-November/December 2009-
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
Fact Sheet on Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The White House. December 1, 2009.
2009 Report on International Religious Freedom. U.S. Department of State. October 26, 2009.
Examining U.S. Counterterrorism Priorities: Strategy Across Africa’s Sahel Region. Testimony of Ambassador Daniel Benjamin to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations’ Subcommittee on African Affairs. November 17, 2009.
A Regional Overview of the Middle East. Testimony of Jeffrey D. Feltman to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. October 28, 2009.
Exum, Andrew M. Afghanistan 2011: Three Scenarios. Center for a New American Security. October 2009.
Dorronsoro, Gilles. Fixing a Failed Strategy in Afghanistan. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. November 2009.
Ottaway, Marina. Iran, The United States, and the Gulf: The Elusive Regional Policy. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. November 12, 2009.
Cordesman, Anthony H; Derby, Elena; Mausner, Adam. Iraq: Creating a Strategic Partnership. Center for Strategic and International Studies. October 28, 2009.
Feigenbaum, Evan A.; Manning, Robert A. The United States in the New Asia. Council on Foreign Relations. November 2009.
Lum, Thomas. China’s Assistance and Government-Sponsored Investment Activities in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. November 25, 2009.
Carothers, Thomas. Revitalizing Democracy Assistance: The Challenges of USAID. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. October 2009.
Roodman, David; Prieto, Cindy. Commitment to Development Index 2009. Center for Global Development. October 22, 2009.
Stares, Paul B.; Zenko, Micah. Enhancing U.S. Prevention Action. Council on Foreign Relations. October 2009.
Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction. United States Institute of Peace; U.S. Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute. November 2009.
The Opportunity of the Obama Era: Can Civil Society Help Bridge Divides between the United States and a Diverse Muslim World?
Amr, Hady. Brookings Doha Center. November 2009.
Hamilton, Daniel S.; Burwell, Frances G. Shoulder to Shoulder: Forging A Strategic U.S.- EU Partnership. The Atlantic Council, et. al. December 1, 2009.
A Shared U.S.-EU Vision for Energy and Climate Change. The Atlantic Council. October 26, 2009.
Olmstead, Sheila M; Stavins, Robert N. Three Pillars of Post-2012 International Climate Policy. Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements. October 23, 2009.
The Prospects for Copenhagen: More Realism can Smooth the Way. U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. November 2009.
ARTICLES
Deudney,
Daniel; Ikenberry, G. John. The Unravelling of the Cold War
Settlement. Survival.
December 2009.
Suri, Jeremi. American Grand Strategy from the Cold War's End to 9/11. Orbis. Fall 2009.
Patrick , Stewart. Prix Fixe and a` la Carte: Avoiding False Multilateral Choices. The Washington Quarterly. October 2009.
Saunders, Elizabeth N. Transformative Choices: Leaders and the Origins of Intervention Strategy. International Security. Fall 2009.
Ganguly, Sumit; Howenstein, Nicholas. India-Pakistan Rivalry in Afghanistan. Journal of International Affairs. Fall/Winter 2009.
Christine Fair, C.; Jones, Seth. Pakistan's War Within. Survival. December 2009.
Edelstein, David M. Exit Lessons. The Wilson Quarterly. Autumn 2009.
Sutter, Robert. The Obama Administration and US Policy in Asia. Contemporary Southeast Asia. August 2009.
Medeiros, Evan S. The New Security Drama in East Asia: The Responses of U.S. Allies and Security Partners to China's Rise. Naval War College Review. Autumn 2009.
Grogan, Steven. China, Nuclear Security and Terrorism: Implications for the United States. Orbis. Fall 2009.
Drezner, Daniel W. Bad Debts: Assessing China's Financial Influence in Great Power Politics. International Security. Fall 2009.
Nakhleh, Emile. "Moderates" Redefined: How To Deal with Political Islam. Current History. December 2009.
Bahgat, Gawdat. The Gaza War and the Changing Strategic Landscape in the Middle East: An Assessment. Mediterranean Quarterly. Summer 2009.
Kurtzer, Daniel C. Do Settlements Matter? An American Perspective. Middle East Policy. Fall 2009.
Brown, Bernard E. The Fiscal Crisis: Transatlantic Misunderstandings. American Foreign Policy Interests. September 2009.
Parent, Joseph M. Europe’s Structural Idol: An American Federalist Republic?. Political Science Quarterly. Fall 2009.
Lebl, Leslie S. Radical Islam in Europe. Orbis. Winter 2010.
Ebinger, Charles K.; Zambetakis, Evie. The Geopolitics of Arctic Melt International Affairs. Fall 2009.
Stokes, Bruce. Countdown to Copenhagen. National Journal. October 31, 2009.
Clark, Wesley K.; Levin; Peter L. Securing the Information Highway. Foreign Affairs. November/December 2009.
U.S. DOMESTIC POLICY AND TRENDS
REPORTS
The Open Government Progress Report to the American People. The White House. December 2009.
Orszag, Peter R. The Open Government Directive. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. December 8, 2009.
Straus, Jacob R. Lobbying the Executive Branch: Current Practices and Options for Change. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. December 1, 2009
Lind, Michael. Jobs and the New Growth Agenda. New America Foundation. December 2, 2009.
Gravelle, Jane G, et. al. Economic Stimulus: Issues and Policies. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. November 10, 2009.
Stangler, Dane; Litan, Robert E. Where Will the Jobs Come From?. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. November 2009.
Beyond California: States in Fiscal Peril. Pew Center on the States. November 11, 2009.
Muro, Mark; Hoene, Christopher W. Fiscal Challenges Facing Cities: Implications for Recovery. Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution; National Leagues of Cities. November 2009.
Cha, J. Mijin; Dafoe, Jack. New York City Green-Collar Jobs Roadmap. Center for American Progress; Urban Agenda. October 27, 2009.
Hanson, Gordon H. The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. December 2009.
Frey, William H. The Great American Migration Slowdown: Regional and Metropolitan Dimensions. The Brookings Institution. December 2009.
Keeter, Scott. Where the Public Stands on Immigration Reform. Pew Research
Center. November 23, 2009.
Fortuny, Karina; Chaudry, Ajay. Children of Immigrants: Immigration Trends. The Urban Institute. Web posted October 26, 2009.
Princiotta, Daniel; Reyna, Ryan. Achieving Graduation for All: A Governor's Guide to Dropout Prevention and Recovery. National Governors Association. October 22, 2009.
Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Innovation. Center for American Progress; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; American Enterprise Institute. November 9, 2009.
Harnessing Openness to Improve Research, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education. Committee for Economic Development. November 6, 2009.
Fix, Michael; Terrazas, Aaron. The Binational Option: Meeting the Instructional Needs of Limited English Proficient Students. Migration Policy Institute. November 2009.
Coulton, Claudia, et al. Family Mobility and Neighborhood Change: New Evidence and Implications for Community Initiatives. The Urban
Institute. November
2, 2009.
Kohut, Andrew; Remez, Michael. Fox News Viewed as Most Ideological Network. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. October 29, 2009.
ARTICLES
Schambra, William. Obama and the Policy Approach. National Affairs. Fall 2009
Barnes, James A. Who Are The Parties' Best Strategists?. National Journal. December 12, 2009.
Downie, Leonard Jr.; Schudson, Michael. The Reconstruction of American Journalism. Columbia Journalism Review. November/December 2009.
Russo, Diana. Is the Foreign News Bureau Part of the Past?. Global Journalist. Fall 2009
Bergsten, C. Fred. The Dollar and the Deficits: How Washington can Prevent the Next Crisis. Foreign Affairs. November/December 2009.
Parry, Marc. Open Courses: Free, But Oh, So Costly. The Chronicle of Higher Education. October 16, 2009.
Sloane, Stanton. The Role of a "Cyber Czar". Armed Forces Journal. September 2009.
Curtis, Wayne. Houses of the Future. The Atlantic. November 2009.
Iyer, Pico. The Great Wide Open. Smithsonian Magazine. November 2009.
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
REPORTS
Fact Sheet on Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan
The White House. December 1, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/way-forward-afghanistan
(In English)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/FACT_SHEET_Spanish.pdf (In Spanish)
“The review was a deliberate and disciplined three-stage process to check alignment of goals, methods for attaining those goals, and finally resources required. Over ten weeks, the President chaired nine meetings with his national security team, and consulted key allies and partners, including the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result of the review, we have focused our mission and developed a common understanding regarding our regional approach and the need for international support. We will deploy forces into Afghanistan rapidly and will take advantage of these additional resources to create the conditions to begin to draw down combat forces in the summer of 2011, while maintaining a partnership with Afghanistan and Pakistan to protect our enduring interests in that region. A number of issues were explored in depth: national interests, core objectives and goals, counterterrorism priorities, safe havens for terrorist groups in Pakistan, the health of the global U.S. military force, risks and costs associated with troop deployments, global deployment requirements, international cooperation and commitments for both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Afghan capacity in all areas to include Afghan security forces, central and sub-national governance and corruption (including the narcotics trade), and development and economic issues."
2009 REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
U.S. Department of State. October 26, 2009 [HTML format, various paging]
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2009/index.htm
The International Religious Freedom report is submitted to Congress annually by the U.S. Department of State in compliance with Section 102(b) of the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998. The report supplements the most recent Human Rights Reports by providing additional detailed information with respect to matters involving international religious freedom. It includes individual country chapters on the status of religious freedom worldwide.
Examining U.S. Counterterrorism Priorities: Strategy Across Africa’s Sahel Region
Testimony of Ambassador Daniel Benjamin to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations’ Subcommittee on African Affairs. November 17, 2009 [PDF format, 5 pages]
http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2009/BenjaminTestimony091117a.pdf
Ambassador Daniel Benjamin, Coordinator for
Counterterrorism at the U.S. Department of State, spoke about the Department’s
role in countering terrorism in the Sahel region. "Al-Qa’ida
in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) continues to menace parts of the Maghreb and the
Sahel. In the north, it is frustrated by Algeria’s effective counterterrorism
operations, but in parts of the Sahel, it continues to operate with significant
impunity. We are working bilaterally, regionally, and multilaterally, to
develop their capacity to control their sovereign territory, effectively
disrupt terrorist attacks, and counter those who advocate violence. A
well-thought out, long-term approach provides the best opportunity to ensure
our security and that of our friends and allies against the terrorist threats
from this region."
