Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Follow Carnegie
- Search
- Global Resources
Global Centers
Languages
Is the United States out of the intervention business for a while? With two difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a divided public, the conventional answer is that it will be a long time before any American president, Democrat or Republican, again dispatches troops into conflict overseas. As usual, though, the conventional wisdom is almost certainly wrong.
The years immediately following the end of the Cold War offered a tantalizing glimpse at a new kind of international order -- one in which nations would grow together or disappear altogether, ideological conflicts would melt away and cultures would intermingle through increasingly free commerce and communications. It was the end of international competition, the end of geopolitics, the end of history. But it was all something of a mirage.
The U.S. plan to sell over $20 billion worth of weaponry to Arab allies, to counter Iran's ascendance, attempts to contain Iran and force it to spend money on an arms race instead of developing its economy, intimidating it into bankruptcy. One major flaw in this plan is its failure recognize that Iran's growing influence is not due to hard power but to its use of soft power and militias.
The Justice Department appointed the first-ever national export control coordinator to oversee a new focus on people who export weapons technologies to foreign countries. Sharon Squassoni discusses the significance of this appointment on NPR's All Things Considered.
The United States and India announced the completion of negotiations on the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal on July 27. Carnegie Senior Associate Ashley J. Tellis has been widely recognized as one of the core individuals who made the U.S.-India nuclear deal possible. A recent Indian Express article by Pranab Dhal Samanta discusses the individuals and crucial moments that provided the political climate for the two countries to reach an agreement.
The Bush administration is concerned that China's "blue-water navy" could encroach upon American prerogatives in the Pacific. Human rights activists demand the release of thousands of Chinese political prisoners. American consumers are up in arms over tainted Chinese pharmaceuticals, toothpaste, and dog food. But what is most worrisome about China is how it has ascended as a world economic power.
On Jan. 11, 2007, a Chinese medium-range ballistic missile slammed into an aging weather satellite in space. The resulting collision not only marked Beijing's first successful anti-satellite (ASAT) test but, in the eyes of many, also a head-on collision with the Bush administration's space policies.
The premise of the United States' current strategy in Iraq — that a political solution would follow if the violence could be reduced — is false. What is underway today in Iraq is a natural and inevitable struggle for power. The American presence delays what will eventually happen anyway.
The July 2007 issue of Journal of Democracy showcases a debate on Thomas Carothers’ “The ‘Sequencing’ Fallacy” featuring Edward Mansfield, Jack Snyder, Francis Fukuyama, Sheri Berman, and Carothers. Mansfield and Snyder reassert their view that rapid democratization can be a dangerous recipe for civil or interstate violence. Carothers responds by explaining that Mansfield and Snyder mischaracterize his analysis while failing to address his central assertions.
Senior Associate Sandra Polaski argues that globalization revealed and exacerbated—rather than created—the unequal distribution of U.S. economic gains over the last decades. Polaski contends that reform of domestic labor laws, the tax system and international economic policy are the policy tools needed to reverse stagnating incomes and the erosion of job security, health care and pension plans.
Stay connected to the Global Think Tank with Carnegie's smartphone app for Android and iOS devices