafficking in illegal
narcotics and persons. The Central Asian states have tried with varying success
to bolster their security forces and regional cooperation to deal with these
threats. The United States has provided assistance for these efforts and
boosted such aid and involvement after the terrorist attacks on the United
States on September 11, 2001, but questions remain about what should be the
appropriate level and scope of U.S. interest and presence in the region. Most
in Congress have supported U.S. assistance to bolster independence and reforms
in Central Asia. The 106th Congress authorized a “Silk Road” initiative for
greater policy attention and aid for democratization, market reforms,
humanitarian needs, conflict resolution, transport infrastructure (including
energy pipelines), and border controls. The 108th and subsequent Congresses
have imposed conditions on foreign assistance to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan,
based on their human rights records. Congress has continued to debate the
balance between U.S. security interests in the region and interests in
democratization and the protection of human rights.” Jim Nichol is an Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the CRS.
COPENHAGEN, THE
ACCORD AND THE WAY FORWARD
Houser, Trevor. Peterson
Institute for International Economics. March 2010 [PDF format, 17 pages]
http://www.piie.com/publications/pb/pb10-05.pdf
“Now that the dust has settled
from the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen last December and countries
have chosen whether or not to sign up to the Copenhagen Accord that resulted,
it’s a good time to step back and take stock. Policymakers and the public had
high expectations for the summit. Since the international community embarked on
a new round of climate change negotiations in Bali in 2007, elections in the
United States, Australia, and Japan raised developed countries’ climate change
ambitions. Key emerging economies—including China, India, and Brazil—announced
their first ever nationwide climate change targets. Leaders from developed and
developing alike spoke of the importance of international cooperation in
addressing climate change and called for international action in Copenhagen. This policy brief
assesses the two-week Copenhagen conference, evaluates the Copenhagen Accord,
and discusses key issues the international community will face moving forward.
I argue that despite the chaos in Copenhagen, the accord is a significant step
forward in addressing global climate change. And that because
of the chaos in Copenhagen, the international community has a unique
opportunity to go back to first principles and craft a more suitable and
sustainable long-term approach to this challenge.”
Trevor Houser, visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for
International Economics, is partner at the Rhodium Group (RHG) and director of
its Energy and Climate Practice. He is also an adjunct lecturer at the
City College of New York.
CHANGES IN THE ARCTIC: BACKGROUND AND
ISSUES FOR CONGRESS
O’Rourke,
Ronald. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. March 30, 2010
[PDF format, 65 pages]
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41153.pdf
“The diminishment
of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has
heightened concerns about the region’s future. Issues such as Arctic
sovereignty claims; commercial shipping through the Arctic; Arctic oil, gas,
and mineral exploration; endangered Arctic species; and increased military
operations in the Arctic could cause the region in coming years to become an
arena of international cooperation, competition, or conflict. The United
States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial political,
economic, energy, environmental, and other interests in the region. Decisions
that Congress, the executive branch, foreign governments, international
organizations, and commercial firms make on Arctic-related issues could
significantly affect these interests. This report provides an overview of
Arctic-related issues for Congress, and refers readers to more in-depth CRS
reports on specific Arctic-related issues.” Ronald O'Rourke, Coordinator,
Specialist in Naval Affairs at the Congressional Research Service.
ARTICLES
Reforming the Euro-Atlantic Security
Architecture
Mankoff, Jeffrey. The
Washington Quarterly. April 2010, pp.65-83.
http://www.thewashingtonquarterly.com/10april/docs/10apr_Mankoff.pdf
“For the past year and a half, President
Dmitry Medvedev of Russia has been pressing the
United States and its European allies to open negotiations on a treaty
establishing a new Euro-Atlantic security
architecture. After enunciating a series of broad aims in mid-2008, the Russian
leadership did not initially provide much detail about its idea for a new
security agreement. Although Moscow finally released a draft treaty proposal in
late November 2009, the Russian draft did little to allay these concerns.
Russia’s continued intervention in affairs of its neighbors, manipulation of
energy supplies, and failure to abide by existing agreements have all made
Washington and its allies wary of Moscow’s proposal. Nonetheless, the underlying
concept of a new security framework encompassing the United States, EU, and
Russia is an attractive one, insofar as it offers hope of ameliorating Russia’s
post—Cold War estrangement from the West, while reducing the likelihood of
conflict across the unstable post-Soviet space between the borders of the EU
and Russia. The basic logic underlying the Russian proposal for a new security architecture is sound, even if many of the
specific suggestions Moscow has put forward remain disappointing. In part
because of the inadequacy of existing European institutions, such as NATO and
the EU as vehicles for integrating Russia, a new Euro-Atlantic framework could
help address these fundamental sources of insecurity and develop a way to
engage common security threats with Moscow, rather than relying on the distant
and retreating vision of assimilating Russia into Western values and
institutions. As long as it does not disrupt existing institutions, such a
limited security pact would be in the interest of the United States and the EU,
as well as Russia.” Jeffrey Mankoff is the
associate director of International Security Studies at Yale University and
adjunct fellow for Russia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
NATO
Nuclear Policy and Euro-Atlantic Security
Nunn, Sam. Survival. April 2010,
pp.13-18.
“The revision of NATO's Strategic Concept
in 2010 is an historic opportunity. Twenty years after the end of the Cold War,
NATO governments and publics will expect, if not demand, that the Alliance
re-evaluate longstanding US and NATO nuclear declaratory policy, US tactical
nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, and the role of nuclear weapons in NATO
security. For many years, I have made the case that reducing the dangers posed
by nuclear weapons is the most important issue in national security and foreign
policy today. But progress on these issues cannot take place in the absence of
progress on a much broader agenda, and that front includes NATO policies writ
large, our relationship with Russia, and tangible cooperation among nations to
reduce and ultimately eliminate nuclear threats.” Sam Nunn is a former US
Senator and is Co-Chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative.
Taking
the Field: Obama's Nuclear Reforms
Cirincione, Joseph. Survival. April 2010, pp. 117 - 128.
“US President Barack Obama's
nuclear-security agenda is in trouble. It is behind schedule, under-staffed,
under attack and battered by some less-than-cooperative international partners.
Critics of the administration have dominated the domestic public debate. But
after a year of analysis, discussion and speeches, the Obama administration has
reached internal consensus, lined up its nuclear initiatives, and begun organising its congressional supporters. The Obama team is
finally ready to take the field. The new strategy will roll out in a tight
sequence of reports, events, hearings and votes over the first half of 2010.
The overall goal is to transition US nuclear policy from one still based on a
Cold War strategy of massive arsenals to one suited to prevent, deter and
defeat the more discrete threats of the twenty-first century.” Joseph Cirincione is the President of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation concentrating on nuclear
weapons issues, and author of Bomb Scare: The History and Future of
Nuclear Weapons (Columbia University Press, 2007). He
also teaches at Georgetown
University's School of Foreign Service.
