US-Soldaten in Afghanistan

Foreign Affairs


»http://www.foreignaffairs.com«

suche-links1 2 .. 9suche-rechts

25.05.2020

"Iraq Can Now Wrest Its Sovereignty From Iran"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2020-05-25/iraq-can-now-wrest-its-sovereignty-iran

Der neue irakische Premierminister Mustafa al-Kadhimi bemühe sich, die von Teheran unterstützten schiitischen Milizen im Land unter Kontrolle zu bringen und so die Abhängigkeit Iraks vom Iran zu verringern, schreibt Hamdi Malik. "Iranian-backed Iraqi militias such as Kataib Hezbollah, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, and Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada, among others, operate outside the jurisdiction of the Iraqi state. They are part of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), an umbrella military organization that is nominally under Iraqi command but that in fact plays an integral part in projecting Iranian power throughout the region. Previous Iraqi administrations tried, but ultimately failed, to limit the influence of the armed militias. (…) Recent developments in Iraq and in the wider region suggest that the new prime minister has a much better chance than his predecessors did of curbing the militias’ influence and consequently, that of Iran."

Mehr lesen


29.04.2020

"In Defense of the Blob"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-04-29/defense-blob

Hal Brands, Peter Feaver und William Inboden erklären in diesem Beitrag, warum sie die verbreitete Kritik am außenpolitischen Establishment in Washington für ungerechtfertigt halten. "The foreign policy establishment is not a closed cabal, American statecraft has not been a giant failure, and scrapping professionalism for amateurism would be a disaster. In truth, the foreign policy establishment is an American strength rather than weakness. It is more open-minded and accountable than its critics allow. It acts as a storehouse of accumulated professional wisdom, providing intellectual ballast to the ship of state. On balance, the establishment’s practical track record has been impressive, with some well-known fiascos outweighed by many quiet successes. And the current administration’s foreign policy blunders — including in its response to the current pandemic — demonstrate what happens when the establishment’s experience and expertise are rejected. In short, the Blob is not the problem. It is the solution."

Mehr lesen


15.04.2020

"The Pandemic Won’t Make China the World’s Leader"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-04-15/pandemic-wont-make-china-worlds-leader

Michael Green und Evan S. Medeiros bezweifeln dagegen, dass China die Coronakrise als "Sprungbrett" für seinen internationalen Aufstieg nutzen kann. "There are real limits to China’s capacity to take advantage of the current crisis — whether through disingenuous propaganda or ineffective global action. And just as the potential for China to benefit from the coronavirus is too easily overstated, the ability of the United States to show global leadership even after its initial missteps is too easily discounted. As deeply flawed as Washington’s response to the pandemic has been so far, the United States’ power — distinct from any particular president — rests on an enduring combination of material capabilities and political legitimacy, and there are few signs that the pandemic is causing power to shift rapidly and permanently to China’s side of the ledger."

Mehr lesen


13.04.2020

"Xi Jinping Won the Coronavirus Crisis"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2020-04-13/xi-jinping-won-coronavirus-crisis

Die chinesische Führung werde aus der Corona-Pandemie innen- und außenpolitisch gestärkt hervorgehen, glaubt Yanzhong Huang vom Council on Foreign Relations. "Two months ago, Chinese President Xi Jinping looked like he would emerge from the novel coronavirus pandemic with his legitimacy and his ambitions for Chinese global leadership in tatters. Today, as the Chinese government lifts its lockdown on the city of Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak, Xi can present himself instead as a forceful and triumphant leader on the world stage. (…) In a remarkable turn of events, Xi has not only muddled through the crisis but emerged as a stronger leader at home and abroad. Arguably, he has succeeded because he was able to impose harsh restrictive measures that would be impossible to carry out in Western democracies. And as the death toll increases worldwide, Xi may face more international criticism for his government’s role in setting the pandemic loose — and for likely understating the number of infections and deaths in China. But as COVID-19 ravages one country after another, few can deny that China is fast becoming the safest place on earth. As John Allen of the Brookings Institution reminds us, history will be written by the victors of the COVID-19 crisis. And Xi looks like a winner, at least for now."