Testimony of Jeffrey D. Feltman to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. October 28, 2009.
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/2009/131000.htm
Jeffrey D. Feltman, Assistant Secretary
of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs,
U.S. Department of State, gave an overview of the
Administration’s policies and relations with the
countries of the Middle East. "Chief among our goals in the Middle East is
to bring about peace in a region that has faced decades of conflict. While
cognizant of the challenges ahead, this Administration believes that
comprehensive peace – peace not only between Israel and the Palestinians, but
also between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon, and the full
normalization of relations between Israel and its neighbors – is not only in
the interests of the parties to these conflicts; it is in America’s interest,
and it is in the world’s interest. Achievement of this goal will require
collective action and we are working closely with countries across the region
to create an environment that supports peaceful resolution. At the same time,
we are addressing the security needs of our friends and allies. The resolution
of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the two-state solution is central
to our goal of comprehensive peace: two states living side by side in peace and
security... A range of serious challenges confront the Middle East and North
Africa – among them, acute demographic challenges, notably a youth bulge that
will necessitate the creation of millions of new jobs over the next decade.
Conflicts, including continued attacks in Iraq and violence and separatism in
Yemen, among others, continue to destabilize the region and detract resources
from other priorities. Human trafficking, inadequate human rights protections,
and absent or weak democratic institutions persist across much of the Near
East. Other cross-border threats – from public health epidemics to terrorist
organizations, including Al-Qaeda affiliates – are aggravated by emerging
demographic trends that undermine human security and progress in the region."
AFGHANISTAN 2011: THREE SCENARIOS
Exum, Andrew M. Center for a New American Security. October 2009 [Note: contains copyrighted material] [PDF format, 4 pages]
“After eight years of conflict and an ongoing policy review by the Obama Administration, the future of Afghanistan remains uncertain. Yet, as the latest assessment in Washington takes place amidst a contested Afghan national election, conditions on the ground continue to deteriorate. This paper is meant to serve as a guide for strategic Afghanistan policy planning by laying out the worst, most likely, and best-case scenario for what the country might look like in 24 months, and how U.S. policy might make each scenario more or less likely. Although all three scenarios involve risks, an Afghanistan at peace with itself and its neighbors remains a possibility.” Andrew Exum is a Fellow with the Center for a New American Security.
FIXING A FAILED STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN
Dorronsoro, Gilles. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. November 2009 [PDF format, 46 pages]
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/fixing_failed_strategy.pdf
"As the debate on future U.S. strategy draws to a close, the war in Afghanistan is spreading to the North, an area that had previously been relatively quiet, the balance of power in Afghanistan has shifted in the Taliban’s favor, and the Afghan government continues to lose legitimacy in the eyes of the population and international community. In order to correct a failing strategy, the United States and its allies need to protect cities and reallocate more resources to the North, according to the report. This report was written after a trip to Afghanistan (Kabul, Nangarhar, Mazar-i Sharif, Kunduz, and Kandahar) by the author in August 2009. Dorronsoro details what a new, successful U.S. strategy should look like:
*Secure key
cities and roads: If a state can be rebuilt in Afghanistan it will start
in the cities, so less energy should be focused on the Pashtun
countryside. This approach will decrease Coalition casualties and increase
local participation.
*Redistribute
Coalition troops: Troops are heavily deployed in the South and
East where the prospects for success are low. They should be refocused on the
North, where the Taliban can be stopped.
*Redistribute
development aid: Development dollars are currently being
directed most heavily to areas where Coalition control is weakest. These scarce
resources should instead be focused on the more peaceful districts of
Afghanistan.
*Build
an Afghan partner: Increase the size and capabilities of the
Afghan National Army, but understand that this will not happen overnight. An
Afghan army of 150,000 by 2015 is a realistic and achievable goal."
Gilles Dorronsoro, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment, is an expert on Afghanistan, Turkey, and South Asia.
IRAN, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE GULF: THE ELUSIVE REGIONAL POLICY
Ottaway, Marina. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. November 12, 2009 [PDF format, 28 pages]http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/iran_us_gulf1.pdf
"Any effective diplomatic approach to Iran must involve a regional strategy. While Iran’s nuclear program is presently the most urgent dimension for the United States and the international community to confront, unless the country can be reintegrated into a normal web of international relations, any progress made on that front is likely to be short-lived. Iran’s neighbors — particularly the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which share a concern for Gulf security — can be important players in that process of reintegration. These six states, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, are afraid of Iranian hegemony in the Gulf, but are too small or too timid to challenge their northern neighbor, so they seek to develop normal relations with Tehran while protecting their interests. The United States has sought to forge an anti-Iranian alliance rather than welcoming the normalization of relations between Iran and the Gulf countries. The normalization of relations between Iran and the Gulf countries would be a helpful first step toward bringing Iran back into the fold, making it a responsible stakeholder in the region, and developing the new Gulf security architecture that must accompany negotiations over its nuclear program. Much of the discussion in the United States about how to deal with Iran hinges on preventing the country from acquiring nuclear weapons. But the problem of Iran is not limited to the nuclear issue. Even without nuclear arms, Iran is a looming presence in the Middle East and especially in the Gulf region." Marina Ottaway is the director of the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment. She works on issues of political transformation in the Middle East and of Gulf security.
Iraq: Creating a Strategic Partnership
Cordesman, Anthony H; Derby, Elena; Mausner, Adam. Center for Strategic and International Studies. October 28, 2009 [PDF format, 188 pages]
http://csis.org/files/publication/091028_IraqStratPartner_0.pdf
This report is a detailed analysis of the current situation in Iraq, the challenges it faces, and the actions the US needs to take to help Iraq meet these challenges. The report provides a detailed risk assessment of current and potential levels of violence in Iraq. It addresses the levels of political accommodation and stability, and the problems Iraq faces going into the coming national election. It also addresses the opportunities and problems in developing Iraq’s petroleum sector; investment and development issues in other sectors, the problems in the Iraqi budget, and progress in Iraqi reconstruction. It evaluates the need for continued economic aid and advice, and US options for extending such assistance. The concluding section examines progress in creating Iraqi military and police forces. It examines the role the United States can play in helping Iraq further develop such forces, and then analyzes what a strategic partnership, based on the Strategic Agreement, should mean. Anthony H. Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Adam Mausner is program coordinator and research assistant for the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at CSIS. Elena Derby is a research assistant.
THE UNITED STATES IN THE NEW ASIA
Feigenbaum, Evan A.; Manning, Robert A. Council on Foreign Relations [Council Special Report #50] November 2009 [PDF format, 53 pages]
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Asian_Multilateralism_CSR50.pdf
“In this Council Special Report, commissioned by CFR’s International Institutions and Global Governance program, the authors examine Asia’s regional architecture and consider what it means for the United States. They identify shortcomings in the region’s existing multilateral mix and contend that the United States must increase its involvement in shaping Asian institutions in order to advance U.S. strategic interests and protect the competitiveness of American firms. The authors outline six principles for U.S. policy toward Asia as a whole and recommend particular policies toward Northeast and Southeast Asia. Among other steps, they urge the United States to maintain a strong presence at Asian meetings; avoid intractable security issues and focus instead on topics ripe for cooperation; make use of ad hoc groupings as well as formal ones; vigorously pursue regional and global trade liberalization efforts; and view some Asian institutions that exclude the United States as acceptable, just as with the European Union. The report also presents thoughtful recommendations for how Washington can influence the multilateral landscape in ways beneficial to American interests. The result is a document with important implications for U.S. policy toward a region that promises to play a central role in shaping the coming era of history.” Evan A. Feigenbaum is senior fellow for East, Central, and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. From 2001 to 2009, he served at the U.S. Department of State in various capacities: as deputy assistant secretary of state for South Asia and for Central Asia, member of the policy planning staff with principal responsibility for East Asia and the Pacific, and as an adviser on China to Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick. Robert A. Manning is a senior adviser to the Atlantic Council. Mr. Manning served at the U.S. Department of State from 2001 to 2008, on the policy planning staff and as senior counselor for energy, technology, and science policy.
China’s Assistance and Government-Sponsored Investment Activities in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia
Lum, Thomas. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. November 25, 2009 [PDF format, 23 pages]
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/133511.pdf
"This report examines China’s “economic assistance”—a term that encompasses a mix of development aid, loans, technical assistance, and state-sponsored investments—in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. In recent years, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has bolstered its diplomatic presence and economic influence, often referred to as “soft power,” in the developing world. China has garnered considerable international goodwill through financing infrastructure and natural resource development projects, assisting in the execution of such projects, and backing PRC state enterprise ventures in many developing countries. Many observers have praised Chinese assistance and investment as filling unmet development needs, particularly in countries that have been relatively neglected by major bilateral and multilateral aid providers. Others have criticized China for not promoting democracy, equitable and sustainable development, and environmental preservation in these countries. Some U.S. policy-makers and others have expressed frustration that China’s policy of providing economic assistance “without conditions” has undermined the ability of other aid donors to influence the behaviors of aid recipients in such areas as democracy, human rights, and economic reforms. Some observers have argued that Chinese financing has burdened some developing countries with too much debt. PRC officials have responded that they are contributing to basic development and suggest that they are taking a flexible, “long-term view” of recipient countries’ abilities to repay loans. This report is largely based upon research conducted in 2007-2008 by graduate students at the New York University Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service under the supervision of Wagner School faculty and CRS specialists." Thomas Lum is an specialist in Asian Affairs at the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
REVITALIZING DEMOCRACY ASSISTANCE: THE CHALLENGES OF USAID
Carothers, Thomas. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. October 2009 [Note: contains copyrighted material] [PDF format, 66 pages]
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/revitalizing_democracy_assistance.pdf
“Among the numerous foreign policy challenges President Barack Obama inherited from his predecessor, reestablishing a credible, effective U.S. approach to promoting democracy abroad is not necessarily the most pressing but is one of the most profound. The new president and his foreign policy team have so far been moving cautiously in this domain. They are not just confronting the challenge of how to recover from the damage to the legitimacy U.S. democracy promotion inflicted during the presidency of George W. Bush. They also are grappling with a basic question that emerged on the U.S. policy table at the end of the Cold War and remains a source of debate: whether in the absence of an overarching ideologically rooted threat from a totalitarian superpower rival, standing up for democracy abroad is just a pleasing, “soft” extra in U.S. foreign policy or whether it is something vital to the achievement of “hard” U.S. interests in a significant number of areas. Crucial to any such effort will be revitalizing democracy assistance, a domain that has expanded greatly over the past 25 years but risks not adapting adequately to meet the challenges of the new landscape of democratic stagnation in the world. As the largest source of U.S. democracy assistance, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is a natural starting point for such a process of revitalization.” Thomas Carothers is the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In this capacity, he oversees the Democracy and Rule of Law Program, Middle East Program, and Carnegie Europe.
