Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Follow Carnegie
- Search
- Global Resources
Global Centers
Languages
With he potential for future political-military crises between Washington and Beijing, America’s enormous lead in virtually all aspects of military power, the heavy U.S. reliance on satellites for military purposes, and the absence of any formal agreement on the weaponization of space, it is little wonder that the Chinese are developing anti-satellite capabilities to even the playing field.
Carnegie hosted the seventh annual seminar of former U.S. trade representatives with presentations on current and future U.S. trade policy issues by Ambassadors Carla Hills, Mickey Kantor, Clayton Yeutter, Charlene Barshefsky, Bill Eberle, and Senator William Brock. Carnegie Senior Associate Sherman Katz moderated the event.
The session, part of the Carnegie Endowment's NEW VISION launch, examines the state of the Arab political reform agenda, what can be expected in terms of political change in the region, and what the U.S. efforts should be to promote regional reform.
A discussion of the national interests and strategies of the U.S., Russia, and China in the region. Has a new Great Game taken shape? What kinds of competition and what degree of cooperation can be expected? How will political and social dynamics within Central Asia affect the plans of the great powers?
Carnegie launches its New Vision. Building on the strength of its century-long practice of changing as global circumstances change, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is undertaking a fundamental redefinition of its role and mission. Carnegie aims to transform itself from a think tank on international issues to the first truly multinational—ultimately global—think tank.
(Guest analysis by Bruno Dupré)
One of the most useful things I learned at the Kennedy School of Government several years ago was about leadership and negotiation. Charisma, persuasiveness, and a high tolerance for ambiguity are certainly helpful for a successful negotiation, but by no means sufficient. It is also necessary to diagnose parties’ motivations, zones of potential agreement, possible alternatives, coalitions that could shift power in desired directions, and the best possible process for managing difficult negotiations. Without this methodology one can only hope for the best. But planning each element of a negotiation process increases the odds of success.
I left Harvard just as the EU-3 (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) entered negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Three years later, the world is still looking for the best way to get out of this crisis. Tehran keeps refusing to comply with IAEA and UN demands, using all kinds of pressure, from denying access to UN inspectors (January 27, 2007) to threatening the very existence of Israel. Many fear uncontrolled escalation in the region and beyond. The consensus maintained so far seems to be deteriorating suddenly. It is useful, at this critical moment, to recall the rationale of the EU approach. Even if success is far from being guaranteed, there is, for the time being, no better alternative. (Read More)
There are not necessarily preconditions that must be in place before a country attempts democratization, argues Thomas Carothers. Francis Fukuyama and Jack Snyder joined Carothers to debate the sequencing fallacy.
Stay connected to the Global Think Tank with Carnegie's smartphone app for Android and iOS devices