Mehr lesen


07.04.2020

"The Pandemic Will Accelerate History Rather Than Reshape It"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-04-07/pandemic-will-accelerate-history-rather-
reshape-it

Richard Haass bezweifelt, dass die Coronakrise ein politischer "Wendepunkt" sein wird. Es sei wahrscheinlicher, dass bereits bestehende Trends in der internationalen Politik beschleunigt werden. "(…) the world following the pandemic is unlikely to be radically different from the one that preceded it. COVID-19 will not so much change the basic direction of world history as accelerate it. The pandemic and the response to it have revealed and reinforced the fundamental characteristics of geopolitics today. As a result, this crisis promises to be less of a turning point than a way station along the road that the world has been traveling for the past few decades."

Mehr lesen


06.04.2020

"Coronavirus and the Future of Surveillance"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2020-04-06/coronavirus-and-future-surveillance

Nicholas Wright schreibt, dass sich die asiatischen Überwachungsmaßnahmen zur Bekämpfung der Corona-Pandemie als erfolgreicher herausstellen könnten als die westlichen Strategien. Er empfiehlt eine Adaptierung der asiatischen Maßnahmen in Form einer "demokratischen Überwachung". "Just as the September 11 attacks ushered in new surveillance practices in the United States, the coronavirus pandemic might do the same for many nations around the world. Afflicted countries are all eager to better control their citizens. Every functioning state now has a public health strategy to tackle COVID-19 that emphasizes both monitoring residents and trying to influence their behavior. But neither the United States nor European countries have used the widespread and intrusive surveillance methods applied in East Asia. So far, the Western approach promises to be much less successful than East Asian strategies. (…) Western liberal democracies must be unafraid in trying to sharpen their powers of surveillance for public health purposes. There is nothing oxymoronic about the idea of 'democratic surveillance.' After all, in the past two centuries, the United States and United Kingdom have simultaneously strengthened their democratic institutions while increasing their powers of surveillance. Looking ahead, liberal democracies should identify which methods practiced in East Asia to contain COVID-19 are worthy of emulation and avoid those requiring intrusive surveillance. In particular, Western countries should learn from the speed and scale of interventions in East Asia."

Mehr lesen


19.03.2020

"The Real Pandemic Danger Is Social Collapse"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2020-03-19/real-pandemic-danger-social-collapse

Die Corona-Pandemie könnte zu einem Kollaps der globalen Wirtschaft mit entsprechenden sozialen Folgen führen, warnt Branko Milanovic. "The economic repercussions of the novel coronavirus pandemic must not be understood as an ordinary problem that macroeconomics can solve or alleviate. Rather, the world could be witnessing a fundamental shift in the very nature of the global economy. The immediate crisis is one of both supply and demand. Supply is falling because companies are closing down or reducing their workloads to protect workers from contracting COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus. (…) The supply shock is exacerbated by a decrease in demand due to the fact that people are locked in, and many of the goods and services they used to consume are no longer available. (…) The world faces the prospect of a profound shift: a return to natural — which is to say, self-sufficient — economy. That shift is the very opposite of globalization. (…) the human toll of the disease will be the most important cost and the one that could lead to societal disintegration. Those who are left hopeless, jobless, and without assets could easily turn against those who are better off. (…). If governments have to resort to using paramilitary or military forces to quell, for example, riots or attacks on property, societies could begin to disintegrate."

Mehr lesen


10.03.2020

"The New Spheres of Influence"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-02-10/new-spheres-influence

Mit dem relativen Niedergang der Hegemonialmacht USA und der neuen Ära der Großmächte kehre auch das Denken in Einflusssphären zurück, schreibt Graham Allison. "American policymakers and analysts are still struggling to come to grips with what this new era means for the U.S. role in the world. Going forward, that role will not only be different; it will also be significantly diminished. While leaders will continue announcing grand ambitions, diminished means will mean diminished results. Unipolarity is over, and with it the illusion that other nations would simply take their assigned place in a U.S.-led international order. For the United States, that will require accepting the reality that there are spheres of influence in the world today — and that not all of them are American spheres. (…) The claim that spheres of influence had been consigned to the dustbin of history assumed that other nations would simply take their assigned places in a U.S.-led order. In retrospect, that assumption seems worse than naive. Yet because many U.S. analysts and policymakers still cling to images of China and Russia formed during this bygone era, their views about what the United States should and should not do continues to reflect a world that has vanished."