Enemies Into Friends
Kupchan, Charles
A. Foreign Affairs. March/April 2010.
“In his
inaugural address, US Pres Barack Obama informed those regimes "on the
wrong side of history" that the US will extend a hand if you are willing
to unclench your fist. He soon backed up his words with deeds, making
engagement with US adversaries one of the new administration's priorities.
During his first year in office, Obama pursued direct negotiations with Iran
and North Korea over their nuclear programs. Over a year into Obama's
presidency, the jury is still out on whether this strategy of engagement is
bearing fruit. Policymakers and scholars are divided over the merits and the
risks of Obama's outreach to adversaries and over how best to increase the
likelihood that his overtures will be reciprocated. If tentative engagement
with US adversaries is to grow into lasting rapprochement, Obama will need to
secure from them not just concessions on isolated issues but also their
willingness to pursue sustained cooperation.” Charles A. Kupchan
is Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and a Senior
Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. This essay is adapted from his book
How Enemies Become Friends: The Sources of Stable
Peace (Princeton University Press, 2010).
A Cultural Conundrum: The Integration of Islamic Law in Europe
Ceasari, Jocelyne. Harvard
International Review. Winter 2010, pp.12-15.
"In
the aftermath of 9/11 and the subsequent terrorist attacks in the West, the
Muslims in Europe have become the center of media spotlight and the
contemporary debate concerning the compatibility of Islamic social and
political values with European secular and democratic norms. Consider, for
example, the case of shari'a law, which is
conventionally conceived as the antithesis of European notions of secularism,
liberty, and human rights. This paper aims to challenge the above-mentioned
predominant view by suggesting that the perceptions of the shari'a
law and the debate concerning its application rest on a profound
misunderstanding of its meaning, its complex historical evolution, and its role
and significance among contemporary Muslim communities in Europe. On the basis
of research conducted among Muslims in Europe and published in Muslims in the
West After 9/11: Religion, Law and Politics in 2010, this paper purports to
show that Islamic law is already taken into account in most European legal
systems. Major
areas of conflict between Islam and secularism in the West are within civil law
and political culture, rather than civil or constitutional law. The hijab controversy, the Rushdie affair, and the Danish
cartoon crisis demonstrate tensions surrounding multiculturalism and religion's
status in European public spaces. Religious expression in Europe is seen as a
cause of public and civic perturbations, requiring regulation and control
rather than preservation or encouragement.” Jocelyne Cesari directs the Islam in the West Program at
Harvard University, where she is an Associate at the Center for Middle Eastern
Studies and Center for European Studies
Obama
and the Middle East Peace Process: Challenge and Response
El-Khawas, Mohamed A. Mediterranean Quarterly. Winter 2010, pp.
25-44.
In this essay El-Khawas
examines the steps taken by the new administration to resolve the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to get all concerned parties to go along.
According to the author, the search for a solution requires dealing with many
players with conflicting interests and contradictory agendas. “The essay is
divided into five parts, dealing with challenges that stand in the way of
getting the parties to the table. The first discusses Obama’s advocacy of a
two-state solution and examines the difficulties that Mitchell encountered in
getting the parties to resume talks. The second analyzes the White House
meeting between Netanyahu and Obama to determine whether it helped advance the
peace process. The third focuses on Mitchell’s effort
to get the Israelis to agree to a settlement freeze in the occupied
territories, which ran into serious problems because the majority of the
governing coalition is pro-settlement. Netanyahu is still trying to find
compromise to avoid upsetting the Americans but, at the same time, needs to
keep his governing coalition intact. The fourth focuses on Obama’s direct
intervention and whether his tripartite meeting in New York succeeded in moving
the process forward. Last, the essay evaluates whether any progress has been
made and highlights the challenges ahead.” Mohamed A. El-Khawas
is professor of history and political science at the University of the District
of Columbia. He has written and edited numerous publications on Africa and the
Middle East.
Afghanistan’s
Rocky Path to Peace
Thier, J. Alexander. Current History. April 2010, pp. 131-137.
"For the first time since 2001, when
the US-led intervention in Afghanistan began, a serious prospect exists for
political dialogue among the various combatants, aimed at the cessation of
armed conflict. Over the past few months, and highlighted by a conference on
Afghanistan held in London on January 28, 2010, signs have emerged of a
concerted and comprehensive effort to engage elements of the insurgency in
negotiations, reconciliation, and reintegration... Eight and a half years after
the invasion, amid rising insecurity across Afghanistan and with a continuously
expanding international troop presence in the country, the prospect of a
negotiated settlement with some or all elements of the insurgency is enticing.
However, a successful path toward sustainable peace in Afghanistan remains far
from obvious. Fundamental questions persist about the willingness and
capability of key actors, inside and outside Afghanistan, to reach agreements
and uphold them.” J Alexander Thier
is the director for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the US Institute of Peace.
He is the editor and coauthor of The Future of Afghanistan (USIP, 2009).
Imagining
Iraq, Defining Its Future
Ryan, Missy. World Policy Journal. Spring 2010,
pp.65-73.
“Today, the legacy
of the American adventure in Iraq is slowly coming into focus. As U.S. soldiers
prepare to withdraw after a seven-year occupation, the new Iraqi state takes
unsteady steps toward an uncertain future. At the heart of that assessment,
which will shape America’s standing across the Middle East for years to come,
is the nature and performance of the nation the United States leaves behind—its
ability to contain a still-tenacious insurgency, the success of its elections,
the brand of government it chooses, the role it allots to women and minorities.
Even after parliamentary polls in March, when voters defied insurgent attacks
to cast ballots, the dangers are many. Iraq has not yet settled major questions
about the balance of power between central and regional authorities, how a
newly empowered majority will treat minorities, and how to achieve national reconciliation.
Still, in some respects, Iraq may present a more favorable portrait than anyone
could have expected in 2006 and 2007. Indeed, it may be surprising to think
that Iraq in 2010, though far from a liberal, Jeffersonian (or even certain)
democracy, could put American allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan to
shame in terms of democratic governance.” Missy Ryan is Reuter’s Deputy
Bureau Chief in Iraq. She has been posted in the Baghdad bureau since August
2008.
The
Other Side of the COIN: Perils of Premature Evacuation from Iraq
Pollack, Kenneth
M.; Sargsyan, Irena L. The
Washington Quarterly. April
2010, pp.17-32.
http://www.thewashingtonquarterly.com/10april/docs/10apr_PollackSargsyan.pdf
"The United States is leaving Iraq.
Both the U.S. administration and the Iraqi government have made that clear. In
2008, the United States and Iraq signed a security agreement allowing U.S.
troops to stay only until the end of 2011, and in February 2009, President
Barack Obama announced that he intended to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq to just
50,000 and to end their combat mission by August 2010. But how the United
States leaves is of tremendous importance for the region, the international
community, and above all, for the future vital U.S. interests… As the endless
debates over strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan should have made clear to even
the casual observer, COIN operations are
inherently political. The goal of any COIN campaign is to win over the
proverbial hearts and minds of the populace and to convince them to back the
government and oppose insurgents. This requires providing every citizen with
basic services like electricity, food, and clean water; law and justice;
security against arbitrary reprisals; and a functional economy in which the
people are able to support themselves and their families. Of course, none of
this is possible without reasonably good governance to ensure that resources
are being properly allocated as well as procedures properly developed and
applied to ensure the security and welfare of the people.” Kenneth M.
