Implementing Phase 2 of Trump’s plan for the territory only makes sense if all in Phase 1 is implemented.
Yezid Sayigh
Minimizing the environmental impact of climate change and resource development in the Arctic must be a top priority, if environmental disaster is to be avoided.
The accelerating pace of climate change, increasing competition over resources, and new territorial claims demand that greater attention be paid to the Arctic. As the most immediate and serious threat to the region, minimizing the environmental impact of climate change and resource development must be the top priority, according to a report from the Carnegie Endowment, the University of the Arctic, and Dartmouth College.
Key points:
As a major Arctic power, the United States has environmental, political, and security interests and responsibilities and should play a key role in preserving the Arctic ecosystem.
Recommendations for U.S. policy makers:
The report concludes:
“The environment and the management of natural resources are the most pressing security issues in the North. States are committed to addressing boundary and access issues through existing institutions, principally UNCLOS. Large-scale damage to the Arctic from transportation accidents, energy development, fishing, and pollutants from the South pose greater immediate threats than classic security issues. Existing emergency response systems and contingency plans are not up to the task.”
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
Implementing Phase 2 of Trump’s plan for the territory only makes sense if all in Phase 1 is implemented.
Yezid Sayigh
Israeli-Lebanese talks have stalled, and the reason is that the United States and Israel want to impose normalization.
Michael Young
The country’s leadership is increasingly uneasy about multiple challenges from the Levant to the South Caucasus.
Armenak Tokmajyan
The U.S. is trying to force Lebanon and Syria to normalize with Israel, but neither country sees an advantage in this.
Michael Young
The objective is to lock Hamas out of political life, but the net effect may be negative indeed.
Nathan J. Brown