Mehr lesen


24.02.2020

"Washington Must Protect Syrians Fleeing Idlib"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/turkey/2020-02-24/washington-must-protect-syrians-fleeing-idlib

Angesichts der neuen Kämpfe in der nordsyrischen Idlib-Provinz sollte die US-Regierung erneut die Einrichtung und Durchsetzung einer "Safe Zone" zum Schutz der Zivilisten vor Ort erwägen, meint der frühere US-Botschafter in Damaskus, Robert S. Ford. "In Syria’s last opposition stronghold, the worst fears of millions of people are coming true. With the help of brutal Russian airstrikes, Syrian government forces have seized about a third of Idlib Province over the last two months, pushing over 900,000 of the region’s 3.5 million people out of their homes and north toward the nearby Turkish border, where another 800,000 displaced people already live in crude, overcrowded camps. The current wave of refugees fleeing Idlib, about 80 percent of whom are women and children, is now the largest exodus of Syria’s nine-year conflict."

Mehr lesen


18.02.2020

"Time to Recommit to Syria - A Currency Crisis Has Created an Opportunity to Shape the War’s End"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-02-18/time-recommit-syria

Die US-Regierung sollte die aktuelle Wirtschaftskrise in Syrien nach Ansicht von Jennifer Cafarella vom Institute for the Study of War nutzen, um neuen Druck auf Präsident Assad auszuüben und so den Ausgang des Krieges mitzubestimmen. "Not only has the pro-regime military effort likely reached its peak, but the Syrian economy is collapsing. The Syrian pound fell dramatically from a 2014 rate of roughly 179 to the dollar to more than 1,000 to the dollar by late January. The sharp decline is partly the result of an economic collapse in neighboring Lebanon and partly a function of U.S. sanctions on Iran. (…) The U.S. troops that were redeployed to Iraq should be returned to Syria’s northeastern region. Turkey’s efforts to repel Assad’s forces and protect civilians in northwestern Syria deserve American support. But U.S. efforts are best concentrated in the northeast. In close coordination with its allies, the United States should work to stabilize the region and to assist reconstruction, development, and resettlement efforts. Syria’s northeast has a relatively strong economy compared with economic conditions in regime-controlled areas, and focused investment will help establish it as a model of safety, prosperity, and good governance — a credible alternative to Assad that could help pave the way for a political transition. The United States has a real opportunity to change the course of the brutal Syrian war and, potentially, to shape its endgame."

Mehr lesen


10.02.2020

"Too Big to Prevail - The National Security Case for Breaking Up Big Tech"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2020-02-10/too-big-prevail

Große US-Tech-Unternehmen wie Amazon, Facebook und Alphabet weisen Forderungen nach ihrer Aufspaltung gerne mit dem Argument zurück, dass China das Feld nach einem solchen Schritt dominieren und die USA das globale KI-Wettrüsten verlieren würden. Ganesh Sitaraman hält diese Argumentation nicht für überzeugend: "Far from competing with China, many big technology companies are operating in the country, and their growing entanglements there create vulnerabilities for the United States by exposing its firms to espionage and economic coercion. At home, market concentration in the technology sector also means less competition and therefore less innovation, which threatens to leave the United States in a worse position to compete with foreign rivals. Rather than threatening to undermine national security, breaking up and regulating Big Tech is necessary to protect the United States’ democratic freedoms and preserve its ability to compete with and defend against new great-power rivals."

Mehr lesen


10.02.2020

"The Price of Primacy - Why America Shouldn’t Dominate the World"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/afghanistan/2020-02-10/price-primacy

Nach Ansicht von Stephen Wertheim vom Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft sollten die USA sich das Scheitern ihrer seit dem Ende des Kalten Kriegs verfolgten Strategie der globalen Dominanz eingestehen. "Washington’s post–Cold War strategy has failed. The United States should abandon the quest for armed primacy in favor of protecting the planet and creating more opportunity for more people. It needs a grand strategy for the many. (…) The time has come to bid good riddance to the unipolar moment. Over three decades, the United States has extended its military deployments and commitments to the breaking point. Its poor stewardship of globalization has left ordinary Americans and the earth’s climate in a similar place. To correct its course, the United States should make the conscious choice to pull back militarily — the better to build a world that is habitable, governable, and prosperous. The United States must use its power and influence to take on challenges that bombs and bullets cannot fix. This is a task for grand strategy in its broadest sense. More than that, it is a task for politics. A grand strategy for the many must be demanded by the many so that their leaders will pursue the common good."

