Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Follow Carnegie
- Search
- Global Resources
Global Centers
Languages
U.S. and European officials are voicing their concern over Russia's domestic political situation and its relations with the former Soviet republics. Washington must understand that positive change in Russia can only come from within and that economic realities, rather than democratic ideals, will be the vehicle for that change.
The class of 2005-2006 Carnegie Junior Fellows were proud to present the first annual conference for young professionals, The Carnegie Foreign Policy Conference: Managing U.S. Dominance. Speakers remarked on the recent historical context of America's position in the world and idenified some of the debates that today's younger generation will be faced with over the course of their careers.
China's soft power strategy hopes to promote its image as a benign power, while reducing Taiwanese and American regional influence. By these criteria, China has been successful. In order to protect its position in Southeast Asia, the U.S. needs to improve its public diplomacy in the region, as the Chinese have proven adept at doing.
Stephen J. Weber, of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, presented the findings of his recent poll on how Russians and Americans view each other, themselves, China, and Iran.
The following are excerpts from the prepared remarks by Patrick Clawson, deputy director at The Washington Institute, on "Iran's Motives and Strategies: The Role of the Economy" delivered at a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing on May 17, 2006. Click here to access his full testimony.
The Limitations of Economic Instruments
Economic instruments alone are unlikely to be sufficient to persuade Iran to freeze its nuclear program. The principal levers of power in Iran are in the hands of revolutionaries who are not motivated primarily by economic concerns, while those who care about the state of the economy do not have sufficient influence on their own to persuade the real power-holders to change policies. Success at influencing Iranian policy is much more likely if action on the economic front is combined with action on other fronts...
Much as pressure should be applied on several fronts rather than just on the economy, so inducements offered Iran should take multiple forms rather than only being trade and investment incentives. Indeed, economic inducements look suspiciously like bribes paid for bad behavior. Besides being odious, such bribes give the impression that bad behavior is more profitable than good behavior...
A much more appropriate form of inducement would be security inducements. Such security inducements should be designed to counter the argument that Iran needs nuclear weapons for its defense. There are many confidence- and security-building measures and arms control measures that would provide gains for both Iran and the West, similar to the way such steps reduced tensions between the old Warsaw Pact and NATO during the Cold War. One example would be an agreement to reduce the risk of incidents at sea between the U.S. and Iranian navies.
A further security inducement which the United States could offer would be to address the reported concern that the Bush administration's real goal is regime change in Iran and that the Bush administration will use force to that end. Such complaints sound peculiar coming from an Iranian government whose president lectures President Bush on why the United States should abandon its liberal democracy and who sponsored a conference last fall on theme "The World Without Zionism and America"...
It would of course be inappropriate for the U.S. government to offer any security guarantees to the Iranian or any other government; what government is in power in another country is up to the people of that country to decide. But what Washington could offer Tehran would be a "conditional security assurance" -- jargon for the simple proposition, "We will not attack you if you do not attack us." (Read More)
A country's borders should not be confused with those familiar dotted lines drawn on some musty old map of nation-states. In an era of mass migration, globalization and instant communication, a map reflecting the world's true boundaries would be a crosscutting, high-tech and multidimensional affair.
Carnegie President Jessica Tuchman Mathews discusses U.S.-Iran Relations and whether war with Iran would help or hurt U.S. national security.
Stay connected to the Global Think Tank with Carnegie's smartphone app for Android and iOS devices