To compete and thrive in the 21st century, democracies, and the United States in particular, must develop new national security and economic strategies that address the geopolitics of information. In the 20th century, market capitalist democracies geared infrastructure, energy, trade, and even social policy to protect and advance that era’s key source of power—manufacturing. In this century, democracies must better account for information geopolitics across all dimensions of domestic policy and national strategy.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze how China’s new power is reaching Europe, the challenges that it poses, and the European responses to this new reality. This process has to be examined in the context of the current strategic competition between China and the U.S. and its reflection on the transatlantic relationship.
The Diplomacy and International Politics Program examines the future of diplomacy and conflict prevention, and also supports research and teaching on global political relations through initiatives on the Middle East, the Gulf, and South Asia.
Unlike the Iraq war of 2003 when Europe was split in its support of the US, all of Europe now disagrees with the American approach to Iran. If the US were to use military force, there would be no European support and the sad likelihood of unifying Europe on an anti-American basis.
This battle between past and future is the hidden drama within the gargantuan $750 billion fiscal 2020 defense budget proposal. Nearly everyone favors high-tech weapons to combat great-power adversaries in the new millennium, in principle. But meanwhile, the military-industrial-congressional complex, as John McCain termed it, keeps pumping vast sums to sustain legacy weapons systems.
Ambassador Doug Lute testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on March 13, 2019 about the indispensable role of NATO, the U.S.'s greatest geo-strategic advantage over any potential competitors.
GRAND RAPIDS, United States, Feb. 8 (Xinhua) -- While the United States and China may compete in economy and trade, they should also work together to combat global challenges, said a former senior U.S. diplomat here on Friday.
Trump administration claims of progress in talks with the Taliban have sparked fears even among the president's allies that his impatience with the war in Afghanistan will lead him to withdraw troops too soon, leaving the country at risk of returning to the same volatile condition that prompted the invasion in the first place.
President Trump declared on Twitter that ISIS had been totally defeated, and then got to work executing a surprising and rapid withdrawal of American military and state department personnel from Syria. The problem is, U.S. intelligence agencies seem to disagree with the President's victory declaration.
In a single cryptic tweet Wednesday, Donald Trump declared that the U.S. mission in Syria had been accomplished. “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency,” the president wrote. Shortly afterward, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed that troops would begin returning home “as we transition to the next phase of this campaign.” It was not immediately clear what Trump or Sanders meant, or what would happen to the reported 2,000 troops currently working alongside Kurdish fighters against Islamic militants in northeastern Syria.
Some Presidents have plans to change the world. They execute their strategies step by step and are judged by how far they get. Donald Trump came to the presidency by surprise and has attended to its responsibilities erratically. And yet, just as he rewrote the rules of politics in 2016 and remade the presidency in 2017, Trump left his mark on the planet this year.
President Donald Trump, convinced that he alone can break stalemates with adversarial counterparts on trade and security, will put his theory to the test in Argentina this week. Global markets and foreign capitals are eyeing him anxiously.