Mehr lesen


06.02.2020

"The Digital Dictators - How Technology Strengthens Autocracy"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2020-02-06/digital-dictators

Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Erica Frantz und Joseph Wright haben untersucht, auf welche Weise autoritäre Regierungen digitale Technologien nutzen, um gesellschaftlichen Widerspruch zu unterdrücken und Protestbewegungen bereits im Keim zu ersticken. "Although technology has helped facilitate protests, today’s digitally savvy authoritarian regimes are using some of the same technological innovations to push back against dangerous popular mobilizations. Our analysis using data from Varieties of Democracy’s data set (which covers 202 countries) and the Mass Mobilization Project shows that autocracies that use digital repression face a lower risk of protests than do those autocratic regimes that do not employ these same tools. Digital repression not only decreases the likelihood that a protest will occur but also reduces the chances that a government will face large, sustained mobilization efforts, such as the 'red shirt' protests in Thailand in 2010 or the anti-Mubarak and antimilitary protests in Egypt in 2011. (…) Our analysis drawing from Varieties of Democracy’s data set suggests that dictatorships that increase their use of digital repression also tend to increase their use of violent forms of repression 'in real life,' particularly torture and the killing of opponents. This indicates that authoritarian leaders don’t replace traditional repression with digital repression. Instead, by making it easier for authoritarian regimes to identify their opposition, digital repression allows them to more effectively determine who should get a knock on the door or be thrown in a cell."

Mehr lesen


22.01.2020

"The Cost of an Incoherent Foreign Policy"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2020-01-22/cost-incoherent-foreign-policy

Brett McGurk, der in verschiedenen Positionen für George W. Bush, Barack Obama und Donald Trump tätig war, beklagt, dass das Weiße Haus eine strategisch inkohärente Außenpolitik betreibe und damit den amerikanischen Interessen letztlich schade. Dies zeige sich besonders in der Iran-Politik des US-Präsidenten. "At bottom, Washington’s policy today is defined by incoherence: maximalist ends, minimalist means, false assumptions, few allies, all pressure, no diplomacy. The Middle East in turn is stuck on an escalatory ladder, and Iran’s proxy groups may prove even less predictable with Soleimani dead. (…) Strategy is about choices, priorities, and resource allocation. If Iran is now the priority, then Washington will need to recommit to the Middle East, strengthen its military and diplomatic position in Iraq and elsewhere, and make clear that it’s prepared to defend Gulf partners from Iranian reprisals. If Asia is the priority, however, then Washington cannot credibly pursue what is effectively a regime change policy toward Iran. (…) The current crisis in the Middle East should be a moment to demand a return to the most basic principles of sound foreign policy, with clarity in objectives and the alignment of resources necessary for achieving them. Objectives that cannot be met absent unacceptable tradeoffs, costs, or risks should not be pursued."

Mehr lesen


21.01.2020

"The Imperial Presidency Is Alive and Well"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2020-01-21/imperial-presidency-alive-and-well

Sarah Binder, James Goldgeier und Elizabeth N. Saunders bezweifeln, dass das laufende Amtsenthebungsverfahren gegen US-Präsident Trump vom Kongress genutzt werden wird, um die "imperiale Präsidentschaft" einzuschränken und eine effektive legislative Kontrolle der US-Außenpolitik wiederherzustellen. "Congress remains in a weak position to restrain the president overseas. The Democrats believe that Trump’s efforts to withhold aid to Ukraine until its government agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden constituted an abuse of power and necessitated a vote to impeach the president. But the outcome of the Senate trial will reflect domestic politics, not senators’ views about legislative oversight of foreign affairs. Congress’s inability to pass a veto-proof bill to limit the president’s war powers in Iran, moreover, is one more sign that the balance of power on foreign policy isn’t shifting back toward the legislative branch."

Mehr lesen


17.01.2020

"Bashar al-Assad’s Hollow Victory"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2020-01-17/bashar-al-assads-hollow-victory

Trotz ihrer militärischen Erfolge im Bürgerkrieg sei die Assad-Regierung in Syrien heute schwächer als je zuvor, schreibt Lina Khatib vom britischen Thinktank Chatham House. "(…) though Assad might declare victory, he would do so as a bit player in the story of his own triumph. Through Syria’s travails, Russia will have risen to become the war’s most influential external actor, and Iran will have guaranteed its enduring influence in the Levant. The Assad regime will find itself less a partner than a client, its survival dependent on the support of these two external backers. (…) External actors are not the only interested parties to whom Assad will owe his political life. Throughout the conflict, the regime has had to rely on a large network of nonstate and auxiliary actors, some armed and some civilian, to circumvent international sanctions in business transactions, assist in battle, and perform state functions, such as delivering services where the regime has little access or capacity. These actors have profited from the protracted conflict, becoming ever more ambitious and powerful, such that now the tables have turned and the regime has become dependent on them for survival. These profiteers have become the de facto authorities that are performing the role of state institutions, but at an increasingly extortionate price."