COMMITMENT TO DEVELOPMENT INDEX 2009
Roodman, David; Prieto, Cindy. Center for Global Development. October 22, 2009 [Note: contains copyrighted material] [HTML format with a link to PDF file]
http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1423075
“The Index ranks 22 of the world's richest countries on their dedication to policies that benefit the five billion people living in poorer nations. Moving beyond simple comparisons of foreign aid, the Index ranks countries on seven themes: quantity and quality of foreign aid, openness to developing-country exports, policies that influence investment, migration policies, stewardship of the global environment, security policies and support for creation and dissemination of new technologies. Sweden comes in first on the 2009 CDI on the strength of high aid quality and quantity, admission of large numbers of migrants, and low and falling greenhouse gas emissions. Close behind are Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway, also generous aid donors. New Zealand, Australia, and Spain make it into the top half with a very different profile: generally low on aid but strong on trade, investment, migration, and security.” David Roodman is a Research Fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington D.C. Cindy Prieto is Program Coordinator at the Center for Global Development.
Enhancing U.S. Preventive Action
Stares, Paul B. Zenko, Micah. Council on Foreign Relations. [Council Special Report #48] October 2009 [PDF format, 57 pages]
http://www.cfr.org/publication/20378
“In this Council Special Report, sponsored by the Center for Preventive Action, the authors assess in detail current U.S. practices with regard to different types of preventive action, examining such topics as intelligence community analyses; “watchlists” of states at risk; interagency planning processes; foreign assistance programming; and the work of the State Department office created in 2004 to lead U.S. government efforts in this area. The report cites an array of shortcomings in how the government plans and conducts its preventive activities, a situation that can leave policymakers scrambling to respond to crises after they break out. To improve this, the authors recommend a variety of steps, including revising and strengthening the strategic planning process under the leadership of the National Security Council, improving and consolidating intelligence products and connecting them more closely to policymakers, and providing additional funding for preventive efforts. The report offers detailed recommendations that could bolster the ability of the United States to identify and address threats before they erupt into crises. It also makes a strong case that given the military and economic constraints facing the United States today, such preventive action is not a luxury but a necessity.” Paul B. Stares is the General John W. Vessey senior fellow for conflict prevention and director of the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations. Micah Zenko is a fellow for conflict prevention in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
United States Institute of Peace; U.S. Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute. November 2009 [PDF format, 244 pages]
http://www.usip.org/files/resources/guiding_principles_full.pdf
"This manual serves as a tool for U.S. government civilian planners and practitioners engaged in stabilization and reconstruction (S&R)
missions and is a valuable resource for international actors and
nongovernmental organizations. It is a practical roadmap for helping countries
transition from violent conflict to peace. The manual reflects the input of
dozens of institutions across the peace building community providing a
comprehensive review of major strategic policy documents from state ministries
of defense, foreign affairs and development, along with major intergovernmental
and nongovernmental organizations that toil in war-shattered landscapes around
the globe. For decades, militaries have been equipped with doctrine that guides
their decisions and actions.Today, civilian actors
operate without the support of any unifying framework or common set of
principles to guide their actions in these complex environments. As
global demand for these missions continues to rise, this gap will only impede
cooperation and cohesion that is needed across the peace building community to
ensure success of any S&R mission. This manual seeks to fill this gap by
providing: (1) an overarching strategic framework for S&R missions based on
a construct of End States, Conditions and Approaches; (2) a comprehensive set
of shared principles and processes, distilled from the wealth of lessons that
have emerged from past S&R missions."
The Opportunity of the Obama
Era: Can Civil Society Help Bridge Divides between the United States and a Diverse Muslim
World?
Amr, Hady. Brookings Doha Center. November 2009 [PDF format, 104 pages]
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/11_civil_society_amr/11_civil_society_amr.pdf
"Does the Obama presidency present an opportunity for civil society to restore the damaged relationships between the United States and diverse Muslim-majority states and communities around the world? Like never before, the 21st century has seen varied and distinct peoples, nations, religions, and ideologies thrust together through dramatic interconnections in economic trade, the media, and the internet. Governments, citizens, and civil society groups from regions that previously had little interaction are suddenly finding themselves connected, whether they like it or not. While some groups have found common ground, clashes and divisions have emerged among others. In the wake of 9/11, civil society, particularly in the United States, but also in the Muslim world, substantially expanded initiatives to bridge their divide. Tens of millions, if not a few hundred million dollars, were spent by U.S. civil society from 9/11 through the end of the Bush era. Polling data shows that relations have gotten worse and not better. This is clearly not the fault of these initiatives, but has there at least has been improved understanding among the civil society participants themselves? Building support within civil society across the U.S.-Muslim world divide is valuable to both communities in that it can strengthen international security through mutual understanding, and open communication channels that can be used to solve shared challenges. First, building relationships among non-state actors can be valuable in defusing crises, or in providing insight and information during situations that are often rife with suspicion and misunderstanding. Second, improved relations between civil society groups in the United States and Muslim world can influence the overall environment in which discussions around the favorability of the United States and its policies, or even the legitimacy of violence used against the United States and its allies takes place." Hady Amr is a Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Foreign Policy Studies and the founding Director of the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, a project of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.
SHOULDER TO SHOULDER: FORGING A STRATEGIC U.S.- EU PARTNERSHIP
Hamilton, Daniel S.; Burwell, Frances G. The Atlantic Council, et. al. December 1, 2009 [Note: contains copyrighted material][PDF format, 96 pages]
http://www.acus.org/files/publication_pdfs/65/US-EUPartnership.pdf
The report outlines a comprehensive plan for renewing U.S.-EU relations. According to the report, the world that created the transatlantic partnership is fading fast. The United States and Europe must urgently reposition and recast their relationship as a more effective and strategic partnership. "This study seeks to generate new ideas and thinking about the roles of the United States and the European Union in a changing global environment. It is the result of a unique collaborative project among U.S. and European think tanks looking at EU and U.S. responses to globalization and the need for a more effective and strategic U.S.-EU partnership. Project partners include three U.S. think tanks -- the Atlantic Council of the United States, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Center for Transatlantic Relations (CTR) at Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) -- and a number of European think tanks -- the Center for European Policy Studies (CEPS), the Real Instituto Elcano, the Fundación Alternativas, the Swedish Insitute of International Studies, and the Prague Security Studies Institute (PSSI)." Daniel Hamilton is the Richard von Weizsäcker Professor and Founding Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University. Frances G. Burwell is Vice President, Director of Transatlantic Relations and Studies at the Atlantic Council of the United States.
A Shared U.S.-EU Vision for Energy and Climate Change
The Atlantic Council. October 26, 2009 [PDF format, 50 pages]
http://www.acus.org/files/publication_pdfs/65/AtlanticCouncil-USEUEnergy-Rev3.pdf
This report is a joint project of the Atlantic Council and the Clingendael International Energy Program at the Netherlands Institute for International Relations. It is the product of a series of workshops that included the business community, governmental organizations and civil society organizations from both sides of the Atlantic. The workshops were designed to broaden the discussion of energy issues that are of vital importance to the transatlantic community.”The world, is facing two simultaneous crises. One is financial and economic and the other is environmental. The former is making it difficult to make necessary environmental investments and to pay the higher energy costs that may be required. The latter is making it necessary to change radically how we produce and consume energy. Failure to transform the energy sector to address the threats of global warming adequately will have very costly consequences for future generations. It is essential that the United States and Europe provide the needed leadership. Renewables, for both power and transportation fuels, are critical transforming technologies. Smart grid developments are also a necessary enabling technology in obtaining energy efficiencies and to reducing demand. The expansion of safe nuclear power with a secure fuel cycle is necessary, too. In short, the transformation of the energy sector will impact virtually all segments of the energy industry.”
THREE PILLARS OF POST-2012 INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE POLICY
Olmstead, Sheila M; Stavins, Robert N. Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements. October 23, 2009 [PDF format, 7 pages]
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/stavins_olmstead%20_viewpoint.pdf
The authors present a proposal for a post-2012 international global climate policy agreement that contains three essential elements: meaningful involvement by key industrialized and developing nations; an emphasis on an extended time path of targets; and inclusion of market-based policy instruments. According to the authors, this architecture is consistent with fundamental aspects of the science, economics, and politics of global climate change. They believe the architecture is consistent with fundamental aspects of the science, economics, and politics of global climate change. The goal of the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements is to help identify and advance scientifically sound, economically rational, and politically pragmatic public policy options for addressing global climate change. Sheila M. Olmstead is Associate Professor of Environmental Economics at the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University. Robert N. Stavins is Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
THE PROSPECTS FOR COPENHAGEN: MORE REALISM CAN SMOOTH THE WAY
U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. November 2009 [PDF format, 20 pages]
http://www.energyxxi.org/reports/15347_Copenhagen.pdf
As the climate conference in Copenhagen begins, the U.S. Chamber’s Energy Institute has released this report that previews the meetings. According to the report, how rapidly advanced energy technologies are developed and adopted will be the single most important factor in determining how quickly—and at what cost—greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced. The report explores the areas of discussion among the parties in the negotiations, primarily developed and developing nations. It reviews the scale and scope of rapidly deploying clean energy technology and some of the dynamics that could hinder an agreement. In addition, the paper outlines a technology-centered approach that could form the basis of a binding international agreement that includes developing countries. "Business needs a predictable environment in which to operate and plan, and it would welcome an ambitious agreement. But that ambition needs to be tempered with a healthy dose of pragmatism. A realistic vision that encourages co-operation would be a good place to start. This paper explores some of the fault lines among the Parties in the negotiations, primarily the rift between developed and developing countries. It discusses the scale and scope of the technology challenge—which oft en gets overlooked in the public discussion—and some of the dynamics at work that hinder an agreement. And it offers the broad outlines of a technology-centered approach that could form the basis of a workable agreement. The success of these negotiations will depend in large part on the ability of the developed countries to entice large developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil into a binding agreement, but that will be easier said than done. The rift between developed and developing countries is wide, and it is difficult to see how it can be bridged in the remaining negotiating sessions."
