Foreign Policy

Review: ‘China, Cambodia, and the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence’

“Why would China jeopardize its relationship with the United States, the former Soviet Union, Vietnam, and much of Southeast Asia to sustain the Khmer Rouge and provide hundreds of millions of dollars to postwar Cambodia?” asks Sophie Richardson in China, Cambodia, and the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. An advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, Sophie Richardson not only offers an explanation of China’s foreign policy but also dispels the notion that it is irrational, inherently threatening, and malevolent. Through careful historical examination, Richardson argues that a set of beliefs, referred to as the five principles of peaceful coexistence, have been driving Chinese foreign policy since the 1954 Geneva Conference.

read more
Review: ‘Fixing Fractured Nations’

Review: ‘Fixing Fractured Nations’

In their book, Fixing Fractured Nations: The Challenge of Ethnic Separatism in the Asia-Pacific, editors Robert G. Wirsing and Ehsan Ahari compiled essays on several of the major ethnic conflicts that have plagued the Asian continent over the past several decades.  The book provides a comprehensive study of major ethnic conflict throughout Asia with sections on Southeast Asia, South Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific Islands (with a focus on Papua New Guinea).  In the concluding chapter, Ehrari places each of the essays into a geopolitical context shaped by the Cold War and by 9/11.

read more
The Foreign Policy of Baseball

The Foreign Policy of Baseball

A few days ago, I turned on the radio and heard the sweet sounds of San Francisco Giants broadcaster Jon Miller announcing this year’s first spring-training game. I thought, “Ah, baseball is finally back, and all is well in our national pastime, our country, and the world.”

read more

Bush’s Path from ‘Humility’ to ‘Bring it On’

He was focused on domestic issues. He promised a “compassionate conservatism”. In a 2000 presidential debate with Al Gore, he recoiled from the image of an arrogant United States offending the rest of the world. “If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us,” he said. “If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us.”

read more

Foreign Policy for Obama Should Be Approached with a Broad Vision

After the Bush administration’s heavy-handed foreign policy, which alienated many U.S. allies, a period of caution under Obama might be welcome. But exercising too much caution, if it translates into maintaining the status quo, would be a profound mistake. The sheer number of grave crises confronting the new president requires a fundamental change in the way that the United States approaches the world.

read more

A Memo to the Next President: Think Globally

With a global economic slowdown and a deepening food crisis, the biggest foreign policy priority for the next President must be building a global economy that benefits poor and working families in the United States and around the world.

read more

Surrounding China’s String of Pearls

 In 1919, the English geographer Halford Mackinder argued that control of the “Eurasian heartland” was the key to world domination. Mackinder believed that Eastern Europe was the gateway to controlling this huge landmass stretching from his home country to the far shores of Asia. And indeed, Eastern Europe proved pivotal in the next conflagration, World War II, as well as in the US policy of containing the Soviet Union in the Cold War era.

read more

Barack Obama on Diplomacy

The rise in popular support for Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy reflects the growing skepticism among Democratic and independent voters regarding both the Bush administration’s and the Democratic Party establishment’s foreign policies. Indeed, on issues ranging from Iraq to nuclear weapons to global warming to foreign aid, as well as his general preference for diplomacy over militarism, Obama has also staked out positions considerably more progressive than the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

read more

Defense Dollars

Richard Betts (“A Disciplined Defense,” November/December 2007) laments that most “organizations associated with mainstream policy thinking,” instead of arguing for military budget rationality, have been cowed into silence. He refers to recent proposals by my own organization — the Institute for Policy Studies, which has been known over the years for its far-reaching proposals to scale back the military budget — that focus on a set of cuts amounting to only about $56 billion, or 11 percent of the total. Betts is right that this $56 billion is only the low-hanging fruit.

read more