Pollack is the director of the Saban Center for
Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Irena L. Sargsyan
is a research analyst at the Saban Center and a
doctoral candidate in the Department of Government at Georgetown University.
The
Struggle Against Global Insurgency
Cox, Daniel G. Joint Force Quarterly, 1st
Quarter 2010, pp.135-139.
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i56/22.pdf
“Since 9/11, it has become commonplace for
scholars, politicians, and military thinkers to refer to current U.S. military
and diplomatic actions as being part of a larger “war on terror.” This is an
extremely imprecise characterization of the current conflict. What the United
States and, in fact, the world are facing is more properly dubbed a global
insurgent movement that emanates from al Qaeda at the international level and
that slowly seeps into legitimate (and illegitimate) national secessionist
movements around the world. What follows is an argument in support of the claim
that al Qaeda is essentially the world’s first attempt at a global insurgency.”
Dr. Daniel G. Cox is an Associate Professor in the U.S. Army School of Advanced
Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
Promoting
Democracy to Stop Terror, Revisited
Hamid,
Shadi; Brooke, Steven. Policy
Review. February/March 2010.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/82978247.html
“U.S. Democracy Promotion in the Middle
East has suffered a series of crippling defeats. Despite occasionally paying
lip service to the idea, few politicians on either the left or right appear
committed to supporting democratic reform as a central component of American
policy in the region. But as the Obama administration struggles to renew ties with
the Muslim world, particularly in light of the June 2009 Cairo speech, it
should resist the urge to abandon its predecessor’s focus on promoting
democracy in what remains the most undemocratic region in the world. Promoting
democratic reform, this time not just with rhetoric but with action, should be
given higher priority in the current administration, even though early
indications suggest the opposite may be happening. Despite all its bad press,
democracy promotion remains, in the long run, the most effective way to
undermine terrorism and political violence in the Middle East. This is not a
very popular argument. Indeed, a key feature of the post-Bush debate over
democratization is an insistence on separating support for democracy from any
explicit national security rationale. This, however, would be a mistake with
troubling consequences for American foreign policy. The twilight of the Bush
presidency and the start of Obama’s ushered in an
expansive discussion over the place of human rights and democracy in American
foreign policy. An emerging consensus suggests that the U.S. approach must be
fundamentally reassessed and “repositioned.” Anything, after all, would be
better than the Bush administration’s disconcerting mix of revolutionary
pro-democracy rhetoric with time-honored realist policies of privileging
“stable” pro-American dictators. This only managed to wring the worst out of
both approaches. For its part, the Obama administration has made a strategic
decision to shift the focus to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
which it sees, correctly, as a major source of Arab grievance. This, in turn,
has led the administration to strengthen ties with autocratic regimes, such as
Egypt and Jordan, which it sees as critical to the peace process.” Shadi Hamid is deputy director of
the Brookings Doha Center and a fellow at the Saban
Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Steven Brooke is a
Ph.D. student in the Department of Government at the University of Texas.
Terrorist
Financing and the Internet
Jacobson, Michael. Studies
in Conflict and Terrorism. April 2010, pp.353-363.
http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/428134_731211589_919769800.pdf
“While al-Qaeda has used the Internet
primarily to spread its propaganda and to rally new recruits, the terrorist
group has also relied on the Internet for financing-related purposes. Other
Islamist terrorist groups, including Hamas, Lashkar
e-Taiba, and Hizballah have
also made extensive use of the Internet to raise and
transfer needed funds to support their activities. The Internet's appeal in
this regard for terrorist groups is readily apparent-offering a broad reach,
timely efficiency, as well as a certain degree of anonymity and security for
both donors and recipients. Unfortunately, while many governments now recognize
that the Internet is an increasingly valuable tool for terrorist organizations,
the response to this point has been inconsistent. For the U.S. and its allies
to effectively counter this dangerous trend, they will have to prioritize their
efforts in this area in the years to come.” Micahel
Jacobson is a Senior Fellow of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and
Intelligence at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Washington, DC.
FIGHTING THE JIHAD
OF THE PEN: COUNTERING REVOLUTIONARY ISLAM’S IDEOLOGY
Gregg, Heather. Terrorism
and Political Violence. April 2010, pp. 292-314.
“Al Qaeda’s ideology is not new; their
critique of the existing political and social order and vision for how to
redeem the Muslim world builds on preexisting arguments of several 20th century
predecessors who called for an Islamic revolution that would create a new order
based on Islam. The persistence of revolutionary Islam suggests that these
ideas need to be countered in order to strike at the root of the problem
driving Islamically
motivated terrorism and insurgency. U.S. efforts to defeat Al Qaeda, however,
continue to focus primarily on killing or capturing the leadership,
interdicting operations, and defensively bolstering the homeland and U.S.
assets against various types of attacks. In order to confront Al Qaeda’s
ideology, U.S. efforts should focus on indirectly fostering ‘‘a market place of
ideas’’—the space and culture of questioning and debating—in order to challenge
the grievances and solutions proposed by revolutionary Islam. The article is
divided into three sections. The first section constructs a three-part
definition of ideology—a critique on the current order, a set of beliefs for
how the world ought to be, and a course of action for realizing that better
world. The second section uses the definition of ideology to dissect Al Qaeda’s
vision. And the third section concludes with a discussion on the challenges of
fighting each subcomponent of revolutionary Islam’s ideology, arguing that
creating the space and culture for debating ideas is a useful means for
undermining Al Qaeda’s vision for a better world and how to get there.”
Heather Gregg is an assistant professor in the Defense Analysis Department at
the Naval Postgraduate School. She is a co-editor of The Three Circles of War:
Understanding the Dynamics of Conflict in Iraq (Potomac, 2010).
Rehabilitating
the Terrorists?: Challenges in Assessing the Effectiveness
of De-radicalization Programs
Horgan, John; Braddock,
Kurt. Terrorism and Political Violence. April 2010, pp.267-291.
“Renewed interest on how and why terrorism
ends has emerged in parallel with increased visibility of some new and innovative
approaches to counterterrorism. These are collectively known, whether for good
or bad, as ‘‘de-radicalization programs.’’ However, and despite their
popularity, data surrounding even the most basic of facts about these programs
remains limited. This article presents an overview of the results of a one-year
pilot study of select de-radicalization programs and investigates critical
issues surrounding assessment of their effectiveness and outcomes.” Dr. John Horgan is director of the
International Center for the Study of Terrorism, and associate professor of
Science, Technology, and Society, and Psychology at Pennsylvania State
University. His latest book is Walking Away From Terrorism: Accounts of
Disengagement From Radical and Extremist Movements (Routledge, 2009).