ARTICLES
The Unravelling of the Cold War Settlement
Deudney, Daniel; Ikenberry, G. John. Survival.
December 2009, pp. 39-62.
“Twenty years ago, as the Cold War was being ushered to a close, American and
Russian leaders crafted a settlement with principles and arrangements intended
to constitute a great-power peace as well as to extend the liberal
international order. Today, the promise these arrangements once held now seems
distant. For both sides, relations are now marked by a sense of grievance,
disappointment and dashed expectations. The new administration of President
Barack Obama sees the repair of the relationship with Russia as a major
foreign-policy objective, and is ambitiously attempting to reset it and place
it on a more positive footing. Already this new policy has provoked a chorus of
condemnation that the United States is appeasing Russia and sacrificing both
its national interests and the interests of democratic allies in Eastern Europe
and the former Soviet region. In reality, the Obama policy is a move toward
recovering some of America's most successful foreign-policy approaches that
reached a zenith at the end of the Cold War under the later Reagan
administration and the George H.W. Bush administration. The premise of
the new Obama policy is that the stakes in the relationship with Russia are
very large. Its proponents recognize that achieving the goals of an American
interest based foreign policy in many areas – nuclear weapons and
non-proliferation, terrorism, energy supply and climate change, and peaceful
change in the former Soviet sphere – requires a cooperative relationship with
Russia. A further deterioration of relations will not only undermine these
goals, but also holds the unappealing prospect of a return to the type of
full-blown great-power rivalry that the Cold War seemed to end.” Daniel Deudney is Associate Professor of
Political Science, Johns Hopkins University. G. John Ikenberry
is Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at
Princeton University.
AMERICAN GRAND STRATEGY FROM THE COLD WAR’S END TO 9/11
Suri, Jeremi. Orbis. Fall 2009, pp. 611-627.
The author asserts after the end of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers sought to create a new grand strategy for the United States, but they failed in this endeavor, because of difficult domestic and international circumstances, but also because of conceptual limitations. He pins down the efforts at strategy formulation in the administrations of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and analyzes their shortcomings. The article encourages readers to think about how future strategists might improve upon this legacy with clearer and more disciplined attention to priorities, capabilities, and trade-offs. According to the author, making grand strategy in a democracy is not easy, but it is necessary. He believes the absence of effective grand strategy in the 1990s contributed to the crises of the early twenty-first century. Jeremi Suri is the E. Gordon Fox Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Prix Fixe and a`la Carte: Avoiding False Multilateral Choices
Patrick , Stewart. The Washington Quarterly. October 2009, pp.77-95.
http://www.twq.com/09october/docs/09oct_Patrick.pdf
“Tremendous forces are eroding the institutional foundations of world politics. Economic power is moving to developing countries (particularly in Asia), transnational security threats from nuclear proliferation to climate change are emerging, and influential malevolent as well as benign non-state actors compete with sovereign states for global influence. Despite these tectonic changes, the superstructure of global cooperation has barely moved. The world thus makes do with creaky institutions that reflect a world that no longer exists—with growing risks to global stability and prosperity. As president, Obama has taken symbolic and practical steps to return the United States to multilateral engagement. He has embraced the international rule of law, shuttering the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret prisons and pledging to close the terrorist detention facility in Guantánamo Bay; proposed changes to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime; engineered U.S. entry into the UN Human Rights Council; reinvigorated U.S. leadership on climate change; endorsed new regulations and governance structures for global finance; called for UN Security Council reform; and signaled his intent to seek ratification of long-languishing treaties such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). These shifts have energized those who hope Obama will spearhead fundamental global institutional reform. Yet, the prospects that the United States will lead a sweeping campaign to transform outdated global bodies such as the UN Security Council and international financial institutions (IFIs), or at least pursue a tidy “grand bargain” between a declining West and the rising Rest, are modest at best. Instead of trying to remake international order, the Obama administration should adopt a pragmatic approach to international cooperation, by selectively applying two apparently contradictory, but fundamentally complementary, forms of multilateralism: choosing from the “prix fixe” menu of formal organizations, and ordering up an "a` la carte" coalition of like-minded nations.” Stewart Patrick is a senior fellow and the director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is the author of The Best Laid Plans: The Origins of American Multilateralism and the Dawn of the Cold War (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2009).
TRANSFORMATIVE CHOICES: LEADERS AND THE ORIGINS OF INTERVENTION STRATEGY
Saunders, Elizabeth N. International Security. Fall 2009, pp. 120-162.
According to the author, one of the most contentious issues in U.S. foreign policy has been the use of military force to intervene in the domestic affairs of other states. Saunders deliberates when and why great powers seek to transform foreign institutions and societies through military interventions? She also examines the role that executive leadership plays in influencing the choice of intervention strategy, and the degree to which intervention interferes in the domestic institutions of the targeted state. In the article, Saunders develops a typology of political leaders that reflects how states intervene over time. A comparison of the beliefs of President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon B. Johnson, as well as their decision-making during the Vietnam War, illustrates how the theory operates. “Some interventions involved significant interference in other states’ domestic affairs (from the Vietnam War to the operations in Haiti and the Balkans in the 1990s); in other cases, the United States rejected such interference (as in the 1991 Persian Gulf War). More generally, some great power military interventions explicitly try to transform the domestic institutions of the states they target, whereas others do not, attempting only to reverse foreign policies or resolve disputes without trying to reshape the internal landscape of the target state. The choice of intervention strategy is crucial not only for the target state but also for the intervening state itself. Choosing a strategy ill-suited to the conflict or for which the intervening state is ill-prepared can have disastrous consequences for both intervener and target. The choice of strategy is likely to remain central to future intervention debates, even after Iraq.” Elizabeth N. Saunders is Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University.
India-Pakistan Rivalry in Afghanistan
Ganguly, Sumit; Howenstein, Nicholas. Journal of International Affairs. Fall 2009, pp. 127-141.
The Indo-Pakistani rivalry is further developed by the authors. This article traces the origins of the Indo-Pakistani rivalry in Afghanistan, assesses India's current role in Afghanistan in this context and discusses the implications for U.S. policy. They argue that American and Indian interests in Afghanistan are increasingly aligned and that long-term stability in the country will require a similar move toward concurrence of aims between India and Pakistan. “Given long-term Indian-Pakistani competition, Pakistan seeks to hobble India's expanding strategic, diplomatic and economic ties with the states of Central Asia. Moreover, the aid that India has provided for the construction of major infrastructure-power plants, transmission lines, schools, hospitals and roads, including the Zaranj-Delaram highway--is ending Afghanistan's dependence on Pakistan, especially for access to Indian Ocean ports. India is also assisting in the building of schools in the volatile Afghan province of Kunar. As a result, it seems that India has not only developed a concerted Afghan strategy, but has also become the "preferred" ally in that country, having invested much more than Pakistan's $300 million.” Sumit Ganguly holds the Rabindranath Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilizations at Indiana University in Bloomington. Nicholas Howenstein is a Senior Program Assistant at the U.S. Institute of Peace.
Christine Fair, C.; Jones, Seth. Survival. December 2009, pp. 161-188.
“Prior to 2001, Pakistan had limited experience countering domestic militants. Today, the Pakistani army still prefers to focus on a potential war with India rather than against sub-state actors. Nonetheless, there have been noted improvements since 2001, and throughout 2009 Islamabad has demonstrated increasing resolve to defeat militants challenging the writ of the state. Earlier operations such as Al Mizan revealed serious deficiencies in the ability to conduct cordon-and-search operations and to hold territory. In the later operations in Bajaur and Swat, however, the Frontier Corps and army forces showed an improved capability to clear territory and integrate operations with local tribes. But Pakistani doctrine remains inconsistent with recent population-centric innovations in counter-insurgency warfare. Pakistan's commitment to a conventional orientation and the hardware most appropriate for fighting India has poorly equipped it to deal with the burgeoning domestic threat.” C. Christine Fair is an assistant professor at Georgetown University and a senior fellow with the Counter Terrorism Center at West Point. She is the author of The Madrassah Challenge: Militancy and Religious Education in Pakistan (Washington DC: USIP, 2009). Seth G. Jones most recently served as Plans Officer and Advisor to the Commanding General, US Special Operations Forces, in Afghanistan, and is the author of In the Graveyard of Empires: America’s War in Afghanistan (New York and London: W.W. Norton, 2009).
Edelstein, David M. The Wilson Quarterly. Autumn 2009, pp.34-40.
“The debate over exit strategies originated in America's painful experience during the Vietnam War, which led some foreign-policy thinkers to conclude that an exit plan should be a prerequisite for any military intervention. The debate intensified in the 1990s, after the end of the Cold War, as the United States undertook interventions that appeared to be matters of choice more than necessity. In laying down what came to be called the Powell Doctrine, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell included an exit strategy on his list of conditions that should be met before the United States committed forces overseas. But from Somalia to the Balkans and Haiti, none of the subsequent conflicts to which U.S. forces were committed in the 1990s met this condition, much less Powell's chief principle that interventions must be directly tied to the long-term security of American interests.” David M. Edelstein is an assistant professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, the Security Studies Program, and the Department of Government at Georgetown University. This article is drawn from his research on exit strategies as a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center during 2008-09.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND US POLICY IN ASIA
Sutter, Robert. Contemporary Southeast Asia. August 2009, pp. 189-218.
