Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Follow Carnegie
- Search
- Global Resources
Global Centers
Languages
In the absence of government action to address today’s most pressing global problems, multinational corporations are stepping up to offer their own solutions.
It is time for Britain to leave the European Union—with or without a deal. The EU, freed from British ambivalence, would force European leaders to decide their own destiny.
Any large-scale income support program would require state capacity and fiscal resources. Unfortunately, both are in short supply in India.
While third party candidates may seem like attractive alternatives to the major parties, they can serve as spoilers. Instead, ranked choice voting could be a solution for providing voters with greater choice, reducing polarization, and improving representation.
If the United States effectively uses its considerable residual leverage in Afghanistan, Pakistan does not try and turn Afghanistan into a weak protectorate, and the Taliban does not overreach inside Afghanistan, there is reason for optimism.
Sino-French relations are on the rise, but there are still doubts about long-term collaboration between France and China.
The fate of the INF Treaty is a wake-up call to arms controllers and strategists on both sides of the East-West divide.
Moscow has repeatedly taken a hard line on Kosovo, forcing Serbia to take similarly uncompromising positions and thereby jeopardize its EU membership.
2019 is a year full of ambiguities for the Chinese economy, mainly due to two reasons.
As New Delhi copes with the new imperatives of governing in the digital age, any sensible policy will have to navigate the tensions between state and the citizen, capital and the consumer, public good and private gain, and between competing interests within the capital—both domestic and foreign.
President Trump has defined his presidency in terms of the successes and failures of his predecessors, especially when it comes to wars in the Middle East.
There are risks in departing Syria, but there are far greater ones in staying. That’s particularly true if the United States. cannot achieve the goals it has set publicly, and if Russia, Iran, and Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime continue to have their way.
With the clock ticking on a U.S. military departure from Syria, the U.S. government must salvage what it can to protect only the most important American interests—and even that may be a tall order.
The U.S. political system is indeed beset by a high degree of polarization and a low sense of common purpose. Should we blame democracy itself, or should we blame ourselves for the pathologies of our own politics?
The recent Brexit developments plunge UK politics into crisis. While there’s a clear majority against the government’s plans, there’s no evident majority in favor of a specific alternative.
While the Center, the opposition, and the state governments jostle to provide fiscal support and farm loan waivers, fundamental reform for land use is being overlooked.
President Trump’s vow to “devastate” the Turkish economy if Ankara attacks Kurdish forces in Syria marks another troubling development in the souring U.S.-Turkey relationship.
New Delhi’s traditional fear of alliances is based on a profound misreading of what they might mean. Alliances are not a “permanent wedlock” or some kind of a “bondage.” They are a political or military arrangement to cope with a common threat.
If Europe does not want to lose its current seat at the table of global rule-making, it has to rediscover the other, bigger end of the Eurasian landmass behind the Ural Mountains.
Something is eating away at the fabric of British politics. Brexit has much to do with it, but the consequences could be with us long after the current crisis is resolved, one way or another.