REPRESSION GOES
DIGITAL
Simon, Joel. Columbia
Journalism Review. March/April 2010.
http://www.cjr.org/feature/repression_goes_digital.php
"The Internet provides avenues for
journalism and free speech, but it has also become a chokepoint for free press
as oppressive governments exploit vulnerable areas in the information
environment. Iran, Burma, China, Vietnam and Tunisia are governments
which deny Internet access, practice censorship, or use monitoring technology
to identify and persecute activists; Nokia Siemens, a Finnish-German joint
venture, has sold Iran such technology. The author lauds Google’s recent
stand in China to refuse to comply with government censorship. Broad
international coalitions of journalists and others -– including governments -–
concerned about press freedom are important to maintain pressure on repressive
governments to ensure dissident voices continue to be heard. Joel Simon is
the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists.
U.S. DOMESTIC POLICY AND TRENDS
REPORTS
FOREIGN-BORN
WORKERS: LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS – 2009
Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. March 19, 2010 [PDF format, 14 pages]
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf
The share of the U.S. labor force composed
of the foreign born was little changed in 2009, and their unemployment rate
rose from 5.8 to 9.7 percent, according to the report. The
jobless rate of the native born increased from 5.8 percent in 2008 to 9.2
percent in 2009. It also compares the labor force characteristics of the
foreign born with those of their native-born counterparts.
Immigration, Incorporation and
the Prospects for Reform
Singer, Audrey; Mollenkopf,
John. The Brookings Institution.
March 24, 2010 [PDF
format, 31 pages]
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/speeches/2010/0324_immigration_singer/0324_immigration_singer.pdf
“With the United States’ foreign-born population reaching
historic levels, immigration reform appears to be more urgent than ever. The
growth rate of the country’s immigrant population is increasing rapidly,
various metropolitan areas are emerging as new gateways for the foreign-born
influx and the new residents are becoming a critical part of the nation’s labor
force. What impact will the rise in an immigrant population have on potential
reform and on the U.S. overall? In this presentation the authors study the
numerous effects of the country’s changing demographics, from shifts in the job
market to how second-generation immigrants will socially incorporate themselves
into American society. Singer and Mollenkopf also
outline the challenges facing federal, state and local governments over
creating adequate immigration policy. They call for mandates that properly
integrate foreign-born residents into their new communities on social, economic
and political levels.” Audrey
Singer is Senior Fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program of the Brookings
Institution. Dr. John Mollenkopf is director of the Center for Urban Research and
a Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the City
University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center.
WHO’S WINNING THE
CLEAN ENERGY RACE?: GROWTH, COMPETITION AND
OPPORTUNITY IN THE WORLD’S LARGEST ECONOMIES
Pew Charitable
Trusts.
March 24, 2010 [PDF format, 44 pages]
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Global_warming/G-20%20Report.pdf
This report reviews the status of clean
energy finance and investment in the countries that make up the G-20. The report documents the dawning of a new worldwide industry—clean
energy—which has experienced investment growth of 230 percent since 2005.
“Clean energy investments are forecast to grow by 25 percent to $200 billion in
2010. Within the G-20, our research finds that domestic policy decisions impact
the competitive positions of member countries. Those nations—such as China,
Brazil, the Un ited Kingdom, Germany and Spain—with strong,
national policies aimed at reducing global warming pollution and incentivizing
the use of renewable energy are establishing stronger competitive positions in
the clean energy economy. China, for example, has set ambitious targets for
wind, biomass and solar energy and, for the first time, took the top spot
within the G-20 and globally for overall clean energy finance and investment in
2009. The United States slipped to second place… Relative to the size of its
economy, the United States’ clean energy finance and investments lag behind
many of its G-20 partners. The U.S. policy framework for reducing global
warming pollution and promoting renewable energy remains uncertain, with
comprehensive legislation stalled in Congress. On the other hand, America’s
entrepreneurial traditions and strengths in innovation—especially its
leadership in venture capital investing—are considerable, giving it the
potential to recoup leadership and market share in the future. Policy,
investment and business experts alike have noted that the clean energy economy
is emerging as one of the great global economic and environmental opportunities
of the 21st century. Local, state and national leaders in the United States and
around the world increasingly recognize that safe, reliable, clean
energy—solar, wind, bioenergy and energy
efficiency—can be harnessed to create jobs and businesses, reduce dependence on
foreign energy sources, enhance national security and reduce global warming
pollution.”
WINNING THE RACE:
HOW AMERICA CAN LEAD THE GLOBAL CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY
Apollo Alliance;
Good Jobs First.
March 2010 [PDF format, 16 pages]
http://apolloalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/wtr3-2010final.pdf
The report estimates that some
70 percent of America’s renewable energy systems and components are
manufactured abroad. According to the report, if the United States continues to
import 70 percent of the clean energy systems and component parts demanded by
new investments in renewable energy, it stands to lose out on an estimated
100,000 clean energy manufacturing jobs between now and 2015, and potentially a
quarter million manufacturing jobs by 2030. “Many Americans had hoped that the
growth of the domestic clean energy economy would stem the tide of
manufacturing job loss. As cities, states and the federal government enact
measures to improve their energy efficiency and shift toward the use of
renewable energy, it creates demand for products like
solar panels, wind turbines, energy-efficient windows and electric car
batteries. The Recovery Act went a long way toward increasing demand for clean
energy products, with $110 billion in investments in areas like energy
efficiency, renewable energy, smart grid technology, advanced batteries and
high-speed rail. This policy brief explores the progress being made to date in
building a comprehensive U.S. clean energy economy that includes business
growth and jobs not only in the installation, operation and maintenance of
clean energy systems, but also in the manufacture of next-generation energy products and components that will be demanded
worldwide.” The Apollo Alliance is a coalition of unlikely and diverse
interests – including labor, business, environmental and community leaders –
advancing a bold vision for the next U.S. economy centered on clean energy and
good jobs. Good Jobs First is a national policy resource center promoting
accountability in economic development, smart growth for working families and
the creation of good green jobs.
Backgrounder - U.S. Multinationals and Tax
Reform
Wolverson, Roya. Council on Foreign Relations. March 31, 2010.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/21777/us_multinationals_and_tax_reform.html
"The
influence of U.S.-based multinationals on U.S. jobs and tax revenues has become
an increasing concern for U.S. policymakers and the public. The Obama
administration's 2011 budget proposed reforming tax rules on U.S.-based
multinational businesses that encourage outsourcing investments and employment
overseas. The budget also aims to crack down on multinationals' tax-shelter
abuses, which critics say divert funds needed to address the U.S. debt burden.