"American preoccupation with the global economic recession and conflicts in Southwest Asia and the Middle East indicated that US relations with the rest of the Asia-Pacific region were likely to be of generally secondary importance at the start of the Obama administration. In Asia, the economic crisis put a premium on close US collaboration with the major economies, China and Japan, and on avoiding egregiously self-serving economic practices that could prompt protectionism and curb world growth. Apart from the Middle East-Southwest Asian region, the other major area of US security concern in Asia was North Korea. North Korea's escalating provocations created a major international crisis in 2009 that forced the Obama government to change priorities and give top-level attention to dealing with Pyongyang. The Obama government seemed poised to build on and make a few needed adjustments to Bush administration policies towards regional allies and emerging powers, China and India. Early indicators suggest that enhanced US activism and flexibility in Southeast Asia may represent a significant change in US policy in Asia under an Obama administration that otherwise seems generally inclined to adhere fairly closely to pragmatic and constructive US approaches to key Asia issues in recent years." Robert Sutter is Visiting Professor of Asian Studies at the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.
The New Security Drama in East Asia: The Responses of U.S. Allies and Security Partners to China's Rise
Medeiros, Evan S. Naval War College Review. Autumn 2009, pp. 37-52.
“In the theater of East Asia, a geopolitical drama is unfolding. The growing presence of China in regional economic and security affairs—generically referred to as the “rise of China”—is changing interstate relations. China’s rise is affecting the perceptions, interests, and policies of all nations throughout East Asia. For the United States, the responses of its allies and security partners are uniquely consequential. These countries are the foundation of American presence in the region as well as the edifice of a regional security architecture that has produced decades of relative stability and prosperity. To understand and evaluate these evolving dynamics, the RAND Corporation conducted a year-long study of the responses of U.S. allies and security partners in East Asia. The study sought to answer four questions: How have these nations responded to China? What forces are driving these reactions? How will the drivers change? What are the implications for American regional security interests? The study examined the responses to China of the five U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific and of Singapore, a major security partner. The RAND study analyzed the responses of these six nations in four areas: domestic politics and public opinion, economic policy, foreign policy, and defense policy. This structure allowed the study to explore a range of national responses as well as responses across each functional area (e.g., defense policy), generating conclusions about both country-specific and region wide responses to China. This article highlights the most salient findings from this research.” Dr. Evan S. Medeiros in August 2009 became director for China, Taiwan, and Mongolia affairs at the National Security Council at the White House. He completed this article while a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation. From 2007 to 2008,he served as the policy adviser to the special envoy for China and the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue at the Treasury Department.
CHINA, NUCLEAR SECURITY AND TERRORISM: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES
Grogan, Steven. Orbis. Fall 2009, pp. 685-704.
The author describes Chinese strategic nuclear forces and the Chinese approach to nuclear security. He then focuses on the domestic conditions in China which could result in vulnerabilities to its nuclear forces. Based on these threats, Grogan outlines several scenarios involving a variety of terrorist or terrorist related events. These notional scenarios include overrun or attack, diversion, cyber terrorism and sabotage. He covers what these scenarios and the possible Chinese reaction to them may mean for the security, military and diplomatic strategies of the U.S. Steven Grogan is an analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency in Washington DC.
BAD DEBTS: ASSESSING CHINA’S FINANCIAL INFLUENCE IN GREAT POWER POLITICS
Drezner, Daniel W. International Security. Fall 2009, pp. 7-45.
Drezner states that policymakers have voiced growing concerns about U.S. dependence on China and other authoritarian capitalist states as a source of credit to fund the U.S. trade and budget deficits. He argues if Beijing or another sovereign creditor were to flex its financial muscles, Washington could buckle. The ability of creditor states to convert their financial power into political power suggests that the power of credit has been moderately exaggerated in policy circles. China’s financial power increases its deterrent capabilities, but it has little effect on its coercible capabilities. China can use its financial power to resist U.S. entreaty, but it cannot force the United States into changing its policies. Financial power works best when a concert of creditors (or debtors) can be maintained. The author describes two case studies—the contestation over regulating sovereign wealth funds and the protection of Chinese financial investments in the United States—demonstrate the constraints on China’s financial power. Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
"Moderates" Redefined: How To Deal with Political Islam
Nakhleh, Emile. Current History. December 2009, pp. 402-409.
“Political Islam has been part of the modern Middle East landscape for several decades, but until recently the United States has rarely perceived a need to engage it. After the attacks against New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, the administration of George W. Bush painted political Islam in the Middle East, as in the rest of the Muslim world, with the broad brush of terrorism. Some academics, think tanks, and intelligence analysts in recent years have urged US policy makers to engage credible civil society institutions in the Middle East—despite the objections of entrenched authoritarian regimes—in order to encourage political and educational reforms in these societies and spur governments to open up public space for mainstream groups to participate in the political process. As the Obama administration proceeds with implementing principles that the president enunciated in his Cairo speech, policy makers will have to find ways to convince regimes that engaging civil society institutions and non-state actors in their societies will not necessarily undermine those regimes. Consequently, these experts have argued that, in order to achieve the strategic objective of political reform and democratization in the region, it is imperative for the United States to engage mainstream Islamic political parties that are committed to gradual change through the ballot box. Examples of such parties and movements include the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Islamic Action Front in Jordan, the Islamic Constitutional Movement in Kuwait, Al Wifaq in Bahrain, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Justice and Development Party in Morocco.” Emile Nakhleh is a former senior intelligence officer with the US Central Intelligence Agency, where he served as director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis program and chief of regional analysis for the Near East and South Asia. He is the author of A Necessary Engagement: Reinventing America’s Relations with the Muslim World (Princeton University Press, 2008).
The Gaza War and the Changing Strategic Landscape in the Middle East: An Assessment
Bahgat, Gawdat. Mediterranean Quarterly. Summer 2009, pp. 63-76.
“On 27 December 2008, Israeli forces attacked Gaza to stop missile attacks by Hamas. The military operation lasted twenty-two days and ended with a fragile cease-fire. This study seeks to provide an assessment of all involved parties' stances. The three-week Gaza war occurred during the transition period from the Bush to the Obama administrations. The crisis underscored the significance of an American engagement in the Arab-Israeli conflict and peace process. The author argues that some parties gained more than others, but the operation dealt a heavy blow to an already fragile peace process. Indeed, the Gaza war has further reinforced the current and growing polarization between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The continuing disagreement between the Palestinian factions and the election of a right-wing Israeli government suggest that the prospects for peace in the foreseeable future are dim.” Gawdat Bahgat is professor at the Near East – South Asia Center for Strategic Studies, National Defense University, Washington, DC.
Do Settlements Matter? An American Perspective
Kurtzer, Daniel C. Middle East Policy. Fall 2009, pp. 89-95.
“Since 1967, one of the most pervasive questions in the Arab-Israeli peace process has been whether or not Israeli settlements represent a fundamental blockage to progress. This question is surely on the agenda of the Obama administration as it weighs its options for advancing the prospects for peace. Thus, it is timely to review this matter in some detail. In 1993, the corresponding number of settlers was 116,300, during this fifteen-year period, the settler population increased by about 150 percent.\n If the Obama administration decides to devote attention to the Palestinian track, it faces two additional complementary challenges: does leadership exist in both communities willing and able to mobilize political support for the tough negotiations and tougher compromises required of a peace process?”. Ambassador Kurtzer holds the S. Daniel Abraham Chair in Middle East Policy Studies at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. During a 29-year career in diplomacy, he served as the U.S. ambassador to Egypt (1997-2001) and Israel (2001-05).
THE FISCAL CRISIS: TRANSATLANTIC MISUNDERSTANDINGS
Brown, Bernard E. American Foreign Policy Interests. September 2009, pp. 313–324.
“It is widely believed in Europe that the fiscal crisis was caused by the absence of government regulation of the financial sector in the United States. This belief, the article argues, is an oversimplification that encourages unrealistic hopes for quick solutions and for a drastic shift of the balance of power from the United States to the European Union and other actors. In conclusion, the article points to underlying problems of the ‘‘market-state,’’ the dominant economic model in all advanced democracies today. Most people now believe that the United States is responsible for plunging the world into a recession or, worse, a depression. In negotiations for rebuilding the global economy, Americans face questioning and opposition from allies and foes alike. The result for many observers has been a shift in the global balance of power away from the United States and toward, notably, the European Union (EU) and the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) along with increased importance for developing nations. But destabilization may have perverse consequences for Europe as well. To take but one possible scenario: Some of the countries formerly part of or dominated by the Soviet Union are now on the brink of economic collapse, particularly the Baltic states, Ukraine, Hungary, and Romania. If political chaos follows, Russia may be able to reestablish a sphere of influence in much of Eastern Europe. The European Union might not survive if some of its new members fall once again under Russian domination. Rarely have the links among economics, politics, diplomacy, and power been so clearly and dramatically illuminated.” Bernard E. Brown is director of the Transatlantic Relations Project of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy. Professor emeritus of political science at the City University of New York (Graduate Center).
Europe’s Structural Idol: An American Federalist Republic?
Parent, Joseph M. Political Science Quarterly. Fall 2009, pp. 513-535.
"Advocates of the European Union (EU) aspire to a United States of Europe, a political union with its own character and voice, but unified peacefully and democratically along the lines of the United States of America. A long line of elites have invoked the Philadelphia Convention and announced ambitions of matching American strength and unity. Then-President of France Jacques Chirac urged, “The European Union itself [must] become a major pole of international equilibrium, endowing itself with the instruments of a true power.” Similar statements from others could be multiplied tediously. These sentiments are not confined to elites; an impressive majority of European citizens want the EU to be a peer competitor of the United States. What does the American past tell us of the European future? The importance of the answer could hardly be higher. How integrated Europe grows in the coming years will affect the deepest contours of great-power politics for generations. Even skeptics of the EU concede that, unified, the European continent would be a juggernaut. However, scholars and policymakers have a limited understanding of how and why states voluntarily unify." Joseph M. Parent is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Miami.
Lebl, Leslie S. Orbis. Winter 2010, pp.46-60.
“Europe now faces three related but different challenges: how to respond, in a time when “native” European populations are shrinking, to the growing presence of Muslim minorities; how to avoid having its relationships with its Muslim communities controlled by Islamists who seek to replace Western civilization with Islamic government based on sharia law; and what to do generally about this Islamist threat. Thus far, the European responses to these challenges have been shaped by four factors: accumulated civilizational exhaustion; the inability to grasp the challenge posed to European national identities by the allure of the global Caliphate; weakness arising from degraded security capabilities, including the impact of the continued drive to “build Europe” by adopting the Treaty of Lisbon; and the preference for appeasement of Islamist demands.” Leslie S. Lebl is a Fellow of the American Center for Democracy and Principal of Lebl Associates. A writer, lecturer and consultant on political and security matters. She is a former career foreign service officer, she served as minister-counselor for political affairs at the U.S. mission to the EU, 2000-2003.