Mehr lesen


08.01.2020

"The New Anti-Americanism"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2020-01-08/new-anti-americanism

Die Umfragen zeigen nach Ansicht von Richard Wike vom Pew Research Center, dass mit dem Ansehen Donald Trumps auch das Image der USA gelitten habe. Die Zahlen seien ähnlich negativ wie zum Ende der zweiten Amtszeit von George W. Bush, jedoch mit unterschiedlichen Vorzeichen: "When anti-Americanism reached its high point during the Bush administration, the United States was seen as an unchecked superpower, unilaterally pursuing its interests, and unconstrained by the international norms and institutions it had played the lead role in constructing. In the Trump era, by contrast, critics are less concerned about the exercise of unrivaled U.S. power than they are about a U.S. retreat — from both global leadership and liberal democracy. (…) Gone are the days when critics assailed the United States for trying to be the world’s policeman. Now they worry about a disengaged superpower thinking only of 'America first.'"

Mehr lesen


30.12.2019

"Is a New Nuclear Age Upon Us?"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-12-30/new-nuclear-age-upon-us

Die beiden Politikwissenschaftler Nicholas L. Miller und Vipin Narang fürchten, dass 2019 angesichts des unaufhaltsam wirkenden Kollapses der internationalen Rüstungskontrolle als negativer Wendepunkt des Atomzeitalters in die Geschichte eingehen könnte. "Over the past year, Washington has not only faced nuclear crises with North Korea, Russia, and Iran, as predicted; it has also watched as nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan stumbled to the brink of all-out war and a host of U.S. allies began to rethink their nuclear options. Unless governments in Washington and elsewhere act quickly to reverse course, future scholars may look back on 2019 as the turning point from an era of relative calm to one of intense nuclear competition and proliferation — the dawn of a dangerous new nuclear age. At the top of a long list of worrying developments is the heightened risk of a nuclear arms race between Washington and its most powerful rivals."

Mehr lesen


03.12.2019

"Trump Didn’t Shrink U.S. Military Commitments Abroad — He Expanded Them"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-12-03/trump-didnt-shrink-us-military-commitments-abroad-he-e
xpanded-them

Paul MacDonald und Joseph Parent werfen US-Präsident Trump vor, von seinem Versprechen einer Reduzierung der militärischen Einsätze und Verpflichtungen der USA im Ausland abgerückt zu sein. "(…) when it came to troop deployments and other overseas defense commitments, he largely preserved the chessboard he inherited — promises to the contrary be damned. The clearest measure of Trump’s retrenchment efforts, or lack thereof, is foreign troop deployments. In the final months of Obama’s presidency, approximately 198,000 active duty U.S. military personnel were deployed overseas, according to the Pentagon’s Defense Manpower Data Center. By comparison, the most recent figure for the Trump administration is 174,000 active duty troops. But even that difference reflects an accounting trick. Beginning in December 2017, the Defense Department started excluding troops deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria from its official reports, citing a vague need to 'protect our forces.' When the estimated troop levels for those three countries are added back in, the current total is around 194,000 — roughly equivalent to the number Trump inherited."

Mehr lesen


19.11.2019

"The Case for a National Security Budget"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-11-19/case-national-security-budget

Angesichts der Militarisierung der US-Außenpolitik sprechen sich Brett Rosenberg und Jake Sullivan für die Einführung eines neuen "Haushalts der Nationalen Sicherheit" aus, der nicht mehr nur dem Pentagon zugutekommen würde. "It has become ordinary, even orthodoxy, for national security professionals to lament how the underfunding of civilian tools has fueled an overmilitarized foreign policy that is ill-equipped to take on today’s most pressing challenges. As James Mattis, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, put it in 2013: 'If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.' Unfortunately, this rhetorical consensus has not produced the necessary rebalance in resources. (…) A common reaction today, including among a number of the Democratic presidential candidates, is to demand cuts in defense spending. This is a logical argument. (...) But simply cutting Pentagon funding is not sufficient to address the persistent overreliance on the military (…).The United States should move toward a unified national security budget, which directly links funding decisions to a comprehensive National Security Strategy (NSS) and distributes resources to whichever department or agency can best get the job done."