Congress is divided on the issue, and similar proposals by the administration
failed to pass Congress last year. Some Democratic lawmakers, along with union
representatives, believe the proposals will help address a weak job market and
troubling budget deficits. But Republican lawmakers, other
Democrats, and industry representatives fear higher taxes on U.S.-based
multinationals will lead to an exodus of business, investment, and jobs. They
argue that multinationals' overseas operations support
increased domestic investment and hiring by decreasing companies' costs,
expanding their foreign-customer base, and increasing domestic demand for
higher-skilled labor.” Roya Wolverson
is CFR.org's economics writer.
Industrial
Competitiveness and Technological Advancement: Debate Over Government Policy
Schacht, Wendy H. Congressional Research
Service, Library of Congress. February 23, 2010 [PDF format, 15 pages]
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/139289.pdf
“There is ongoing interest in the pace of
U.S. technological advancement due to its influence on U.S. economic growth,
productivity, and international competitiveness. Because technology can
contribute to economic growth and productivity increases, congressional
attention has focused on how to augment private-sector technological
development. Legislative activity over the past 25 or more years has created a
policy for technology development, albeit an ad hoc one. Because of the lack of
consensus on the scope and direction of a national policy, Congress has taken
an incremental approach aimed at creating new mechanisms to facilitate
technological advancement in particular areas and making changes and improvements
as necessary. The proper role of the federal government in technology
development and the competitiveness of U.S. industry continues
to be a topic of congressional debate. Current legis lation affecting the R&D environment have included both
direct and indirect measures to facilitate technological innovation.” Wendy
H. Schacht is an Specialist in Science and Technology
Policy at the CRS.
THE POWER OF INNOVATION
Darmody, Brian. Association of
University Research Parks. February 25, 2010 [Note: contains copyrighted
material] [PDF format, 8 pages]
http://www.aurp.net/more/AURPPowerofPlace2.pdf
“The
United States is home to the world’s first research park, launched in 1951 at
Stanford University. In the sixty years since, another 170 university-related
research parks have sprung up across the country, promoting innovation,
incubating technology, and stimulating economic growth. Today, however, the
United States has lost its lead. China, India, and Korea are home to the
world’s largest research parks, developed by their national governments,
attracting global research and development companies from afar to their shores.
Clearly the United States is still the world’s largest economy. The United
States has the largest number of innovators and entrepreneurs, and the world’s
best higher-education and research system. The federal government, through
interagency programs and policies, needs to increase the alignment among our
research universities, university research parks, technology incubators,
sponsored program offices, corporate relations offices, and technology-transfer
officials to meet better our nation’s global technology competition.” Brian Darmody is the President of the Association of University
Research Parks and Associate Vice President for Research and Economic
Development, University of Maryland.
AMERICA INSECURE:
CHANGES IN THE ECONOMIC SECURITY OF AMERICAN FAMILIES
Acs, Gregory; Nichols,
Austin. The Urban Institute. Web posted March 24, 2010
[Note: contains copyrighted material] [PDF
format, 32 pages]
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412055_america_insecure.pdf
This paper synthesizes findings
from a series of Urban Institute reports produced under the "Risk and
Low-Income Working Families" research initiative funded by the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur and Annie E. Casey Foundations. The paper places this research
in the broader context of literature on economic mobility and income
volatility. The report is structured around two key questions: (1) How have economic instability and insecurity changed for
America's low-income working families changed over time? and
(2) What are the factors that contribute to or offer protection from
substantial income losses and promote or inhibit recoveries from such losses?. Gregory Acs and Austin Nichols are both
Senior Research Associates in The Urban Institute's Income and Benefits Policy
Center.
MetroMonitor:
Tracking Economic Recession and Recovery in America’s 100 Largest Metropolitan
Areas
Wial,
Howard; Friedhoff, Alec. Metropolitan
Policy Program, The Brookings Institution. March 2010
[PDF format, 27 pages]
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/Metro/metro_monitor/2010_03_metro_monitor/2010_03_metro_monitor.pdf
“The MetroMonitor is an interactive barometer of the health of America’s
metropolitan economies, portraying the diverse metropolitan landscape of
recession and recovery across the country. It aims to enhance
understanding of the local underpinnings of national economic trends, and to
promote public- and private-sector responses to the downturn that take into
account metropolitan areas’ distinct strengths and weaknesses. This edition of
the Monitor examines indicators through the fourth quarter of 2009 (ending in
December) in the areas of employment, unemployment, output, home prices, and
foreclosure rates for the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas.” More than two
years after the Great Recession began, the nation is
in the midst of a slow and fragile—but jobless—economic recovery. Some economic
indicators seem to suggest that robust economic growth will soon resume, while
others point toward a “double-dip” recession and still others indicate little
change in the economic situation. Inflation-adjusted gross domestic product
(GDP) grew at a rapid 5.9 percent annual rate in the last quarter of 2009, the
fastest economic growth rate since the third quarter of 2003. But that growth
may simply be due to inventory r eplenishment and, if
so, is unlikely to persist. Consumer spending ros e
in January, but house prices fell. The unemployment rate remained steady at 9.7
percent in February, but long-term unemployment (unemployment of six months or
more) hit a record high.” Howard Wial is the
Fellow and Director of the Metropolitan Economy Initiative at the Brookings
Institution. Alec Friedhoff is a Research Analyst at
the Brookings Institution.
Job Sprawl and the
Suburbanization of Poverty
Stoll, Michael;
Raphael, Steven.
Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution [Metropolitan
Opportunity Series #4] March 30, 2010 [PDF format, 21 pages]
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/0330_job_sprawl_stoll_raphael/0330_job_sprawl_stoll_raphael.pdf
“In nearly all U.S. metropolitan areas,
jobs have been moving to the suburbs for several decades. In the largest
metropolitan areas between 1998 and 2006, jobs shifted away from the city
center to the suburbs in virtually all industries. As the U.S. population also
continues to suburbanize, larger proportions of metropolitan area employment
and population are locating beyond the traditional central business districts
along the nation’s suburban beltways and the more distant fringes. For city
residents whose low incomes restrict their housing choices, job
decentralization may make it more difficult to find and maintain employment.
Understanding the association between employment decentralization and the
suburbanization of poverty is important because of the continued growth of the
suburban poor. The suburban poor face unique disadvantages. These include
concentration in inner-ring, disadvantaged, and jobs-poor suburbs; over reliance
on public transportation, which often provides inferior access to and within
suburban areas; and spatial mismatch between where the suburban poor live and
the locations of important social services. If the decentralization of
employment increases the suburbanization of poverty, this may signal that the
poor are able to move closer to labor market opportunities. Policies designed
to facilitate this process, such as housing vouchers, may therefore produce
direct and immediate results. But housing market segregation on the basis of
race and class could limit mobility to suburbs, thereby limiting the poor’s
access to opportunity. This report extends studies of poverty suburbanization
by exploring one of its potential drivers, employment decentralization.” Michael
Stoll is a Nonresident Senior Fellow at Brooking’s Metropolitan Policy Program. He is also the associate director of the Center for the Study of Urban
Poverty at the University of California, Los Angeles. Steven
Raphael is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California,
Berkeley.
