Asia & the Pacific

80 Items

Farah Pandith

Belfer Center

News - Future of Diplomacy Project, Belfer Center

Farah Pandith speaks about countering violent extremism in the wake of Trump Administration travel ban

| Feb. 14, 2017

A pioneer in the field of CVE (Countering Violent Extremism), Farah Pandith spent over a decade developing strategies to prevent and defend against the spread of extremist ideology, a policy area that has been under the microscope since President Trump declared his intention to “unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth,” during his inaugural address on January 20th.

At a Future of Diplomacy Project seminar on February 13, Pandith spoke about the evolution of CVE policy and the importance of soft power in combating the spread of extremist ideology. She identified three distinct phases in the development of US counter-terrorism strategy after September 11.

 

News

Ambassador David Saperstein talks TPP, ISIL, and the Next Administration

| Nov. 28, 2016

David Saperstein, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom, spoke on Monday, November 14th at the Harvard Kennedy School on “U.S. Efforts to Promote Religious Freedom Abroad.” In a wide-ranging discussion moderated by Future of Diplomacy Project Executive Director Cathryn Clüver, the diplomat and rabbi explained the importance of religion and human rights as part of an integrated approach to foreign policy.

teaser image

Analysis & Opinions - The Oregonian

The Islamic State has made a big mistake

| July 7, 2016

In the global revulsion at the recent terror attacks in four Muslim countries, the United States and its allies have a new opportunity to build a unified command against the Islamic State and other extremists. FDP Senior Fellow David Ignatius examines the diplomatic relationships needed to create an effective counterterrorism strategy.

Analysis & Opinions - Foreign Policy

What Would a Realist World Have Looked Like?

| January 8, 2016

"Realists believe nationalism and other local identities are powerful and enduring; states are mostly selfish; altruism is rare; trust is hard to come by; and norms and institutions have a limited impact on what powerful states do. In short, realists have a generally pessimistic view of international affairs and are wary of efforts to remake the world according to some ideological blueprint, no matter how appealing it might be in the abstract."

Analysis & Opinions - Foreign Policy

The Islamic State of Afghanistan

| December 22, 2015

"A negotiated solution would require a military stalemate on the ground, and this depends on NATO forces guaranteeing that Afghan forces in key positions will not be overrun. This is the political objective that should inform Western military support in Afghanistan from here on out: to make clear to the Taliban that they can achieve more through a peace deal than through fighting and to make clear to Western electorates that this isn't a forever war."

Company A, 1st Battalion, 77th Armor Regiment, part of Task Force 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment (TF 1-18 IN) board aircraft in Kuwait on 19 OCT 2006 in order to move to Baghdad, Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

CC-BY-SA-3.0

Analysis & Opinions - Foreign Policy

What Do Politicians Really Mean by 'Global Leadership?'

| September 4, 2015

"...[W]hat I'd really like to know is what the different candidates think about this issue, and hear them explain why U.S. taxpayers should pay a lot more than our allies’ citizens do and how Americans actually benefit from the energetic foreign policy that both GOP and Democratic stalwarts never even question. I'd also like to see reporters give them a good grilling on this topic, and refuse to accept vague or non-specific responses."

President Barack Obama and several foreign dignitaries participate in a Trans-Pacific Partnership meeting

Charles Dharapak

Analysis & Opinions - Foreign Affairs

Rescuing the free trade deals

| June 14, 2015

The Senate’s rejection of President Wo odrow Wilson’s commitment of the United States to the League of Nations was the greatest setback to U.S. global leadership of the last century. While not remotely as consequential, the votes in the House last week that, unless revisited, would doom the Trans-Pacific Partnership send the same kind of negative signal regarding the willingness of the United States to take responsibility for the global system at a critical time.

The repudiation of the TPP would neuter the U.S. presidency for the next 19 months. It would reinforce global concerns that the vicissitudes of domestic politics are increasingly rendering the United States a less reliable ally. Coming on top of the American failure to either stop or join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, it would signal a lack of U.S. commitment to Asia at a time when China is flexing its muscles. It would leave the grand strategy of rebalancing U.S. foreign policy toward Asia with no meaningful nonmilitary component. And it would strengthen the hands of companies overseas at the expense of U.S. firms. Ultimately, having a world in which U.S. companies systematically lose ground to foreign rivals would not work out to the advantage of American workers.

Both the House and Senate have now delivered majorities for the trade promotion authority necessary to complete the TPP. The problem is with the complementary trade assistance measures that most Republicans do not support and that Democrats are opposing in order to bring down the TPP. It is to be fervently hoped that a way through will be found to avoid a catastrophe for U.S. economic leadership. Perhaps success can be achieved if the TPP’s advocates can acknowledge that rather than being a model for future trade agreements, this debate should lead to careful reflection on the role of trade agreements in America’s international economic strategy.