Mehr lesen


07.11.2019

"America’s Original Identity Politics"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/2019-11-07/americas-original-identity-politics

Charles King kritisiert die Konzeption des Nationalismus im Buch "The Case for Nationalism: How It Made Us Powerful, United, and Free" von Rich Lowry dagegen als "fehlerhaft". "The problem with nationalism, the British historian Eric Hobsbawm once wrote, is that it requires too much belief in what isn’t so. Lowry’s claims rest on a maddening evasiveness when it comes to definitions. At times he uses the word 'nation' to refer to a social group. At other times the word stands for a sovereign country or for the institutions and practices of a state. This slipperiness allows Lowry to make the strangest arguments, which collapse upon the slightest interrogation. (…) Lowry is eager to make the case for American exceptionalism, but his book is ample evidence against it. His nationalism is essentially that of every other contemporary demagogue — Viktor Orban, Jair Bolsonaro, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Rodrigo Duterte, and Donald J. Trump — repackaged as radical truth-telling."

Mehr lesen


31.10.2019

"Russia, the Indispensable Nation in the Middle East"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2019-10-31/russia-indispensable-nation-middle-east

Eugene B. Rumer betrachtet den Aufstieg Russlands zur neuen "unverzichtbaren Nation" im Nahen Osten als Rückkehr zur historischen Normalität. "The reemergence of Russia as a major power broker in the Middle East is striking not only in contrast with the United States’ erratic posture in the region but because for a quarter century after the Cold War, Russia had been absent from the region. But Russia’s absence, and not its return, is the anomaly. For centuries, Russia fought Turkey, England, and France for access to the Mediterranean, to protect fellow Christians under the Ottoman rule, and to secure a foothold in the Holy Land. For most of the post–World War II era, the Soviet Union was a major force in the Middle East. (…) From Moscow’s perspective, getting back into the power politics of the Middle East was a sensible, even necessary, move in 2015. The Assad regime was Russia’s last remaining client in the region — one with which it had been in business for half a century. (…) Russia’s retreat from the world stage in the 1990s was so complete that the mere fact of its military operation in Syria overshadowed the relatively modest and conservative scale of the endeavor. (…) From Moscow’s perspective, the Syrian operation was a success. It was hardly the quagmire some had predicted, and it did not cost Russia a lot in blood or treasure. Rather, the intervention restored Russia to a position of prominence in the Middle East."

Mehr lesen


15.10.2019

"Let Russia Be Russia - The Case for a More Pragmatic Approach to Moscow"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2019-10-15/let-russia-be-russia

Thomas Graham vom Council on Foreign Relations plädiert dagegen aus amerikanischer Perspektive für einen pragmatischen Umgang mit Russland. "Even if its relative power declines, Russia will remain a key player in the global arena thanks to its large nuclear arsenal, natural resources, geographic centrality in Eurasia, UN Security Council veto, and highly skilled population. Cooperating with Russia is essential to grappling with critical global challenges such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism. (…) the proposed mix of accommodation and resistance takes into account the hard realities of Russian interests and American power. This approach stands in sharp contrast to the ones U.S. administrations have pursued since the end of the Cold War, which misread Russia and refused to recognize U.S. limitations. In many ways, this strategy would represent a return to the tradition of U.S. foreign policy before the end of the Cold War. That grand tradition was forward-looking, pursuing foreign policy with patience over time and satisfied in the short term with incremental gains. The United States did not fear making accommodations with Moscow because it was confident in its values and its future, aware of its great power but mindful of its limitations and respectful of its rival’s power. This subtle understanding marked the strategies that all U.S. Cold War–era presidents pursued to master the challenge from Moscow. By recapturing the virtues of its past, the United States can master that challenge again today."