THE KIDS AREN’T ALRIGHT: A LABOR MARKET
ANALYSIS OF YOUNG WORKERS
Edwards, Kathryn Anne; Hertel-Fernandez,
Alexander.
Economic Policy Institute. April 7, 2010 [PDF format,
10 pages]
http://epi.3cdn.net/f157c37200a46e1adc_5fm6b5geb.pdf
"Unemployment
does not equally affect all workers. Different segments of the population often
have different rates of unemployment, whether the distinction is made by race,
gender, education, or age. While the national unemployment rate has yet to meet
the 10.8% benchmark set in 1982, the workers age 16-24, unemployment rate
peaked at 19.2%. Though young adults represent only 13.5% of the workforce,
they now account for 26.4% of unemployed workers. The paper discusses the
severity of the unemployment crisis facing young adults, its historical
context, and the implications for their future wages and skills."
AMERICA’S TOMORROW:
A PROFILE OF LATINO YOUTH
National Council of
La Raza. March 2010 [HTML format with a link]
http://www.nclr.org/content/publications/detail/62014/
The brief examines the status of Latino
youth in the United States. Latino youth, who compose nearly 20% of all youth
in the country, experience high levels of poverty, high dropout rates, low
graduation rates, high unemployment rates, and low rates of health insurance.
Given that Latinos will compose about 30% of the U.S. population by 2050, the
ability of Latino youth to overcome these pressing challenges today will
directly impact the economic and social success of the nation in the future.
MAXIMIZING THE POTENTIAL OF OLDER ADULTS:
BENEFITS TO STATE ECONOMIES AND INDIVIDUAL WELL-BEING
Hoffman,
Linda. National Governors Association. April 1, 2010
[Note: contains copyrighted material] [PDF format, 19 pages]
http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/1004OLDERADULTS.PDF
The brief details
ways states can engage older adults, who have the potential to greatly affect
state economies, through both paid employment and volunteerism. The brief lays
out strategies states can use to work against potential challenges and maximize
the potential of older adults. "The United States is rapidly aging. By
2030, an estimated one out of every five adults will be age 65 or older.1 These
demographic changes could pose major challenges for state economies by
increasing the burden on public health programs, reducing tax revenues, and
lowering the pool of skilled workers.2 Although the dramatic increase in the
number of older adults raises difficulties, it also affords states
opportunities to tap a highly skilled group of individuals to work, assist
communities, and learn new skills." Linda Hoffman is
a researcher of the Social, Economic, and Workforce Programs Division at the
Center for Best Practices of the National Governors Association.
They
Spend WHAT?: The Real Cost of Public Schools
Schaeffer, Adam. The Cato
Institute. March 10, 2010 [PDF format, 32 pages]
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa662.pdf
“Although public schools are usually the
biggest item in state and local budgets, spending figures provided by public
school officials and reported in the media often leave out major costs of
education and thus understate what is actually spent. To document the
phenomenon, this paper reviews district budgets and state records for the
nation’s five largest metro areas and the District of Columbia. Real spending
per pupil ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a
high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area. To put public school
spending in perspective, we compare it to estimated total expenditures in local
private schools. Taxpayers cannot make informed decisions about public school
funding unless they know how much districts currently spend. And with state
budgets stretched thin, it is more crucial than ever to carefully allocate
every tax dolla r. This paper therefore presents
model legislation that would bring transparency to school district budgets and
enable citizens and legislators to hold the K–12 public education system
accountable.” Adam B. Schaeffer is a policy analyst with Cato’s Center for
Educational Freedom.
A NEXT SOCIAL
CONTRACT FOR THE PRIMARY YEARS OF EDUCATION
Guernsey, Lisa; Mead, Sara. New
America Foundation. March 31, 2010 [PDF format, 20 pages]
http://earlyed.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/The%20Next%20Social%20Contract%20for%20Education.pdf
"The
report calls for a bold transformation of the country’s public education system
to prioritize early learning. It envisions a new system that serves children
starting at age 3, erases the artificial divide between “preschool” and “K-12″
programs and extends high-quality teaching up through the early grades of
elementary school. The answer is to create a seamless PreK-3rd system that
starts at age 3, involves community-based providers in the earliest years,
frees teachers to collaborate more broadly and across
grades, and equips all children with essential literacy, math, and
social-emotional skills by the end of third grade. In redefining the first
stage of children’s educational experience, we also lay a foundation for more
aggressive rethinking of our educational institutions from preschool to
college. Without this strong beginning, that pipeline will forever be weak. But
fortified with a solid start in the PreK-3rd years, our educational system can
finally fulfill its mission of providing the knowledge and skills to provide
all Americans, no matter their background, with an equal opportunity to thrive."
Lisa Guernsey is Director of the Early Education Initiative at the New America
Foundation. Sara Mead is a former Senior Fellow at the Education Policy Program
and Workforce and Family Program of the New America Foundation. She serves on
the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board.
Grassroots
Civil Society: The Scope and Dimensions of Small Public Charities
Boris, Elizabeth
T.; Roeger, Katie L. The
Urban Institute. February 2010. [PDF format, 7 pages]
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412054_grassroots_civil_society.pdf
“The organizations of civil society
permeate communities. Among the approximately 1.5 million nonprofits documented
by the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), nearly 925,000 are
registered public charities of every kind around the United States. Many of
these nonprofits are very small. We focus here on the 3 in 10 public charities
that have less than $100,000 in revenues, expenses, and assets. These
organizations are the sources of community support and social interaction—the
stuff of civil society. They have modest resources but engage their communities
in myriad activities. Many provide programs that forge the connections and
trust that are the bedrocks of our civic culture. These small organizations are
below the radar in most analyses of the nonprofit sector. Research and media
reports usually focus on the larger nonprofits with household names—American
Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, American Cancer Society. Yet the smaller
organizations include parent and teacher groups, sports teams and clubs, animal
protection groups, scholarship funds, community service clubs, community arts
groups, preschools and day cares, fairs and recreation groups, professional
associations and business groups, and many more. Almost 30 percent of small
public charities are human services organizations, and about a quarter are
education related. The arts make up the third largest category, with about 13
percent.” Elizabeth T. Boris is the
director of the Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy.
Katie L. Roeger is assistant director of the National
Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), a program in the Center on Nonprofits
and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute.
State of
the News Media 2010: AN ANNUAL REPORT ON AMERICAN JOURNALISM
Pew Project for
Excellence in Journalism. March 15, 2010 [HTML format with links]
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/
This is the seventh edition of the annual
report on the health and status of U.S. journalism. According to the
report, three questions now drive discussions about the future of journalism:
How much lost revenue might come back as the economy improves? How much
journalistic potential exists in alternative new media operations? And what progress
was made in new revenue models online?. "There is
tremendous energy in efforts around the country to do journalism in the digital
age, PEJ’s State of the News Media 2010 finds, and many of these efforts are
bringing a renewed sense of public mission to the news. But the cutbacks in
traditional media dominate. Newspapers now spend $1.6 billion less annually on
reporting and editing than they did a decade ago, the report estimates. Network
TV is down by hundreds of millions since their peak in the 1980s. Local TV
newsrooms are cutting too, down 6% in the last two years, some 1,600 jobs. Only
cable news, among the commercial news sectors, did not suffer declining revenue
and layoffs last year."