The Geopolitics of Arctic Melt
Ebinger, Charles K.; Zambetakis, Evie. International Affairs. Fall 2009, pp.1215–1232.
"Global climate change has catapulted the Arctic into the centre of geopolitics, as melting Arctic ice transforms the region from one of primarily scientific interest into a maelstrom of competing commercial, national security and environmental concerns, with profound implications for the international legal and political system. The significance of an Arctic rendered increasingly accessible by the melting of ice as a result of rising global temperatures should not be underestimated. As the region opens to increased human activity such as traffic from commercial shipping, tourism, and oil and gas exploration, soot emitted by maritime vessels and operations will land on the ice...Strengthened legal and regulatory frameworks in the Arctic will be necessary to attract international investment and development. The debate on the future of Arctic governance centers on whether to create new or use existing multinational frameworks. Although the US enforces the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) without having ratified it, it lags behind the rest of the Arctic states on its Arctic policy and in asserting its presence. The Arctic is governed by international customary maritime law in the form of UNCLOS, and cooperation is fostered by the Arctic Council, in addition to bilateral agreements or understandings between states with competing claims. The EU, while not having an official position on the matter, also supports a multilateral approach. This has been and continues to be the context in which the Arctic states operate, and there is reason to believe that this spirit of cooperation will continue. The uncertainty here lies in the timeline, as the horizon for an easily accessible Arctic Ocean lies far in the future." Charles K. Ebinger is Senior Fellow and Director of the Energy Security Initiative at The Brookings Institution. is Project/Research Coordinator of the Energy Security Initiative at Brookings.
Stokes, Bruce. National Journal. October 31, 2009.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20091031_9295.php
Stokes says that the negotiations at the climate-change talks in Copenhagen in December promise to be a daunting task. It is estimated that emissions will need to be cut by 50 percent by 2050 in order to hold the temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius and carbon-dioxide concentrations to 450 parts per million. The industrialized world’s goals at the conference will reflect their publics’ acknowledgement of the seriousness of the problem -- and in this, the U.S. lags behind the rest of the developed world. The developing nations see binding commitments as not in their national interest, noting that they account for only a fraction of global emissions, and want the developed countries to help pay for clean technology and environmental mitigation. Most countries are reluctant to take action on their own, without seeing that others are doing the same. Stokes says that “the central challenge in Copenhagen may well be finding a way to nurture trust and marry it with ambition . . . Coordinating these activities, striking a balance between accountability and equity, and pursuing the goals with sufficient urgency may prove to be among the most daunting tasks that the global community has ever undertaken.”
Securing the Information Highway
Clark, Wesley K.; Levin; Peter L. Foreign Affairs. November/December 2009.
"There is no form of military combat more irregular than an electronic attack: it is extremely cheap, is very fast, can be carried out anonymously, and can disrupt or deny critical services precisely at the moment of maximum peril. The US is already engaged in low-intensity cyberconflicts, characterized by aggressive enemy efforts to collect intelligence on the country's weapons, electrical grid, traffic-control system, and even its financial markets. Fortunately, the Obama administration recognizes that the US is utterly dependent on Internet-based systems and that its information assets are therefore precariously exposed. Accordingly, it has made electronic network security a crucial defense priority. Seeking to completely obliterate the threats of electronic infiltration, data theft, and hardware sabotage is neither cost-effective nor technically feasible; the best the US can achieve is sensible risk management. Washington must develop an integrated strategy that addresses everything from the sprawling communications network to the individual chips inside computers." Wesley K. Clark, a retired four-star General, was Supreme Commander of NATO from 1997 to 2000, and is a Senior Fellow at the Ron Burkle Center for International Relations at UCLA. Peter L. Levin was the founding CEO of the cybersecurity company DAFCA and is now Chief Technology Officer and Senior Adviser to the Secretary at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
U.S. DOMESTIC POLICY AND TRENDS
REPORTS
The Open Government Progress Report to the American People
The White House. December 2009 [PDF format, 28 pages]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ogi-progress-report-american-people.pdf
In the Memorandum on Transparency and Open
Government, issued on January 21, 2009, the President instructed the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue an Open Government
Directive. President Obama also directed the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to
issue recommendations for creating a more transparent, partici
Orszag, Peter R. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. December 8, 2009 [PDF format, 11 pages]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf
This directive, sent to the heads of every federal department and agency, instructs the agencies to take specific actions to open their operations to the public. This directive is intended to direct executive departments and agencies to take specific actions to implement the principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration set forth in the President’s Memorandum of January 21, 2009. The directive requires federal agencies and departments to take the following steps toward the goal of creating a more open government: publish government information online; improve the quality of government information; create and institutionalize a culture of open government; create an enabling policy framework for Open Government.”
LOBBYING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH: CURRENT PRACTICES AND OPTIONS FOR CHANGE
Straus, Jacob R. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. December 1, 2009 [PDF format, 18 pages]
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40947_20091201.pdf
The report outlines the development of registration requirements for lobbyists engaging executive branch officials since 1995. It also summarizes steps taken by the Obama Administration to limit and monitor lobbying of the executive branch; discusses the development and implementation of restrictions placed on lobbying for Recovery Act and Emergency Economic Stabilization Act funds; examines the Obama Administration's decision to stop appointing lobbyists to federal advisory bodies and committees; considers third-party criticism of current executive branch lobbying policies; and provides options for possible modifications in current lobbying laws and practices. Jacob R. Straus is an analyst on the Congress at the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
JOBS AND THE NEW GROWTH AGENDA
Lind, Michael. New America Foundation. December 2, 2009 [PDF format, 5 pages]
"President Obama’s December 3rd jobs summit has drawn attention to the debate over policy options for job creation. The case for intelligent and aggressive public policy to promote job creation, in addition to the helpful but inadequate stimulus package, is overwhelming. An effective program for creating jobs in the short term while laying the groundwork for future growth must meet several tests. First, public spending or tax expenditures must have high multiplier effects. Second, short-term policies should be of value if they are converted into long-term reforms. Finally, the scale should be adequate and substantial, not inadequate and symbolic. These tests are met by a new growth agenda with three major elements: (1) Infrastructure Investment; (2) Public Service Investment; (3) Pro-Growth Tax Reform. Michael Lind is Policy Director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation.
Economic Stimulus: Issues and Policies
Gravelle, Jane G, et. al. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. November 10, 2009 [PDF format, 25 pages]
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/132244.pdf
This report first discusses the current state of the economy, including measures that have already been taken by the monetary authorities. It also reviews the economic stimulus package and assesses the need for and potential consequences of fiscal stimulus. The final section of the report discusses recent and proposed financial interventions. “The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) has declared the U.S. economy to be in recession since December of 2007. With the worsening performance of the economy, congressional leaders and President Obama proposed much larger stimulus packages. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), an $820 billion package with $275 billion in tax cuts, it contained infrastructure spending, revenue sharing with the states, middle class tax cuts, business tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and food stamps. The version of the bill was signed into law on February 17, 2009 (P.L. 111-5). Jane G. Gravelle is Senior Specialist in Economic Policy at the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
WHERE WILL THE JOBS COME FROM?
Stangler, Dane; Litan, Robert E. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. November 2009 [Note: contains copyrighted material] [PDF format, 17 pages]
http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/where_will_the_jobs_come_from.pdf
The report shows that newly created and young companies are the primary drivers of job creation in the United States. Kauffman’s analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data showing that companies less than five years old created nearly two-thirds of net new jobs in 2007 could not be timelier. The distinction of firm age, not necessarily size, as the driver of job creation has many implications, particularly for policymakers who are focusing on small business as the answer to a dire employment situation. The report shows that most net job creation is generated by firms that are one to five years old. Dane Stangler is a senior analyst at the Kauffman Foundation. Robert E. Litan is vice president for Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation.
Beyond California: States in Fiscal Peril
Pew Center on the States. November 11, 2009 [PDF format, 70 pages]
http://downloads.pewcenteronthestates.org/BeyondCalifornia.pdf
“So far, the most-populous state—and eighth biggest economy in the world—has unsuccessfully sought a $7 billion federal loan guarantee to pay its bills and started shutting state offices several Fridays a month to close the largest state budget gap in the country. The same housing-market bust that triggered the national recession in December 2007 also set off the Golden State’s fiscal crisis. But a challenging mix of economic, money management and political factors has pushed California to the brink of insolvency. California’s problems are in a league of their own. But the same pressures that drove it toward fiscal disaster are wreaking havoc in a number of states, with potentially damaging consequences for the entire country. This report takes a close look at nine states particularly affected: Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. While not a comprehensive diagnosis of states’ fiscal health, this study begins to help us understand why some states are suffering more acutely from the nation’s economic crisis than others—and which may have the toughest time regaining their footing. The 10 states account for more than a third of America’s population1 and economic output. And actions taken by state governments to balance their budgets—such as tax increases and drastic spending cuts—can slow down the nation’s economic recovery.”
Fiscal Challenges Facing Cities: Implications for Recovery
Muro, Mark; Hoene, Christopher W. Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution; National Leagues of Cities. November 2009. [PDF format, 16 pages]
“America’s current economic crisis is not only a national crisis. It is also a metropolitan crisis, and it will soon become a local government fiscal crisis. Coping with the worst economic downturn in 50 years, U.S. cities face sizable budget shortfalls for 2009 that are expected to grow much more severe and widespread in 2010 and 2011. With the pace of recovery still sluggish, local government budget tightening and spending cuts over the next two years could well impose a significant drag on the nation’s economic performance just as the extraordinary interventions of the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) trail off. This report surveys the current state of U.S. cities’ finances, reviews city leaders’ responses to those conditions, and places these developments in the context of efforts aimed at securing the nation’s recovery from the current severe slump.” Mark Muro is a Fellow and Policy Director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institution. Chris Hoene is Director of the Center for Research & Innovation at the National League of Cities.