Mehr lesen


15.10.2019

"War Is Not Over - What the Optimists Get Wrong About Conflict"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-10-15/war-not-over

Tanisha M. Fazal und Paul Poast von der University of Minnesota widersprechen optimistischen Analysen, die trotz aktueller internationaler Konflikte darauf hinweisen, dass Krieg und Gewalt in der heutigen Zeit aus empirischer Sicht immer mehr abnehmen. "If this sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Such optimism is built on shaky foundations. The idea that humanity is past the era of war is based on flawed measures of war and peace; if anything, the right indicators point to the worrying opposite conclusion. And the anarchic nature of international politics means that the possibility of another major conflagration is ever present. The notion that war is in terminal decline is based, at its core, on two insights. First, far fewer people die in battle nowadays than in the past, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the world population. (…) Then there is the fact that there has not been a world war since 1945. (…) Taken together, these two points — fewer and fewer battle deaths and no more continent-spanning wars — form a picture of a world increasingly at peace. Unfortunately, both rest on faulty statistics and distort our understanding of what counts as war. (…) overconfidence about the decline of war may lead states to underestimate how dangerously and quickly any clashes can escalate, with potentially disastrous consequences. It would not be the first time: the European powers that started World War I all set out to wage limited preventive wars, only to be locked into a regional conflagration. (…) A false sense of security could lead today’s leaders to repeat those mistakes."

Mehr lesen


15.10.2019

"Nowhere to Go - How Governments in the Americas Are Bungling the Migration Crisis"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2019-10-15/nowhere-go

Die westliche Hemisphäre stehe heute vor einer ähnlich schwerwiegenden Flüchtlingskrise wie Europa im Jahr 2015, meint Alexander Betts. Die Regierungen der betroffenen lateinamerikanischen Staaten wiederholten dabei die europäischen Fehler. "In 2015, over 1.2 million asylum seekers arrived in the European Union. (…) The political consequences changed Europe forever. The Western Hemisphere now faces a migration crisis on a similar scale, with consequences that will likely be just as far-reaching. So far, this crisis has received a piecemeal treatment. Central American migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexican border, Venezuelans crossing dry plains into Colombia, Bolivians seeking work in Argentina and Chile — these are treated as separate phenomena but are in fact part of the same underlying set of problems. To avoid the kind of human and political toll that the migration crisis produced in Europe, political leaders and policymakers must treat this new situation holistically and learn from past examples. Already, policymakers in the United States and elsewhere in the Americas are repeating European mistakes."

Mehr lesen


14.10.2019

"The Demolition of U.S. Diplomacy"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-10-14/demolition-us-diplomacy

William J. Burns von der Carnegie Endowment for International Peace kritisiert den Umgang des US-Präsidenten mit Karriere-Diplomaten wie der im vergangenen Mai entlassenen US-Botschafterin in der Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. Trump erwarte absolute Loyalität und betreibe dabei einen "neuen McCarthyismus". "Almost 70 years ago, in the early years of the Cold War, Senator Joseph McCarthy conducted a savage campaign against 'disloyalty' in the State Department. Partisan investigators, untethered to evidence or ethics, forced out 81 department employees in the first half of the 1950s. (...) That Senator McCarthy’s chief counsel, Roy Cohn, was also Donald Trump’s lawyer and mentor is one of history’s sad ironies. Trump’s scorched-earth tactics, casual relationship with truth, and contempt for career public service bear more than a passing resemblance to the playbook that Cohn wrote for McCarthy."

Mehr lesen


10.10.2019

"The End of Asylum"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-10-10/end-asylum

Nach Ansicht von Nanjala Nyabola ist es nur noch eine Frage der Zeit, wann sich die liberale Weltordnung vom bisher geltenden Prinzip des Asylrechts verabschieden wird. "Around the world, rich and poor countries alike are pulling up their drawbridges, slashing the number of refugees they are willing to accept, and denying asylum to those who might have been admitted in the past. Europe, for instance, sank to a new nadir in the summer of 2019 by criminalizing rescue in the Mediterranean, allowing preventable deaths at sea, and forcibly returning vulnerable people to torture and indefinite detention in Libya. In Africa, Asia, and South America, the mood is much the same. (...) Both of the ideas embedded in the historical definition of asylum — inviolability and protection — are under attack as never before. (...) Few political leaders anywhere in the world are willing to defend the inviolability of the right to asylum. And this is how asylum will end — in a low boil of ambivalence that will eventually consume this foundational principle of the liberal order."