The Impact of the Internet on Institutions in
the Future
Rainie, Lee; Anderson, Janna. The Pew Research
Center's Internet & American Life Project; Elon
University’s Imagining the Internet Center. March 31,
2010 [PDF
format, 22 pages]
http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Future%20of%20internet%202010%20-%20institutions%20-%20final.pdf
“Technology
experts and stakeholders say the internet will drive more change in businesses
and government agencies by 2020, making them more responsive and efficient. But
there are powerful bureaucratic forces that will push back against such
transformation and probably draw out the timeline. Expect continuing tension in
disruptive times.” By an overwhelming margin, technology experts and
stakeholders participating in this survey fielded by the Pew Research Center’s
Internet & American Life Project and Elon University’s
Imagining the Internet Center believe that innovative forms of online
cooperation could result in more efficient and responsive for-profit firms,
non-profit organizations, and government agencies by the
year 2020. Janna Anderson is Associate Professor
and Director of the Imagining the Internet Center at Elon
University. Lee Rainie
is the Director of the Pew
Research Center's Internet & American Life Project.
A Growing Terrorist Threat?:
Assessing "Homegrown" Extremism in the United States
Nelson, Rick
“Ozzie”; Bodurian, Ben. Center
for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). March 2010 [PDF format,
21 pages]
http://csis.org/files/publication/100304_Nelson_GrowingTerroristThreat_Web.pdf
“Five events
during the fall of 2009 thrust concerns over “homegrown” terrorism—or extremist
violence perpetrated by U.S. legal residents and citizens—into public view. The five “cases”
discussed in this paper—which were part of a larger trend of heightened
domestic extremism during 2009—proved so unsettling, in part, because they
seemed to contradict much of the recent thinking concerning radicalization and
terrorism in the United States. Both policymakers and the public have tended to
classify extremist violence as a problem with origins outside the United
States. As this report shows, the acceleration of domestic extremism poses a
number of serious considerations for U.S. policymakers and officials in charge
of counterterrorism and homeland security. This report probes last fall’s five
major cases, situating them within the context of recent U.S. efforts to
address domestic radicalization. Our goal is to suggest ways that policymakers
might improve on current approaches to homegrown
extremism. To begin, we offer brief sketches of
each of the events. They differ in important respects, suggesting that there is
no simple path to radicalization or common template for a homegrown extremist.
Still, a few important similarities among the
five cases do suggest some directives for policy in this area.” Rick “Ozzie”
Nelson is senior fellow and director of the Homeland Security and
Counterterrorism Program at CSIS. Ben Bodurian is
research assistant and program coordinator for the Homeland Security and
Counterterrorism Program at CSIS.
ARTICLES
Who
Won? How 25 Players Fared In The Health Debate
Friel, Brian, et.al. National Journal. March 27, 2010.
“National Journal looks at
key
figures
in the health care debate and how they might fare going forward.
The gripping
health care reform story that unfolded in Washington over the past year had
plenty of twists and cliff-hangers in every chapter. As the
suspense-filled saga played out, a wide cast of characters emerged and shaped
their own roles, at the White House, on Capitol Hill, and among interest groups
and outside opinion makers. They became heroes, villains, or bit players in the
narrative, depending on what side you were on. Some adeptly seized the opportunity
to shine while others stumbled. Some leveraged surprising new influence while
others didn't quite step up. Some made names for themselves while others faded
to the margins. Some preserved their positions while others squandered their
clout. Some took considerable strides toward writing their place in history
while others may have written the first line of their political obituaries.”
The
Security Costs of Energy Independence
Miller, Gregory D. The
Washington Quarterly. April 2010, pp. 107-119.
http://www.thewashingtonquarterly.com/10april/docs/10apr_Miller.pdf
“Most Americans accept that the United
States’ dependence on foreign oil, particularly from the Middle East, is
dangerous and should be reduced if not eliminated. Although environmentalists
have long called for reduced oil consumption because of the effects of fossil
fuels on the environment, two other groups now share this goal, creating an
unlikely alliance. One focuses on the economic costs of U.S. dependence on
foreign oil, bemoaning the wealth that flows from the United States to
oil-exporting states annually (an estimated $90–150 billion) and the lost
opportunity for revenue from developing and selling alternative energy sources.
The other group consists of those who, particularly after the September 11
attacks, see U.S. dependence on foreign oil as a source of strategic
vulnerability, as well as a burden on U.S. foreign policy. Not only is the
United States’ ability to defend itself and project power contingent on a ready
supply of fuel, but the country’s dependence on oil may compel leaders to spend
lives and treasure to protect those foreign sources. As a result, policy
debates focus exclusively on how the United States should reduce its dependence
on oil, with suggestions ranging from conservation (supported by the
environmentalists) to greater domestic production (made by those who focus on
security) to aggressively pursuing alternate sources of energy (emphasized by
those making an economic argument, as well as environmentalists). A critical
oversight in all of this, however, is that any dramatic reduction in U.S.
dependence on oil will create major security concerns, not only for current
oil-exporting countries and their neighbors, but also for the West. This
article does not suggest that the United States should continue to import oil
at current levels; being so dependent on other states is a source of
vulnerability and a lost opportunity for innovation. It is crucial to point out, however, some possible unintended consequences of a
reduction in oil dependence. How can the United States and all developed states
mitigate these dangers?” Gregory D. Miller is an assistant professor of
political science at the University of Oklahoma.
THE NEXT AMERICAN
CENTURY
Martinez, Andres. Time.
March 22, 2010, pp. 40-42.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1971133_1971110_1971104,00.html
"The U.S. may have been weakened by
economic troubles at home and draining military commitments overseas, but the
author believes it will remain a world power for the foreseeable future.
With only 5% of the world's population, the U.S. produces a quarter of the
world's economic output. China continues to march toward Western notions
of private property, and Beijing bets on America's future by stocking up on
billions of dollars' worth of Treasury bills. The rise of a consumerist
middle-class society in nations like China, Brazil and India creates a more
stable world, not to mention new markets for American products and
culture. The U.S. continues to have a huge cultural impact globally and
remains an inclusive superpower. Other nations are thriving under the Pax Americana, and the rise of second-tier powers makes the
continued projection of U.S. might more welcome in certain neighborhoods.
South Korea, Japan and even Vietnam appreciate having the U.S. serve as a
counterweight to China; Pakistan and India want to engage Washington to
counterbalance each other. According to last year's Pew Global Attitudes
Survey, half the 24 nations questioned held a more favorable view of the U.S.
than they did of China or Russia." Andres Martinez
is the director of the Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program at the New America
Foundation.
Preparing
for the Worst: Democrats’ Fears of the 2010 Midterm Elections
Cook, Charles E., Jr. The
Washington Quarterly. April 2010, pp.183-189.
http://www.thewashingtonquarterly.com/10april/docs/10apr_Cook.pdf
“Midterm elections are almost inevitably a
referendum on the party in power. When the same party occupies both the White
House and control of Congress, things are pretty straightforward. One party has
all the responsibility and takes the credit or blame (usually the latter) for whatever
occurs. It is perfectly normal for the party of a newly elected president to
lose House seats in his first midterm election. In fact, it has happened in
seven of the eight midterm elections during the first terms of a president in
the post—World War II era, resulting in an average loss of 16 seats. The sole
exception was George W. Bush, after the September 11, 2001 tragedy altered the
trajectory of the otherwise predictable pattern. In the Senate, which has
six-year terms, the pattern is less clear. The president’s party has lost seats
in four elections, gained in four, and the average is a loss of four-tenths of
one seat, basically a wash. So, if midterm election losses are normal, what
makes the 2010 elections different? Why is the prediction of losses for
Democrats so much greater than usual?” Charles E. Cook, Jr. writes weekly
columns for National Journal and CongressDaily AM,
published by the National Journal Group. He is a political analyst for NBC News
as well as editor and publisher of the Cook Political Report, a
Washington-based, nonpartisan newsletter analyzing U.S. politics and elections.
Governorships
2010: The Changing of the Guard
Sabato, Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball. March 18, 2010.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2010031801/
“Back in 1980, the Washington Post’s
David S. Broder wrote a notable book, The Changing
of the Guard, about the generational turnover of national and state
leadership occurring at that time. It’s happening all over again. We’ll see
dozens of congressional seats switching hands and sides in November, but the
greatest transformation will be in the statehouses. Even though just 37 of the
50 states have a gubernatorial election this November, the midterms are likely
to produce so many new governors that a majority of all governors in 2011 will
be newly installed. It will take only two defeats of incumbent governors who
are seeking another term to produce a majority of new governors in 2011.”
Larry J. Sabato is Director of the Center for
Politics at the University of Virginia.
TEA PARTY MOVEMENT:
WILL ANGRY CONSERVATIVES RESHAPE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?
Katel, Peter. The CQ
Researcher, March 19, 2010, pp. 241-264.
"The Tea
Party movement seemed to come out of nowhere. Suddenly, citizens angry over the
multi-billion-dollar economic stimulus and the Obama administration's
health-care plan were leading rallies, confronting lawmakers and holding forth
on radio and TV. Closely tied to the Republican Party — though also critical of
the GOP — the movement proved essential to the surprise victory of Republican
Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Tea partiers say
Brown's election proves the movement runs strong outside of 'red states.' But
some political experts voice skepticism, arguing that the Tea Party's fiscal
hawkishness won't appeal to most Democrats and many independents. Meanwhile,
some dissension has appeared among tea partiers, with many preferring to sidestep
social issues, such as immigration, and others emphasizing them. Still, the
movement exerts strong appeal for citizens fearful of growing government debt
and distrustful of the administration.” Peter Katel
is a CQ Researcher staff writer who previously reported on Haiti and Latin
America for Time and Newsweek.
IT Industry,
Hispanics Team Up On Immigration
Munro, Neil. National
Journal.
April 10,
2010.
“Advocates for information-technology
companies have allied with progressive and Hispanic groups to win a broad
overhaul of immigration law, but they are also keeping open the option of
pursuing a narrow set of tech-friendly legal changes in the next Congress.
The coalition
is pushing for more employment-based green cards, which many temporary workers
win after a stay of several years. Hispanic groups and their allies want the
immigration bill to include a path to citizenship for workers who are in the
country illegally, and to make it easier for workers' family members to come
here. The
coalition will work, advocates said, only if its members oppose any narrow bill
that could undermine the common good by delivering benefits to one at the
expense of the others.”
The
New Urbanity: The Rise of a New America
Nelson, Arthur C. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
November 2009, pp. 192-208.
"Between 2010 and 2030, American
metropolitan areas will be transformed through “urbanity.” While the word is
not carefully defined, urbanity in this context means communities of mixed,
interconnected land uses, especially residential ones, served by multiple
transportation options. It implies higher residential densities and
nonresidential intensities than seen currently. It also implies, largely, the
end of the spatial expansion of metropolitan areas and a new era of infill and
redevelopment. This will happen because the period from 2010 to 2030 will see
the most remarkable change in America’s built environment since the end of
World War II. The changes will be driven by monumental demographic shifts
coupled by important changes in housing preference. The landscape of the new
American metropolis will be very different from the old one, as it must be to
meet new needs. Along with these changes will come the rise of a new American
metropolitan landscape, one that is decidedly more urbane than the present pattern. As will be seen, demographic shifts, changing
tenure choices, and changing community preferences will require that virtually
all new development in America will occur in advancing a new urbanity. This
article explores some of the major drivers behind the impending change and how
policy may be needed to manage it. It starts with demographic changes, projects
future housing demand by major housing type, speculates on changing tenure choices,
and reviews policy options to facilitate new urbanity trends." Arthur
C. Nelson is Presidential Professor and director of metropolitan research at
the College of Architecture and Planning of the University of Utah.
Cities
Today: A New Frontier for Major Developments
Sassen, Saskia. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science. November 2009, pp. 53-71.
“The rise of cities as strategic economic
spaces is the consequence of a deep structural transformation found in all
developed economies: the urbanizing of a growing range of economic activities.
Even firms in the most material economic sectors (mines, factories, transport
systems, construction) rely on services that tend to be located in an urbanized
environment: insurance, accounting, legal, financial, consulting, software
programming, and so on. Thus, even an economy based on manufacturing or mining
will feed the so-called urban intermediate services sector. While this
structural trend does not account for the whole urban economy, it marks a novel
phase for cities and urban regions. Its sharp concentrations of both high- and
low-income jobs and high- and low-profit firms, along with their specific
multiplier effects, reshape the built environment of cities. Office districts, residential
spaces, and spaces for consumption and entertainment all are at least partly
reshaped by this new structural development. This also explains the renewed
importance of architecture and urban design since the 1980s. Here, I focus on
this major structural development and some of the associated urban effects. The
article concludes with a discussion of some novel trends that require more
attention from policy makers and urban researchers: the rise of a new type of
manufacturing I refer to as “urban manufacturing,” the rise of an informal
creative economy.” Saskia Sassen
is the Robert S. Lynd Professor of Sociology and a member of the Committee on
Global Thought at Columbia University. Her research focuses on globalization,
particularly as it interacts with national states, cities, and immigration.
Information
Provided by the Information Resource Center
U.S. Embassy
Madrid
http://www.embusa.es/irc
Views expressed
in the articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect U.S.
government policies.