New York City Green-Collar Jobs Roadmap
Cha, J. Mijin; Dafoe, Jack. Center for American Progress; Urban Agenda. October 27, 009 [PDF format, 102 pages]
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/10/pdf/ny_green_jobs.pdf
This roadmap is the product of the Green-Collar Jobs Roundtable—a participatory effort of over 170 job-training organizations, community-based programs, businesses, and labor unions committed to creating green-collar jobs in New York City. The roundtable was convened by Urban Agenda and compiled data on green jobs and workforce development best practices while developing more than 30 recommendations for achieving the shared vision of a more sustainable, prosperous, and just New York City. The recommendations in the roadmap are from a series of working groups that came together as part of the roundtable. The working groups looked at all aspects of a green economy, including the current landscape, training, employers, job standards, and target populations. Alongside these working groups the political strategy working group provided guidance on how to move the green-collar jobs workforce development agenda through legislative and political channels. The roadmap takes as a given that the city needs to adopt a greener, more sustainable economic growth agenda to thrive. New York is a global city surrounded by water, and as such it is particularly vulnerable to global climate instability and energy supply volatility. But the report does not simply state the need to move onto a more renewable and efficient energy path—it articulates the steps necessary to make sure that path leads to strong economic growth, good jobs, and broadly shared benefits for all New Yorkers. J. Mijin Cha is Director of Campaign Research at the Urban Agenda. Jack Dafoe is a policy analyst at the Urban Agenda.
The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States
Hanson, Gordon H. Migration Policy Institute (MPI). December 2009 [PDF format, 19 pages]
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Hanson-Dec09.pdf
Illegal immigration's overall impact on the US economy is negligible, despite clear benefits for employers and unauthorized immigrants and slightly depressed wages for low-skilled native workers, according to this report. This paper was commissioned to inform the work of MPI's Labor Markets Initiative, which is conducting a comprehensive, policy-focused review of the role of legal and illegal immigration in the labor market. "Policymakers across the political spectrum share a belief that high levels of illegal immigration are an indictment of the current immigration policy regime. Unauthorized immigrants provide a ready source of manpower in agriculture, construction, food processing, building cleaning and maintenance, and other low-end jobs, at a time when the share of low-skilled native-born individuals in the US labor force has fallen dramatically. Not only do unauthorized immigrants provide an important source of low-skilled labor, they also respond to market conditions in ways that legal immigration presently cannot, making them particularly appealing to US employers. Despite all this, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the US economy is small. Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. Where does this leave policymakers? Any new reform effort will have to take a stand on preventing versus facilitating inflows of low-skilled foreign labor. Legislation is expected to embrace aspects of two different strategies: enforcement strategies designed to prevent illegal immigration, and accommodation strategies designed to divert illegal flows through legal channels using legalization and expanded legal options for future prospective migrants." Gordon H. Hanson is Director of the Center on Pacific Economies and a Professor of Economics at the University of California, San Diego. He is also a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
The Great American Migration Slowdown: Regional and Metropolitan Dimensions
Frey, William H. The Brookings Institution. December 2009 [PDF format, 28 pages]
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2009/1209_migration_frey/1209_migration_frey.pdf
According to the report, much attention has been given to the overall decline of migration in the United States, its impact was strongest on particular regions, states, metropolitan areas, cities, and suburbs. Shedding further light on the nature of the recent migration slowdown, the report details how different types of households and parts of the country have been affected and provides some insights on what may happen if and when migration again heats up. “After providing an overview of relevant data sources, the report proceeds in five parts. It first examines the overall magnitude of the migration downturn, and the social and demographic groups most affected by it. It places special emphasis on longer-distance, interstate migration, which took the greatest plunge in response to the troubled job and housing markets. Next, it considers how the migration slowdown has impacted individual states, focusing in particular on three traditional Sun Belt states—Florida, Texas, and California. An assessment of the slowdown’s impacts on metropolitan areas follows, with attention to “mirror image” migration patterns between complementary metro areas in coastal California and the interior West; and between analogues in Florida and the Northeast. The report next looks at migration shifts within metropolitan areas between urban, suburban, and exurban areas. Finally, it discusses the continued role of international migration as a source of population gains for major immigrant magnet metropolitan areas. A conclusion summarizes findings and speculates about what they indicate for migration and population shifts within the United States over the next several years.” William H. Frey is Senior Fellow of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution.
Where the Public Stands on Immigration Reform
Keeter, Scott. Pew
Research Center. November 23, 2009.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1421/where-the-public-stands-on-immigration-reform
“Recently the Obama administration announced that it will push for legislation next year to overhaul the nation's immigration system. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that the administration will argue for what she called a "three-legged stool" including stricter enforcement, a "tough and fair pathway to earned legal status" for undocumented immigrants already in the U.S., and a more efficient process for legal immigration. How is the public likely to react to this new push? Since 2007 when the Bush administration failed in its effort to build a coalition in support of comprehensive reform, the issue has been relatively dormant. Pew Research polling has found significant public support for both tougher enforcement and the so-called "path to citizenship," but several factors suggest that the debate could be a difficult one.” Scott Keeter is director of survey research at the Pew Research Center.
CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS: IMMIGRATION TRENDS
Fortuny, Karina; Chaudry, Ajay. The Urban Institute. Web posted October 26, 2009 [PDF format, 6 pages]
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/901292_immigrationtrends.pdf
“This fact sheet is the first in a series of publications on children of immigrants. The series updates the Urban Institute’s May 2006 fact sheet that described the characteristics of children of immigrants in the early 2000s. The current series profiles the population of children of immigrants in the United States using data from the 2007 American Community Survey and other sources. Children in immigrant families are the fastest growing segment of the nation’s children population. While the number of children in native families grew by 2.1 million between 1990 and 2007, children of immigrants increased by 8.1 million during this time. The share of children that have at least one foreign-born parent rose rapidly as a result, and now children of immigrants represent more than one in five U.S. children.” Ajay Chaudry is the director of the Urban Institute's Center on Labor, Human Services, and Population. Karina Fortuny is a researcher at the Center on Labor, Human Services, and Population.
ACHIEVING GRADUATION FOR ALL: A GOVERNOR’S GUIDE TO DROPOUT PREVENTION AND RECOVERY
Princiotta, Daniel; Reyna, Ryan. National Governors Association. October 22, 2009 [PDF format, 48 pages]
http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0910ACHIEVINGGRADUATION.PDF
The report addresses the alarming rate at which students in the United States drop out of high school. The report identifies the root causes of the high school dropout problem and offers a comprehensive action plan for states to curb dropouts, help youth succeed and strengthen state economies. Currently, one in five students drop out of high school, and dropouts cost the United States more than $300 billion each year in lost wages and increased public-sector expenses. "Although knowledge of why students drop out exists, states face numerous challenges to action. In many states, outdated laws allow students to drop out before age 18, schools are not held accountable for graduation rates, and responsibility for dropout prevention and recovery is diffuse or nonexistent. Many schools lack the capacity to identify and intervene on behalf of students at risk of dropping out and, once students have dropped out, no clear path back to school exists. Finally, in all states, there are too many low-performing schools and too few effective education options for children and youth. Governors are in an extraordinary position to confront these challenges and stem the tide of high school dropouts." Daniel Princiotta and Ryan Reyna work in the Education Division of the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.
LEADERS AND LAGGARDS: A STATE-BY-STATE REPORT CARD ON EDUCATIONAL INNOVATION
Center for American Progress; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; American Enterprise Institute. November 9, 2009 [PDF format, 113 pages]
http://www.aei.org/docLib/Leaders%20and%20Laggards%20Report.pdf
According to the report, the authors find much to applaud when grading the states on school performance. However, they also feel that the education system needs to be reinvented. “Two years ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Center for American Progress, and Frederick M. Hess of the American Enterprise Institute came together to grade the states on school performance. In that first Leaders and Laggards report, we found much to applaud but even more that requires urgent improvement. In this follow-up report, we turn our attention to the future, looking not at how states are performing today, but at what they are doing to prepare themselves for the challenges that lie ahead. Thus, some states with positive academic results receive poor grades on our measures of innovation, while others with lackluster scholarly achievement nevertheless earn high marks for policies that are creating an entrepreneurial culture in their schools. We chose this focus because, regardless of current academic accomplishment in each state, we believe innovative educational practices are vital to laying the groundwork for continuous and transformational change.”
HARNESSING OPENNESS TO IMPROVE RESEARCH, TEACHING, AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Committee for Economic Development. November 6, 2009 [Note: contains copyrighted material] [PDF format, 100 pages]
http://www.ced.org/images/library/reports/digital_economy/dcc_opennessedu09.pdf
One of the main recommendations of this
report is that colleges and universities should embrace the concept of
increased openness in the use and sharing of information to improve higher
education. “The Internet and the digitization of
information are increasing the potential for information, processes and
organizations to become more “open.” This
report examines higher education through the lens of openness, with the goal of
understanding the potential impact of greater openness on colleges and
universities. Like other service industries such as finance or entertainment,
higher education is rooted in information—its creation, analysis, and transmis
THE BINATIONAL OPTION: MEETING THE INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS OF LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS
Fix, Michael; Terrazas, Aaron. Migration Policy Institute. November 2009 [PDF format, 55 pages]
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/TeacherExchange-Nov09.pdf
With 1 in 10 children in U.S. schools having limited English proficiency, school districts across the country face challenges in meeting the students' educational needs and finding enough qualified bilingual and English as a Second Language educators. The report identifies international teacher exchanges as an innovative strategy for school administrators to respond to immediate teaching needs, particularly in subject areas where knowledge of a foreign language is necessary. "This report examines one often-overlooked strategy: binational teacher exchanges. Although hardly flawless, these exchanges challenge widely held misconceptions about immigrants and immigration and potentially offer lessons for future policy directions. In conjunction with efforts to recruit local teachers, foreign teachers can help alleviate endemic shortages — particularly in districts that face rapid, unexpected, or short-term changes in the student population. The focus of the report is twofold. It first examines the instructional needs of limited English proficient students and the various approaches that schools and districts have implemented to meet these needs. It then highlights the shared interests and shared benefit from cooperation between countries to address the specialized educational needs of immigrant and second-generation youth. Binational teacher exchanges have been most fully developed between the United States, Mexico, and Spain. The limited evidence of the impact of these programs suggests that, although small, they expose students to experienced educators. The teachers also benefit from the workplace experience and language skills that they acquire in the United States. When thoughtfully designed and aligned with longer-term strategies to address teacher shortages, teacher exchange programs show a clear potential to meet the needs of all the stakeholders involved". Michael Fix is Senior Vice President and Director of Studies at the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), as well as Co-Director of MPI's National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy. Aaron Terrazas is an Associate Policy Analyst at the Migration Policy Institute.