Mehr lesen


07.10.2019

"Obama’s Idealists - American Power in Theory and Practice"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/2019-10-07/obamas-idealists

Peter Beinart hat sich die Memoiren von Susan Rice, Samantha Power und Ben Rhodes angesehen, die während der Amtszeit von Barack Obama zu den engsten Mitarbeitern des US-Präsidenten gehörten. Alle drei Bücher handelten in gewisser Weise vom Niedergang der amerikanischen Macht und der amerikanischen Ausnahmestellung, so Beinart. "In different ways, each book traces a narrative arc that begins with a vow, made in young adulthood, to use the United States’ might for good and ends with a sober realization about how hard fulfilling that vow actually is. (...) In each book, three moments during the Obama administration play outsize roles in chastening this youthful idealism: the decision to bomb Libya in 2011, the decision not to bomb Syria in 2013, and the 2016 election. (...) Perhaps it is fitting that in memoirs that describe the many constraints under which the Obama administration labored, Rice, Power, and Rhodes manifest those constraints themselves by failing to challenge one of the most politically treacherous, and least morally defensible, aspects of American foreign policy. This too, evidently, is part of what Power, in her book’s title, calls 'the education of an idealist.'"

Mehr lesen


02.10.2019

"The Unwanted Wars - Why the Middle East Is More Combustible Than Ever"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2019-10-02/unwanted-wars

Zahlreiche Konfliktherde im Nahen Osten seien mittlerweile stark miteinander verwoben, schreibt Robert Malley von der International Crisis Group. Das Ergebnis könnte ein katastrophaler regionaler Krieg sein, den keiner wirklich will. "Because any development anywhere in the region can have ripple effects everywhere, narrowly containing a crisis is fast becoming an exercise in futility. (...) The Middle East has become the world’s most polarized region and, paradoxically, its most integrated. That combination — along with weak state structures, powerful nonstate actors, and multiple transitions occurring almost simultaneously — also makes the Middle East the world’s most volatile region. It further means that as long as its regional posture remains as it is, the United States will be just one poorly timed or dangerously aimed Houthi drone strike, or one particularly effective Israeli operation against a Shiite militia, away from its next costly regional entanglement."

Mehr lesen


suche-links1 2 .. 9suche-rechts

Hier finden Sie die Redaktion der Sicherheitspolitischen Presseschau.

Mehr lesen

Internationales

Internationales

Europa, Asien, Afrika, Amerika und weltweite Phänomene und Institutionen. Die bpb bietet ein breites Angebot zu internationalen Themen.

Mehr lesen

Online-Angebot

Informationsportal Krieg und Frieden

Wo gibt es Kriege und Gewaltkonflikte? Und wo herrscht am längsten Frieden? Welches Land gibt am meisten für Rüstung aus? Sicherheitspolitik.bpb.de liefert wichtige Daten und Fakten zu Krieg und Frieden.

Mehr lesen auf sicherheitspolitik.bpb.de

Dossier

Innerstaatliche Konflikte

Vom Kosovo nach Kolumbien, von Somalia nach Süd-Thailand: Weltweit schwelen über 280 politische Konflikte. Und immer wieder droht die Lage gewaltsam zu eskalieren.

Mehr lesen

Zahlen und Fakten

Globalisierung

Kaum ein Thema wird so intensiv und kontrovers diskutiert wie die Globalisierung. "Zahlen und Fakten" liefert Grafiken, Texte und Tabellen zu einem der wichtigsten und vielschichtigsten Prozesse der Gegenwart.

Mehr lesen

Publikationen zum Thema

Coverbild Internationale Sicherheit im 21. Jahrhundert

Internationale Sicherheit im 21. Jahrhundert

Die internationale Sicherheit ist fragil und bedroht. Wie können und müssen demokratische Systeme ...

Internationale Sicherheitspolitik Cover

Internationale Sicherheitspolitik

Seit Ende des Ost-West-Konflikts hat sich die internationale Sicherheitspolitik deutlich verändert....

Das Herz verlässt keinen Ort, an dem es hängt

Das Herz verlässt keinen Ort, an dem es hängt

16 Autor*innen aus Krisengebieten wünschen sich für ihre Zukunft weiterschreiben zu können. In di...

Sicherheitspolitik verstehen

Sicherheitspolitik verstehen

Wie sieht eine zeitgemäße Sicherheitspolitik angesichts einer zunehmend komplexer werdenden und st...

Am Hindukusch – und weiter?

Am Hindukusch – und weiter?

Ende 2014 zogen die letzten deutschen ISAF-Truppen aus Afghanistan ab. Dieser Band zieht Bilanz, fra...

Zum Shop