Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Follow Carnegie
- Search
- Global Resources
Global Centers
Languages
President Mahmoud Amadinejad of Iran sent a letter to President Bush raising questions about American "justice" and questioning whether the United States or Iran is more righteous. This letter should be answered in kind by the Bush administration. Unfortunately, there is likely to be no such reply.
U.S.-Russian relations are "rather precarious" and could spiral downwards. The Russians are struck by what looks to be a sort of breathtaking exercise of double standards on the part of the Bush administration.
The debate over the nuclear deal negotiated by the Bush Administration and the government of India is too narrow. If other alternatives are not explored, there is a risk that Asia will experience a dangerous and costly build up of nuclear arsenals – a nuclear bubble much more dangerous than housing or stock market bubbles.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent the following letter to President George Bush. The unorthodox letter contains no concrete diplomatic proposals, but it does suggest Ahmadinejad's confidence that by championing a moral, religious, political, and economic critique against U.S. ideology and policies he can tap populist passions swelling not only in the Middle East and other Muslim societies but also in Latin America. Ahmadinejad is inviting a contest over whether the positions he and Iran pursue are more just than those of the Bush Administration. The U.S. should not ignore this challenge, but rather take it head on. In the Foreign Affairs article, "Giving Justice Its Due," (July/August 2005), George Perkovich suggested some ways in which the U.S. could address growing international demands for justice to complement the "freedom doctrine." We have provided the full text of Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush. (Read More)
Russia's two decades of geopolitical decline started with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and included the disbanding of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the Soviet Union. But it is possible that 2005 may be viewed retrospectively as a historical turning point -- the end of Russia's decline. This recovery might be based on the shaky foundation of high oil prices, but it's real nonetheless.
What the 1996 Moscow nuclear summit did was begin to meld a highly effective focus on proliferation threats within the G8. By 2002, this produced a brand new Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, launched at the Kananaskis G8 meeting in Canada.
The US can ease or even end our dependency on oil, but it won't be easy. A program of drastic conservation is not a winning political program in a country built around cars, suburbs, and highways. That leaves another, even more unsavory alternative: The US can seek privileged access to the world oil supplies and prevent other countries from gaining similar access. That can lead to war.
Stay connected to the Global Think Tank with Carnegie's smartphone app for Android and iOS devices