FAMILY MOBILITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE: NEW EVIDENCE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY INITIATIVES
Coulton, Claudia, et al. The Urban Institute. November 2, 2009 [PDF format, 57 pages]
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411973_family_mobility.pdf
“The community-change field has long
recognized that residential mobility poses a challenge to our efforts to
improve outcomes for low-income families through neighborhood revitalization.
Policymakers, and practitioners committed to community-change strategies face
the reality that many original residents inevitably move out over the course of
a long-term neighborhood development effort. This reality raises a number of
significant questions: What are the factors that motivate families to leave or
stay in a neighborhood? How does family mobility contribute to neighborhood
change? Only by understanding the basic dynamics of family mobility and
neighborhood change can we craft interventions and policies that promote
positive results and prevent spiraling decline for both residents and
communities. To shed new light on these challenges, this report uses a unique
survey conducted as part of the 10-neighborhood Making Connections
initiative. The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Making
Connections initiative is a decade-long effort focused on target
neighborhoods in 10 cities: Denver, Des Moines, Hartford, Indianapolis,
Louisville, Milwaukee, Oakland, Providence, San Antonio, and White Center
(outside Seattle). The target neighborhoods
offer a unique and valuable window on the dynamics of low-income, mostly
minority neighborhoods nationwide. This report consists of three components.
The first component focuses on how residential mobility contributed to changes over
time in the composition and characteristics of the Making Connections
neighborhoods. The second component explores the characteristics and changing
circumstances of movers, newcomers, and stayers,
identifying distinctly different groups of households that reflect different
reasons for moving or staying in place. The final component introduces five
stylized models of neighborhood performance, each of which has implications for
the well-being of low-income families and for community-change efforts.” Claudia
Coulton is Co-director of the Center on Urban Poverty & Community
Development and Lillian F. Harris Professor of Urban Research
& Social Change at the Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case
Western Reserve University.
FOX NEWS VIEWED AS MOST IDEOLOGICAL NETWORK
Kohut, Andrew; Remez, Michael. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. October 29, 2009 [PDF format, 15 pages]
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/559.pdf
According to this survey, the Fox News Channel is viewed by Americans in more ideological terms than other television news networks. And while the public is evenly divided in its view of hosts of cable news programs having strong political opinions, more Fox News viewers see this as a good thing than as a bad thing. Opinion about the ideological orientation of other TV news outlets is more mixed: while many view CNN and the three broadcast networks as mostly liberal, about the same percentages say they are neither in particular. However, somewhat more say MSNBC is mostly liberal than say it is neither in particular, by 36% to 27%. Andrew Kohut is the President and Director of the Pew Research Center, in Washington, DC. Michael Remez is Senior Writer at the Pew Research Center.
ARTICLES
Schambra, William. National Affairs. Fall 2009, pp.127-145.
http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/obama-and-the-policy-approach
“Nine months into his tenure, the patterns of President Barack
Obama's style of governing are becoming clear. Obama had no executive
experience when he took the presidential oath last
Who Are The Parties' Best Strategists?
Barnes, James A. National Journal. December 12, 2009.
“When National Journal's Insiders were asked to identify the best strategists in their parties, Democrats and Republicans turned their attention to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Obama White House senior adviser David Axelrod topped the Democratic Political Insiders' list. The current White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, ran first among the party's Congressional Insiders and second among its Political Insiders. Republicans, meanwhile, harked back to the strategist who played a lead role in George W. Bush's presidential campaigns, Karl Rove. For seven years, Rove served in the West Wing as a senior adviser and deputy chief of staff. He ranked first among the GOP Political Insiders, and second -- behind Mississippi GOP Governor Haley Barbour -- among GOP Congressional Insiders. Barbour directed the White House Office of Political Affairs during Ronald Reagan's presidency.”
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AMERICAN JOURNALISM
Downie, Leonard Jr.; Schudson, Michael. Columbia Journalism Review. November/December 2009.
http://www.cjr.org/reconstruction/the_reconstruction_of_american.php
The authors of this in-depth report ask hard questions about the function of the press and the future of “accountability” journalism as a public service at a time of crisis in news media. They make six recommendations for the support of credible, independent and original news reporting. These include new approaches to public and private financing of news organizations serving the public good; incorporation of new dissemination vehicles while retaining downsized traditional formats; and utilizing volunteer news gatherers alongside professionals. Downie, a vice president and former executive editor of the Washington Post, and Schudson, a Columbia University journalism professor, call for more leaders across the board “to seize this moment of challenging changes and new beginnings.” Leonard Downie Jr. is vice president at large and former executive editor of The Washington Post and Weil Family Professor of Journalism at Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Michael Schudson is a professor of communication at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism.
IS THE FOREIGN NEWS BUREAU PART OF THE PAST?
Russo, Diana. Global Journalist. Fall 2009, pp. 9-11.
The author notes that foreign correspondents are now coping with something that was almost impossible to imagine only five years ago: cutbacks. Despite increasing globalization of the economy and issues such as global warming and international terrorism, news outlets continue to shutter foreign bureaus and slash foreign coverage at an alarming rate. Mainstream media is now replacing foreign correspondents with “hot spot” drop-in coverage, and outsourcing to local hires and newswires. The demand for faster information creates a different type of journalism. Former bureau chiefs in Delhi or Cairo who chatted one-on-one with diplomats and other sources now carry laptops in which to access their blogs, tweets and other new media tools. Even network giants like ABC and NBC have shuttered bureau offices. Except for a one-person ABC bureau in Nairobi, there were no more bureaus left in Africa, India or South America. As newspapers deal with budget cuts and layoffs, due largely to declining readers and viewers, the feeling is that readers can turn to the internet for international news. Diana Russo is an Associate Professor of Communication at Clarke College, Iowa.
THE DOLLAR AND THE DEFICITS: HOW WASHINGTON CAN PREVENT THE NEXT CRISIS
Bergsten, C. Fred. Foreign Affairs. November/December 2009.
http://www.piie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=1312
"Even as efforts to recover from the current crisis go forward, the United States should launch new policies to avoid large external deficits, balance the budget, and adapt to a global currency system less centered on the dollar. Although it will take a number of years to fully implement these measures, they should be initiated promptly both to bolster confidence in the recovery and to build the foundation for a sustainable US economy over the long haul. This is not just an economic imperative but a foreign policy and national security one as well." C. Fred Bergsten has been director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics since its creation in 1981.
OPEN COURSES: FREE, BUT OH, SO COSTLY
Parry, Marc. The Chronicle of Higher Education. October 16, 2009.
http://chronicle.com/article/Free-Online-Courses-at-a-Very/48777/
This lead in a series of articles on the Open Courseware Movement focuses on the perils and prospects for a phenomenon that some believe could end college as we know it, but others believe is about to fail for lack of a business model. MIT, the leader in open courseware, now offers almost 2,000 free courses and has more than 1.3 million monthly visits to its website and a $3.7 million annual budget. But each course costs $10,000–$15,000 to put together. With the foundations that have until now bankrolled open courseware projects reducing or eliminating their funding, MIT now envisions fund-raising. Students love the courses but want credit; critics worry that you can’t give away a college education for free without undermining the institutions that charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for a degree. Utah State recently dropped its open courseware project after money from the state legislature and a foundation dried up. The biggest question looming on the horizon: Will Congress fund the Obama Administration’s $500 million proposal to build open courses online?
Sloane, Stanton. Armed Forces Journal. September 2009.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/09/4214383
The FBI reports that cybercrime is the third-greatest threat to U.S. national security, following right after nuclear war and weapons of mass destruction. The author, president of SRA International, writes that the magnitude of the cybersecurity problem is vastly misunderstood and underestimated, especially with respect to the theft of intellectual property. Apart from criminals and youthful hackers, foreign intelligence operations pose the greatest threat to critical infrastructure. Sloane predicts that any firm in possession of technology of interest has either been cyberattacked or will be. The new cyberczar, or cybersecurity coordinator, that President Obama has promised to appoint, “has his or her work cut out;” that person’s most important assets will be the president’s ear and money for cyberdefense improvements. Much has been written about the need for public-private cooperation in this field, and Sloane says that government and industry must promote and fund innovation. Stanton Sloane is president and CEO of SRA International and has diverse experience in private industry, international business and the military.
Curtis, Wayne. The Atlantic. November 2009.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/curtis-architecture-new-orleans
“New Orleans can offer plenty of lessons in green living. Four years after the levee failures, New Orleans is seeing an unexpected boom in architectural experimentation. Small, independent developers are succeeding in getting houses built where the government has failed. And the city's unique challenges—among them environmental impediments, an entrenched culture of leisure, and a casual acquaintance with regulation—are spurring design innovations that may redefine American architecture for a generation. In the absence of strong central leadership, the rebuilding has atomized into a series of independent neighborhood projects. And this has turned New Orleans into something of a petri dish for ideas about housing and urban life. An assortment of foundations, church groups, academics, corporate titans, Hollywood celebrities, young people with big ideas, and architects on a mission have been working independently to rebuild the city’s neighborhoods, all wholly unconcerned about the missing master plan.” Wayne Curtis is an Atlantic contributing editor.
Iyer, Pico. Smithsonian Magazine. November 2009, pp. 62-69.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/The-Great-Wide-Open.html
The state of Alaska celebrated its 50th year as a U.S. state in 2009, but this author writes that the great openness and wildness of the land create the feeling that America still has a frontier so unexplored that the visitor is awed. “Alaska plays havoc with your senses,” Iyer writes and “turns everyday logic on its head.” He discovered, for instance, that Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas, the largest state by far in the lower 48, but it has fewer miles of highway than Vermont, one of the nation’s smallest states in area. The state’s motto is “North to the Future,” but Iyer writes that the future never arrives in a place where wild animals and the hazards of the wilderness are never far away.
Information Provided by the Information Resource Center
U.S. Embassy Madrid
Views
expressed in the articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect