Foreign Policy 2013 - Foreign Policy Initiative

3 downloads 265 Views 1MB Size Report
Jan 29, 2013 ... threat of terrorism; China's rise and its implications for the Asia-Pacific region; ... leading thinkers on today's major foreign policy issues.
Foreign Policy 2013

About Foreign Policy 2011

The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) seeks to educate America‘s policymakers and lawmakers on how to meet the global challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. Towards that end, FPI conducts briefings for Members of Congress and political candidates from both political parties. FPI briefings bring the experience and expertise of Washington‘s leading foreign policy thinkers to decision-makers. These briefing sessions, which can range from a half-hour to a half-day, are personally tailored to the interests of those being briefed. FPI will make available experts on major foreign policy issues facing the United States, including U.S.-Israeli relations; the Iranian nuclear threat; the future of U.S. defense budget; the Arab Spring‘s challenges and opportunities; the war in Afghanistan and the threat of terrorism; China‘s rise and its implications for the Asia-Pacific region; challenges to U.S. promotion of democracy and human rights; the need for effective and accountable U.S. foreign assistance; and other topics. In conjunction with these briefings, FPI has developed Foreign Policy 2013, a briefing book available on the FPI website at www.foreignpolicyi.org/foreignpolicy2013. This briefing book pulls together key points, notable facts and additional resources from leading thinkers on today‘s major foreign policy issues. FPI updates the briefing book on a regular basis. To schedule a briefing, please contact Caitlin Poling, Director of Government Relations at [email protected] or (202) 296-3322.

About The Foreign Policy Initiative In 2013, the United States and its allies and partners face many foreign policy challenges. They come from rising and resurgent powers like China and Russia. They come from other autocracies that violate the rights of their citizens. They come from rogue states who work with each other in ways inimical to America‘s strategic interests and moral values, who sponsor international terrorism, and who pursue weapons of mass destruction. They come from al-Qaeda and its affiliates who continue to plot attacks against the United States and its allies. They come from failed states that serve as safe havens for terrorists and militants who spread instability and violence globally. The United States faces these challenges while engaged in military operations across the globe. The sacrifice of American lives and resources in these conflicts has led to warnings of U.S. strategic overreach, and calls for American retrenchment. There are those who hope that the United States can just return to normalcy—to pre-9/11 levels of defense spending and pre-9/11 strategies and tactics. They argue for a retreat from America‘s global commitments and a renewed focus on problems at home—a reflexive but fundamentally mistaken response to these difficult economic times. Strategic overreach is not the problem, and retrenchment is not the solution. The United States cannot afford to turn its back on its international commitments and alliances—the allies that helped the United States defeat fascism and communism in the 20th century, and the alliances Washington has forged more recently, including with the liberated citizens of Afghanistan. America‘s economic difficulties will not be solved by retreat from the international arena. They will be made worse. In this new era, the consequences of failure and the risks of retreat would be even greater than before. The challenges that we face require 21st century strategies and tactics based on a renewed commitment to American leadership. The United States remains the world‘s indispensable nation—indispensable to international peace, security, and stability, and indispensable to safeguarding and advancing the ideals and principles we hold dear. The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is a non-profit, non-partisan tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code that promotes:     

continued U.S. engagement—diplomatic, economic, and military—in the world and rejection of policies that would lead us down the path to isolationism; robust support for America‘s democratic allies and opposition to rogue regimes that threaten American interests; the human rights of those oppressed by their governments, and U.S. leadership in working to spread political and economic freedom; a strong military with the defense budget needed to ensure that America is ready to confront the threats of the 21st century; international economic engagement as a key element of U.S. foreign policy in this time of great economic dislocation.

FPI looks forward to working with all who share these objectives, irrespective of political party, so that the United States successfully confronts its challenges and make progress toward a freer and more secure future.

Table of Contents Afghanistan/Pakistan ................................................................................................................ 1 America‘s Role in the World ..................................................................................................... 5 Arab Spring ................................................................................................................................. 7 Asia-Pacific ............................................................................................................................... 11 China ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Defense: Policy & Budget ....................................................................................................... 19 Democracy & Human Rights .................................................................................................. 23 Europe - NATO .......................................................................................................................... 27 Foreign Aid (Non-Military) ....................................................................................................... 29 Iran ............................................................................................................................................. 31 Iraq ............................................................................................................................................ 35 Israel/Peace Process ............................................................................................................... 37 Latin America ........................................................................................................................... 41 North Korea .............................................................................................................................. 43 Russia ......................................................................................................................................... 45 Syria ........................................................................................................................................... 49 Trade ......................................................................................................................................... 53 War on Terror ............................................................................................................................ 55

January 2013 Edition

Afghanistan/Pakistan Since President Obama‘s December 2009 decision to surge 30,000 additional U.S. troops into Afghanistan, the United States and the NATO-led coalition have made significant gains in security and stability using a strategy that combines counterinsurgency (COIN) and counterterrorism (CT) operations. However, these gains remain fragile and reversible, even after the May 2011 killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in nearby Pakistan. In June 2011, President Obama decided to draw down precipitously from the surgelevel peak of 100,000 soldiers and Marines to the present level of 66,000 troops. But if the United States makes further deep troop cuts before the 2014 handover of lead responsibility to Afghan security forces, then that will risk setting back American, NATO, and Afghan efforts to further secure and stabilize Afghanistan, and to actively counter terrorists and insurgents operating from Pakistan. Key Points: 

The United States has a vital national security interest in ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists like those who perpetrated the attacks of September 11, 2001. International disengagement from Afghanistan in the 1990s contributed to the country becoming a ―failed state‖—one that eventually became a Talibandominated safe haven for al-Qaeda. Today, failure in Afghanistan will only increase the danger of terrorist attacks against America‘s homeland and its vital interests across the globe, and the likelihood that the United States will someday be drawn back into the region.



U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan have been critical to enabling successful counterterrorism operations in the region—especially in Pakistan. Some have argued that the threat from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces can be best met—not by a broad counterinsurgency and state-building effort in Afghanistan—but only by counterterrorism operations by U.S. Special Forces similar to the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. However, a counterterrorism-based strategy in Afghanistan cannot operate effectively without the strong counterinsurgency campaign and related intelligence-gathering operations that are now in place. Counterinsurgency operations continue to box enemy forces into a smaller area, while at the same time building up local security and civil institutions, and providing staging areas from which counterterrorism operations can be launched.



Ensuring success in Afghanistan in the near term requires maintaining the present level of 66,000 U.S. troops through the end of the 2014 fighting season. Because the United States did not make an effort to secure Afghanistan's territory or protect its population early in the conflict, this allowed the Taliban to reorganize itself after their strategic defeat in 2001, and reclaim vast swaths of the countryside. In 2009, when the security situation became truly bleak, President Obama wisely surged 30,000 additional U.S. troops to set the Taliban back on its heels at least in their former southern strongholds. The insurgents were not strategically defeated in the east, however. An irresponsible and hastened drawdown of U.S. troops before 2014 will ensure that they never will be.



Signed by President Obama in May 2012, the Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) signals America‘s commitment to Afghanistan‘s long-term security and stability after the 2014 transition. Afghans fear that the United States and the international community will abandon the country, as they did after the 1989 withdrawal of the Soviet Union‘s forces. The SPA agreement commits the United States to helping to fund the Afghan security forces until 1

2024, focuses America‘s mission in Afghanistan to counterterrorism and training the Afghan military after Kabul takes control of the country‘s security by 2014, and lays the groundwork for America‘s continuing troop presence and access to bases in-country. 

After the 2014 transition, the United States must retain a force sufficient to allow it to conduct a counterterrorism campaign against remaining extremist and militant groups, and to fully enable the Afghan forces to operate on their own. News reports suggest the White House may favor a minimal post-2014 military footprint in Afghanistan of as few as 3,000 U.S. troops. These levels, which would reduce America's role to limited counterterrorism missions with Special Operations forces, are far lower than the minimum option for post-2014 that General John Allen, the outgoing commander of American and NATO troops in Afghanistan, recommended to President Obama. The American Enterprise Institute's Frederick Kagan and the Institute for the Study of War's Kim Kagan argue that even a minimal counterterrorism mission will require at least 15,000 troops to conduct and enable operations. But if the United States also hopes to continue the vital mission of training the Afghan National Security Forces, then the Institute for the Study of War's Jeffrey Dressler and Lieutenant General James M. Dubik (ret.) conclude that 24,000-to 31,000 troops are required.

Notable Facts: 1.

Since 2001, the United States has been a critical part of the NATO-led coalition of over 40 countries in Afghanistan.

2.

On May 1, 2011, U.S. forces succeeded in hunting down and killing al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

3.

On September 21, 2012, the Pentagon completed the drawdown of President Obama‘s ―surge‖ of 33,000 forces from Afghanistan, in accordance with the President‘s June 2011 announcement.

4.

According to a Pentagon report from December 2012, the current strength of the Afghan National Army (ANA) is 195,000 troops and the Afghan National Police (ANP) stands at 157,000 personnel.

5.

In 2014, Afghanistan will take lead responsibility for providing for its own security. While the United States will retain a reduced troop presence, its mission will be strictly limited to counterterrorism and training the Afghan Security Forces.

FPI Resources: 

―Obama Must Maintain Strong U.S. Presence in Afghanistan,‖ FPI Senior Policy Analyst Evan Moore, U.S. News and World Report’s World Report, January 10, 2013.



―The War in Afghanistan is Far from Over,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly & Gary Schmitt, FoxNews.com, May 29, 2012.



―Remembering Why We are Fighting in Afghanistan,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, April 19, 2012.



―Reclaiming the Moral Case for Afghanistan,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, Commentary, April 2012.



―The Dangers of an Accelerated Drawdown in Afghanistan: What America‘s Civilian and Military Leaders Are Saying,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, March 23, 2012.



―FPI Analysis: Leveraging Pakistan to Prevail in Afghanistan,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, March 22, 2012.

2

Suggested Reading: 

―Victory in Afghanistan? Not Without U.S. Troops,‖ Max Boot, Los Angeles Times, January 15, 2013.



―How to Waste a Decade in Afghanistan,‖ Frederick & Kimberly Kagan, Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2013.



―Saving Afghanistan,‖ Abdullah Abdullah, Foreign Policy, January 8, 2013.



―Steep U.S. Drawdown in Afghanistan Brings Substantial Risks,‖ Max Boot, Washington Post, December 23, 2012.



―Abandoning Afghanistan,‖ Gary Schmitt, The Weekly Standard, December 22, 2012.



―Making the Same Mistakes all Over Again?‖ Kori Schake, Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, December 12, 2012.



―What Future Faces Afghan Women After U.S. Forces Depart?‖ Editorial, Washington Post, December 11, 2012.



―Why U.S. Troops Must Stay in Afghanistan,‖ Frederick & Kimberly Kagan, Washington Post, November 23, 2012.



―There is Hope Yet for Afghanistan,‖ Karl Eikenberry, Financial Times, November 20, 2012.



―Osama bin Laden was not Enough: Why We Must Win in Afghanistan,‖ American Enterprise Institute, October 18, 2012.



―Don't Forget Pakistan‘s Liberals,‖ Sadanand Dhume, Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2012.



―Picking a Winner in Afghanistan,‖ Michael O‘Hanlon, Washington Post, June 9, 2012.

3

4

America‘s Role in the World The United States remains the world‘s indispensable nation─vital to global peace, security, and stability, and crucial to protecting and advancing America‘s ideals and principles internationally. Washington cannot afford to turn its back on its international commitments—in particular, on allies that helped America to defeat fascism and communism, and the new partnerships forged with nations like Afghanistan to advance freedom and strengthen security. At home, U.S. economic difficulties will only deepen by pursuing a protectionist retreat within its borders. Today, the challenges America faces require a vision and policies anchored, not in the fatalism of inevitable U.S. decline as espoused by some, but rather in a renewed commitment to strong and enduring American global leadership.

Key Points: 

Founded on the universal cause of freedom, the United States holds a special place in world history. America‘s Founding Fathers and Presidents have frequently highlighted America‘s unique role in the world. For example, Benjamin Franklin proclaimed, ―Our cause is the cause of all mankind.‖ President Reagan called America ―the last best hope on earth.‖ And President Clinton said, ―America stands alone as the world‘s indispensable nation.‖



The United States must maintain robust engagement in the world─diplomatically, militarily, and economically─to ensure a more secure and prosperous future. From the misguided isolationism of the 1930s to the counterproductive Smoot-Hawley Tariff at the onset of the Great Depression, America has suffered when its leaders embraced the path of diminished U.S. global leadership and protectionism. Such a course only serves to weaken U.S national security and diminish economic opportunities for America‘s citizens.



The United States should maintain vigorous support for democratic allies, and oppose regimes that threaten American interests and subvert the cause of freedom. America should pursue policies to promote political freedom and stand against human rights abuses across the globe that mock the universal principles Americans hold dear; to strengthen ties with its allies through better trade relations to increase U.S. exports, and achieve greater diplomatic and military coordination; and to encourage all nations—particularly China and Russia—and international institutions to act responsibly in their deliberations and activities.

Notable Facts: 1.

The budget for the U.S. Department of Defense, including war-funding, today consumes 3.5% of America‘s gross domestic product (GDP). For that amount, the United States upholds a system of international peace and prosperity. America‘s global system of alliances and extended deterrence has helped to prevent the outbreak of major foreign aggression and keeps open the flow of global trade and commerce.

2.

Funding for the U.S. State Department and affiliated agencies has increasingly been used to support civilian missions in war zones and unstable states. Comprising less than 1.5% of the federal budget, this funding helps to support the spread of democracy and human rights abroad, the capacity-building of partner militaries, and the stabilization of nations— and thus prevent the rise of ungoverned territory that could foster militants and terrorists.

5

3.

After the Cold War, the United States emerged as the predominant political, economic, and military power in the world. However, China‘s rise and Russia‘s resurgence pose a long-term competitive challenge to America and the international order.

4. The United States has repeatedly rejected calls for isolationism and non-interventionism, and engaged in foreign missions abroad, particularly since 1898. have been supported by U.S. Presidents of both parties.

These interventions

FPI Resources: 

―Footprints on the Sands of Time,‖ FPI Director William Kristol, The Weekly Standard, December 8, 2012.



―Homage to an Administration,‖ FPI Director William Kristol, The Weekly Standard, November 17, 2012.



―FPI National Survey: Foreign Policy Matters in 2012,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, September 27, 2012.



―America Has Made the World Freer, Safer, and Wealthier,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, CNN.com, March 14, 2012.



―FPI Analysis: In Defense of America‘s International Affairs Budget,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, February 24, 2012.



―Why the World Needs America,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, Wall Street Journal, February 11, 2012.



―The Importance of U.S. Military Might Shouldn‘t be Underestimated,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, Washington Post, February 2, 2012.

Suggested Reading: 

―The Unfortunate Rise of Retrenchment Chic,‖ James Jeffrey, Foreign Policy, December 3, 2012.



―When it Comes to How a President is Ultimately Defined, the World Gets a Vote, too,‖ Gary Schmitt, FoxNews.com, November 5, 2012.



―Leadership: America‘s Critical Foreign Policy Role,‖ Condoleezza Rice, Remarks at The Heritage Foundation, June 20, 2012.



―Future of U.S. Foreign Policy,‖ Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Remarks at the Brookings Institution, April 25, 2012.



―Neither Isolationist Nor Noninterventionist: The Right Way to Think About Foreign Policy,‖ Marion Smith, The Heritage Foundation, July 5, 2011.

6

Arab Spring After decades of authoritarian rule in the Middle East and North Africa, the region‘s waves of mass protest movements give hope to populations choked by political repression, economic stagnation, and widespread corruption. But while the Arab Spring offers the region the opportunity to establish more moderate and democratic governments anchored in the rule of law and respect for human rights, recent events in Egypt and Libya raise questions whether the Arab Spring‘s great promise will be fulfilled. This was demonstrated by the deadly September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The United States must see the Arab Spring countries through their slow, often difficult, but continuing political transitions. Although there will be further setbacks and challenges as these nations evolve at different paces and with varying leadership, the United States should aid and empower the long-term democratization process as much as possible.

Key Points: 

Decades of authoritarian rule in the Middle East and North Africa have produced a stagnant political and economic culture characterized by rampant corruption, political oppression, high unemployment, and anti-Americanism. Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups have exploited this environment to gain support, particularly from the region‘s disaffected youth.



The long-term success of democratic and economic reform is a key antidote to Islamic extremism. Indeed, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report noted the importance of broader cultural change in the region in countering Islamic extremism: ―Tolerance, the rule of law, political and economic openness, the extension of greater opportunities to women— these cures must come from within Muslim societies themselves. The United States must support such developments.‖



The United States has an enormous interest in the successful outcome of the broader reform movements underway in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere. Although Egypt completed its first competitive presidential election this year, it is important to remember that elections—by themselves—do not produce a democracy. Indeed, it remains far from clear whether post-Mubarak Egypt will succeed in creating and sustaining durable democratic institutions that respect the impartial rule of law, uphold minority and women's rights, protect fundamental liberties like free speech, and maintain peace with neighbors. As a longtime partner of Egypt, Washington is in the unique position to proactively and positively influence this process.



As the Arab Spring and other revolutionary movements continue to sweep the Muslim world, the United States should actively work to advance America‘s long-term strategic interests, including the promotion of democracy and human rights. While the pace and success of reform in each nation will be uneven, America should pursue efforts to help promote the rule of law, respect for human rights, economic development, and accountable governance. U.S. tools that have helped other nations successfully transition to democracy include effective public diplomacy, economic aid, and technical and legal support. At the same time, such support should be reviewed and/or potentially withdrawn in the event the recipient government engages in fundamentally anti-democratic activity.



It is unfortunate that President Obama has ―led from behind‖ and repeatedly failed to grasp the opportunities presented by the Arab Spring. Reformers in the Middle East and North 7

Africa should always know that the United States stands with them in their struggle against authoritarianism.

Notable Facts: 1.

The Arab Spring began in Tunisia on December 17, 2010, when Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26year-old street vendor, set himself on fire in a police station to protest harassment from authorities and the unlawful seizure of his cart. After street protests throughout Tunisia erupted in Bouazizi‘s name, dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled the country on January 14, 2011. Tunisia held the Arab Spring‘s first democratic elections on October 25, 2011. The country‘s newly-elected civilian leaders are now working to write a national constitution.

2.

Shortly after Ben Ali‘s ouster in Tunisia, protests spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa, including in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria. Much of the Arab Spring has been characterized by street protests by reformers. Several monarchies in the region have responded with power-sharing constitutional reforms. However, some dictators—seeking to perpetuate their hold on power—have steadily increased the use of lethal force against peaceful mass protesters.

3.

Another element of the Arab Spring has been Saudi Arabia‘s support of regional Sunni monarchies, namely Bahrain, against protesters from their Shia-majority populations, which Saudi Arabia fears may be backed by Iran.

4.

In August 2012, shortly after holding its first post-Qaddafi election, Libya‘s legislative body named Mohamed Magariaf of the National Front Party the first President of the General National Congress. He will serve as Libya‘s head of state until elections are held in 2013.

5.

Since his election in June 2012, Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, a member of the country‘s Muslim Brotherhood and a former parliamentarian, has fired rivals in the country's military, issued decrees that restrict judicial review, stacked the Constituent Assembly with Islamists, and rushed a draft constitution—later approved by referendum— that raises serious questions about the future role of religion in the Egyptian state. These power grabs raise the risk that the country's fledgling political transition could quickly derail.

6.

Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad continues to wage war against the country‘s various antiregime opposition groups. President Obama demanded that Assad step down in August 2011, but has failed so far to rally a collective response by the international community, and end the Assad regime‘s campaign of indiscriminate violence against its own people. As of publication, the United Nations estimates the death toll in Syria has surpassed 60,000 people.

FPI Resources: 

―What Obama Should Do About Post-Mubarak Egypt,‖ FPI Senior Policy Analysts Patrick Christy & Evan Moore, U.S. News and World Report’s World Report, December 5, 2012.



―Obama Is Unwilling to Lead the U.S. Response to the Arab Spring,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, U.S. News and World Report’s Debate Club, September 27, 2012.



―FPI Bulletin: Responding to Recent Events in Egypt and Libya,‖ FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate & Senior Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, Foreign Policy Initiative, September 21, 2012.



―FPI Bulletin: Now is Not the Time to Cut Assistance to Egypt and Libya,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly & Senior Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, Foreign Policy Initiative, September 14, 2012.



―The Proper U.S. Response to Cairo Attack,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, Washington Post, September 13, 2012.

8

Suggested Reading: 

―The Promise of the Arab Spring,‖ Sheri Berman, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013.



―Remember, Remember the 29th of December,‖ Nancy Okail, Freedom House‘s Freedom at Issue, January 2, 2012.



―An Intolerable Status Quo in Bahrain,‖ Elisa Massimino, Washington Post, December 2, 2012.



―A Recipe for Violence,‖ Thomas Donnelly, The Weekly Standard, December 1, 2012.



―Shaping the 'New Egypt,'‖ Vin Weber & Gregory B. Craig, Los Angeles Times, November 28, 2012.



―Bahrain Burning,‖ Michael Stephens, Foreign Policy, November 7, 2012.



―Broadening U.S. Engagement with the Middle East,‖ Stephen McInerney, Huffington Post, October 22, 2012.



―American Power and the Libya Naysayers,‖ Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2012.



―The Missing Piece,‖ Richard Wike & Bruce Stokes, Foreign Policy, July 12, 2012.

9

10

Asia-Pacific China‘s increasingly provocative behavior is challenging long-term security and stability in the wider Asia-Pacific region. Australia and Japan have announced changes to their defense strategies in response to China‘s growing military might. India— which has border disputes with China—has begun to modernize its military. Beijing‘s expansive claims on the Spratly and Paracel Islands in the South China Sea have pushed Vietnam closer to the West. Allowing the balance of power, in a region of the world so vital to U.S. interests, to shift in China‗s favor is a recipe for instability, diminished economic and political sway, and potential conflict—all of which comes with costs likely to be greater than those required to keep the peace.

Key Points: 

The Obama administration‘s so-called ―pivot‖ or ―rebalance‖ to the Asia Pacific must be accompanied by policies that reassure Asian allies about America‘s ability to deter potential Chinese aggression, and to maintain its dominant security position in the region. Washington must now bolster economic and diplomatic ties with longstanding regional allies, engage emerging partners, and expand both security dialogues and military exercises with likeminded partners. Progress on economic trade agreements—such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an 11-nation regional free-trade agreement (FTA) that aims to eliminate barriers to foreign trade and investment—will complement America‘s security engagement in the region.



Washington must reassure allies and partners that continuing uncertainty over the America‘s long-term defense spending will not diminish American naval and air power in the AsiaPacific. Allies fear that deep ―sequestration‖ defense cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 will constrain America‘s regional military presence. To further reassure allies and improve the security situation in the region, America should avert sequestration cuts to defense spending, pursue an expanded regional missile defense network to counter China‘s and North Korea‘s growing ballistic missile threat, and increase self-defense assistance to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, and India.



The United States should continue its long-standing policy of support for Taiwan. The Obama administration‘s decision not to sell Taiwan new model F-16 C/Ds fighters to upgrade its Air Force vis-à-vis China raised doubts about America‘s commitment to the longtime ally. Because the Chinese air force is rapidly overshadowing Taiwanese capabilities, Washington should immediately begin discussions regarding selling Taiwan the F-35—an advanced 5th generation U.S.-built fighter recently ordered by Japan and potentially Australia—as well as explore other means to bolster the island nation‘s defensive capabilities, such as through missile defense or submarine sales.



The United States and India should reinvigorate their partnership on a wide range of strategic issues. Both democracies are bound together by increasingly shared values, face major terrorist threats, and stand to reap great benefits from deeper cooperation on economic, diplomatic, and security fronts.

11

Notable Facts: 1.

Over the past two decades, China has procured more than 40 new submarines, including attack subs and nuclear-armed ballistic missile subs. Its Navy has acquired 15 guided missile destroyers; a similar number of frigates, including a new stealthy class; more than four dozen, high-speed, cruise missile-armed patrol craft; and scores of new amphibious ships.

2.

China also maintains the world‗s largest arsenal of mines to protect its littoral waters, including those surrounding the major new naval base on Hainan Island. When built, it will have underground facilities to safely port as many as 20 submarines. Finally, China is now moving forward with an aircraft carrier program.

3.

Since the early 1990s, China‘s air forces have bought or built hundreds of new 4th generation fighters—which are comparable to the American-made F-16s and F-15s.

4.

Since 2000, the United States and India have inked a landmark civil nuclear cooperation agreement, broadened bilateral relations, and expanded security cooperation and defense trade. Most notably, free flows of trade and investment reached unprecedented levels. By 2011, total bilateral trade surpassed $86 billion, up from just $14 billion in 2000.

5.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced at the 2012 Shangri-La Dialogue that the United States will shift 60% of its naval assets to the Asia-Pacific region by 2020, rather than the traditional 50-50 split between the Atlantic and Pacific.

FPI Resources: 

―United States Can‘t Pivot Away from Middle East,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, Washington Post, November 20, 2012.



―FPI Analysis: Next Steps in the U.S.-Chinese Peacetime Competition,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, November 14, 2012.



―FPI Analysis: America‘s Stabilizing Role in the South China Sea Conflict,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, September 4, 2012.



―FPI Analysis: Overcoming Obstacles to Accelerate the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, June 11, 2012.



―FPI Bulletin: An Off-Balance Pivot to Asia?‖ FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate & Senior Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, Foreign Policy Initiative, June 4, 2012.

Suggested Reading: 

―Asia's Challenge in 2013: Nationalism,‖ Michael Auslin, Wall Street Journal Asia, January 3, 2013.



―Opportunities Unbound: Sustaining the Transformation in U.S.-Indian Relations,‖ Ashley Tellis, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January 2013.



―The Moral and Strategic Blindspot in Obama‘s Pivot to Asia,‖ Joshua Kurlantzick, The New Republic, November 20, 2012.



―Getting Rebalancing Right,‖ Michèle Flournoy & Ziad Hader, Foreign Policy, November 19, 2012.



―India Needs a Neocon Foreign Policy,‖ Sadanand Dhume, Wall Street Journal India, November 13, 2012. 12



―U.S.–Vietnam Defense Relations: Investing in Strategic Alignment,‖ Colonel William Jordan (USA, Ret.), Lewis Stern & Walter Lohman, The Heritage Foundation, July 18, 2012.



―The Australia–U.S. Alliance and Leadership in the Asia–Pacific,‖ Tony Abbott, The Heritage Foundation, July 17, 2012.



―Asia in the Balance: Transforming U.S. Military Strategy in Asia,‖ Thomas Mahnken, et al., American Enterprise Institute, June 4, 2012.



―Why Asia Wants America,‖ Senator John McCain (R-AZ), The Diplomat, May 22, 2012.

13

14

China China‘s growing economy and global trade ties have not led Beijing to fully embrace market-based economic principles and transparent business practices, let alone to demonstrate respect for the human rights of its people, or pursue substantive political reforms. China‘s continued military build-up, fueled by years of strong defense spending, and its increasingly assertive foreign policy, have raised concerns throughout the Asia-Pacific region and the world. It is clear that the United States and China differ deeply on a wide range of economic, diplomatic, security, and human rights issues. A strategy of engagement, by itself, cannot completely bridge these differences. Instead, there is a need for Washington to articulate, clearly and publicly, an integrated long-term strategy towards China that advances America‘s core values and interests—one that not only emphasizes U.S. commitment to its allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific, but also supports Chinese dissidents, Tibetans, and Uighurs in their continuing struggle for human rights and dignity.

Key Points: 

The Chinese Communist Party‘s General Secretary Xi Jinping will succeed President Hu Jintao as the country's head of state for the next decade in 2013. However, China's change in leadership is occurring at a time of great uncertainty not only about the country's domestic situation, but also the future direction of Chinese foreign policy. While Washington should not balk at engaging with Beijing, such a policy should be pursued without sentiment or illusion, as China‘s foreign and domestic policies will continue to be aimed at the preservation of party rule.



China‘s increasingly assertive foreign policy has raised concerns throughout the region and the world. Beijing has blocked more effective U.N. Security Council action against Iran‘s rogue nuclear activities, and Syria‘s atrocities against civilian protestors. It has shown an unwillingness to exert significant pressure on North Korea, even when Pyongyang takes provocative actions with regard to its nuclear weapons and missile programs. Beijing targets Taiwan with missiles, and is embroiled with neighbors in territorial disputes in the Western Pacific and South China Sea.



The Obama administration‘s so-called ―pivot‖ or ―rebalance‖ to the Asia Pacific must be accompanied by policies that reassure Asian allies about America‘s ability to deter potential Chinese aggression, and to maintain its dominant security position in the region. Washington must now bolster economic and diplomatic ties with longstanding regional allies, engage emerging partners, and expand both security dialogues and military exercises with likeminded partners. Progress on economic trade agreements—such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an 11-nation regional free-trade agreement (FTA) that aims to eliminate barriers to foreign trade and investment—will complement America‘s security engagement in the region.



U.S. policy also should seek to help Asian allies to balance against China‘s increasingly assertive foreign policy and growing military might. Specifically, the United States should pursue increased arms sales to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, and India, and an expanded regional missile defense network to counter China‘s ballistic missile threat.



The United States should elevate its call for Chinese leaders to respect the human rights of all of its citizens and embrace democratic values anchored in the rule of law. In China today, open political discussion is repressed, freedom of religion banned, and Tibetans and other 15

groups face a government-enforced crackdown. In response, the U.S. should: 1) speak out against Chinese human rights abuses in every available forum and at every available opportunity; 2) establish linkage between American policy towards China and China‘s human rights behavior; and 3) recognize that the best long-term solution for American concerns about Chinese behavior is China‘s eventual democratization and expose the connection between the nature of China‘s communist regime and its behavior at home and abroad. 

As appropriate, the United States should also seek solutions to major international issues without China. For example, although multiparty talks that included China (and Russia) were, conceptually, a promising method to deal with Iran, North Korea, and Syria; in practice, they have served as another mechanism by which China (and Russia) continue to resist efforts to compel their client states. Instead, the United States, working with democratic allies, should seek other avenues to impair these rogue regimes‘ capabilities.



The fact that the United States and China are tied together economically should not hinder efforts to ensure that American businesses are treated fairly. China‘s economic growth and huge population offer tremendous opportunity for U.S. companies and benefits for American consumers. At the same time, China‘s businesses should operate in a transparent fashion, its currency allowed to float to reflect its market value, and Beijing should respect and enforce vigorously the intellectual property rights of Americans firms. However, in working with China to end such practices, it would be a mistake to impose U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports. The Obama administration has rightly refused to support such efforts, given the likelihood that they could lead to a trade war with China, hurting U.S. companies and raising the cost of goods for American consumers.

Notable Facts: 1.

China‘s officially disclosed military budget for 2012 increased 11.2 percent over 2011, the 21st consecutive year-on-year increase. From 2000 to 2011, China‘s defense budget grew at an average of 11.8 percent per year. Using the purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rate, which accounts for cost differences between China and the West, the Chinese core military budget may well approach $300 billion, making it the second largest in the world.

2.

The Pentagon officially estimates that China‘s military-related spending for 2011 amounted between $120 billion to $180 billion. But the cost of raising, training, and equipping a military in China is substantially less than what it costs to field an equivalent American force. Moreover, China‘s military spending currently focuses on the AsiaPacific region, in contrast to U.S. military spending, which covers the globe.

3.

In an annual report to Congress in 2012, the Pentagon assessed that China possesses over 1000 conventional short-range ballistic missiles, with ranges capable of hitting Taiwan, and is in the process of increasing their range, payload, and accuracy. The Chinese military is also developing a conventional medium-range ballistic missile capability to threaten U.S. carrier groups throughout the region.

4.

Since the end of the Cold War, China has dramatically expanded its navy, especially its submarine fleet which includes modern attack submarines. During this same time period, the number of submarines in the U.S. fleet has decreased. At its current rate of purchase and production, China may be able eventually to sustain a force of nearly 80 submarines. The U.S. submarine fleet is currently at 53. In September 2012, China also launched its first aircraft carrier into service.

5.

Since the early 1990s, the Chinese air forces, traditional and naval, have bought or built hundreds of new 4th generation fighters — fighters generally comparable to the American-made F-16s and F-15s. China is also developing the J-20, a fifth-generation, stealth, twin-engine fighter aircraft.

16

FPI Resources: 

―Rethink the Status of Tibet,‖ FPI Director of Democracy & Human Rights Ellen Bork, Wall Street Journal Asia, December 18, 2012.



―FPI Analysis: Next Steps in the U.S.-Chinese Peacetime Competition,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, November 14, 2012.



―FPI Analysis: America‘s Stabilizing Role in the South China Sea Conflict,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, September 4, 2012.



―Tibet‘s Transition: Will Washington Take a Stand?‖ FPI Director of Democracy & Human Rights Ellen Bork, World Affairs Journal, September/October 2012.



―FPI Bulletin: An Off-Balance Pivot to Asia?‖ FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate & Senior Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, Foreign Policy Initiative, June 5, 2012.



―Defending Defense: China's Military Build-Up: Implications for U.S. Defense Spending,‖ Defending Defense Project (American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, & the Heritage Foundation), March 7, 2011.

Suggested Reading: 

―Chinese ‗Currency Manipulation‘ Is Not the Problem,‖ Edward Lazear, Wall Street Journal, January 7, 2013.



―Human Rights Now,‖ Sophie Richardson, Foreign Policy, November 15, 2012.



―China‘s Leaders Must Embrace Democracy,‖ Minxin Pei, Financial Times, November 15, 2012.



―Can the Chinese Have a French Revolution?‖ Paul Bonicelli, Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, November 15, 2012.



―Don‘t Expect Reform from China‘s New Leaders,‖ David Shambaugh, Washington Post, November 15, 2012.



―The World Holds Its Breath for China,‖ Rebiya Kadeer, Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2012.



―The Coming Collapse: Authoritarians in China and Russia Face an Endgame,‖ Jackson Diehl, World Affairs Journal, September/October 2012.



―China‘s Currency Manipulation: Blaming China is Tempting—but Wrong,‖ Stephen Roach, World Affairs Journal, September/October 2012.



―For China, It‘s All About America,‖ Michael Auslin, The Diplomat, July 6, 2012.



―Stop Ignoring Taiwan,‖ Karl Eikenberry, Foreign Policy, May 17, 2012.

17

18

Defense: Policy & Budget In the dangerous post-9/11 world, the United States must ensure that the men and women of the U.S. military have the weapons, equipment, and other resources needed to carry out any mission and come home safely. However, unless the President and Congress change current law before March 2013, the U.S. Armed Forces will face $500 billion in across-the-board cuts over the next decade. Known as ―sequestration,‖ this massive and indiscriminate reduction in defense spending comes on top of the $487 billion in long-term military cuts already advanced by President Obama in February 2012, and $290 billion in cuts put forward in February 2011. If sequestration cuts to defense spending are fully implemented, then the United States will not have the capacity to meet its stated military commitments, and American national security will be significantly weakened.

Key Points: Spending 

Under the debt-limit deal, the defense budget will face catastrophic cuts. Over ten years, the Pentagon will face $487 billion in cuts to the regular defense budget. On top of this, current law now mandates additional ―sequestration‖ cuts in the $500-600 billion range due to the failure of the select bipartisan deficit committee to reach agreement on any further deficit reduction. In total, the Pentagon now faces cuts of more than $1 trillion over the next decade.



Pro-defense policymakers should vigorously oppose such devastating defense cuts. In the 1990s, drastic cuts to defense spending resulted in the ―hollowing out‖ of the military, with units lacking sufficient personnel, supplies, and equipment. If the current debt deal governs defense policy for the next ten years, then the percentage of GDP America spends on defense would fall under 3%─the lowest total in the entire post-World War II era─and the defense budget would not be remotely adequate to secure America‘s interests and preserving the international leadership role that rests upon military preeminence.

Modernization Needs 

Policymakers who support massive cuts in defense spending ignore the findings of a bipartisan panel on U.S. military readiness. Co-chaired by Bush National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and Clinton-era Secretary of Defense William Perry, the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel‘s assessment of U.S. military capabilities issued an ―explicit warning‖ on military readiness: ―The aging of the inventories and equipment used by the services, the decline in the size of the Navy, escalating personnel entitlements, overhead and procurement costs, and the growing stress on the force means that a train wreck is coming in the areas of personnel, acquisition, and force structure.‖



The American military faces a large and growing gap between the forces it requires and the forces it has. America‘s military is presently equipped for maintaining and preserving global peace rather than protecting the United States against 21st century global threats. For example, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz has stated that the present number of F-22 fighters creates a high risk for the U.S. military in meeting its operational demands. The fact that F-22 procurement was capped at 187 aircraft is especially worrisome as China develops increasingly capable stealth aircraft and as Russia develops and sells resilient air defense systems. The Navy has 285 ships, the fewest number since America‘s entrance into World War I. This is well below the 313-ship level that the Chief of 19

Naval Operations has called a ―floor.‖ In addition to other critical investments, the United States should restore production of the F-22, and maintain funding for the Navy‘s 313-ship plan, including 12 aircraft carriers. Missile Defense 

The United States should support robust missile defenses to protect the homeland, America‘s friends and allies, and our forces when they are deployed. With rogue nations like North Korea and Iran acquiring more sophisticated, longer-range missile systems, U.S. missile defense has taken on much greater importance. The Bush administration deployed a limited missile defense system in Alaska and California to protect the U.S. homeland from such threats. The Obama administration should continue robust support for missile defense, including the planned deployment of a new missile defense network in Europe and proposed deployment on the East Coast, to defend America and our allies against the emerging threat of Iran‘s long-range and intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities.

Notable Facts: 1.

Former Secretary of Defense Gates strongly cautioned against massive defense budget cuts: ―If you cut the defense budget by 10%, which would be catastrophic in terms of force structure, that‘s $55 billion out of a $1.4 trillion deficit... [The men and women of the U.S. military] are not the problem.‖

2.

The United States spends more money on personnel costs ($157 billion in 2011) than on weapons procurement ($151 billion) and the imbalance is likely to grow in future years, thereby making it even harder to increase our power-projection capabilities.

3.

Today, the U.S. military flies the same basic planes (e.g., F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fighters; B52, B-1 and B-2 bombers and a variety of support aircraft), sails the same basic ships (e.g., Trident ballistic missile and Los Angeles-class attack submarines, Aegis-equipped destroyers and cruisers, Nimitz-class aircraft carriers), and employs the same basic ground systems (e.g., Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Black Hawk and Apache helicopters) that it did at the end of the Cold War.

4.

Congress has mandated that the Navy have no less than 12 aircraft carriers. Although the Navy currently has 11 carriers, the U.S.S. Enterprise will be decommissioned in 2013, and the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford is not expected to be commissioned until 2015, leaving the fleet with only ten carriers in the intermediate two-year period.

5.

Since the end of the Cold War, America‘s military has operated at a far higher operational tempo than it did during the Cold War. However, while the military has been busier than ever, its size and strength have declined. The Air Force is smaller and its inventory is older than at any time since its inception in 1947. The Navy has fewer ships than at any time since 1916. The Air Force, Navy and Army are 30% to 40% smaller than they were during Desert Storm.

6.

In January 2012, President Obama unveiled a controversial strategic guidance document to reorient America‘s long-term defense planning. On the one hand, it stresses the enduring importance of the Asia-Pacific region to U.S. national security interests. On the other hand, it articulates a vision for the Pentagon‘s future that only accounts for the first of two rounds of deep cuts mandated by the debt-limit deal.

7.

President Obama‘s Fiscal Year 2013 defense budget proposal to Capitol Hill ignored the reality of sequestration, completely punting the responsibility of undoing the trillion-dollar cut—or implementing it—to Congress. The alternative budget submitted by House Republicans attempts to block the first year of sequestration cuts by replacing them with alternative spending reductions. Although a last-minute legislative deal delayed sequestration‘s onset in January 2013 by two months, it remains unclear whether the White House and Congress will ultimately succeed in preventing it.

20

FPI Resources: 

―Defending Defense: Don't Just Delay Defense Sequestration—Stop It,‖ Defending Defense Project (American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, & the Heritage Foundation), January 2, 2013.



―FPI Bulletin: U.S. Forces in Europe Protect America‘s National Security and Prosperity,‖ FPI Senior Policy Analysts Patrick Christy and Evan Moore,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, December 20, 2012.



―FPI Analysis: Don‘t Throw National Defense Off the Fiscal Cliff,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, December 10, 2012.



―How the Fiscal Crisis Puts National Security at Risk,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, Washington Post, November 12, 2012.



―FPI Fact Sheet: Setting the Record Straight on President Obama‘s False Defense Spending Claims,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, November 2, 2012.



―Defending Defense: Flawed Sequester Report Reinforces Need to Quickly Reverse Damaging Defense Cuts,‖ Defending Defense Project (American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, & the Heritage Foundation), September 19, 2012.



―Obama‘s Defense ‗Pivot‘ Masks Shrinkage,‖ FPI Director Eric Edelman & Dov Zakheim, POLITICO, July 22, 2012.



―Defending Defense: Sequestration‘s Shadow on the Defense Industrial Base,‖ Defending Defense Project (American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, & the Heritage Foundation), July 12, 2012.

Suggested Reading: 

―The Military Lost in the Fiscal Cliff Deal,‖ Mackenzie Eaglen, U.S. News and World Report’s World Report, January 11, 2013.



―Avoiding the Defense Cliff,‖ Thomas Donnelly, The Weekly Standard Blog, January 3, 2013.



―Sequester Decision Time: Global Leader or Regional Hegemon?‖ Marion Smith, The Heritage Foundation, December 20, 2012.



―America Needs a Permanent Independent Panel to Stress Test the Pentagon's QDR Strategy,‖ Senator Jim Talent & Mackenzie Eaglen, The Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, November 29, 2012.



―Defense Budgets 101: The Truth about US Military Spending,‖ American Enterprise Institute, November 13, 2012.



―The Law the White House Wants Companies to Ignore,‖ Gary Schmitt, FoxNews.com, October 1, 2012.



―Sequestration Will Undermine U.S. Interests in the Middle East,‖ Steven Bucci, The Heritage Foundation, September 20, 2012.



―Indefensible: The Sequester‘s Mechanics and Adverse Effects on National and Economic Security,‖ Bipartisan Policy Center, June 7, 2012.

21

22

Democracy & Human Rights Founded on the universal cause of freedom, America holds a special place in the world. As Benjamin Franklin observed, ―Our cause is the cause of all mankind.‖ Today, America remains the world‘s indispensable nation—indispensable to international peace, security, and stability, and indispensable to safeguarding and advancing the ideals and principles we hold dear. As such, America must provide global leadership in working to spread political freedom and defend the human rights of those oppressed by their governments.

Key Points: 

The United States should pursue policies that promote political freedom and stand against human rights abuses across the globe—abuses which mock the universal principles we hold dear. To that end, Washington should work with our democratic allies to promote democracy and respect for human rights, challenge regimes that subvert the cause of freedom, and leverage the visibility of international institutions to aim a brighter spotlight on crimes against humanity. Those fighting for their freedom should never have cause to question whether America is on their side.



The United States should elevate its call for Chinese leaders to respect the human rights of all of its citizens and embrace democratic values anchored in the rule of law. In China today, open political discussion is repressed, freedom of religion banned, and Tibetans and other groups face a government crackdown. In response, the United States should: 1) speak out against Chinese human rights abuses in every available forum at every available opportunity; 2) establish linkage between U.S. policy towards China and Chinese human rights behavior; and 3) recognize that the best long-term solution for American concerns about Chinese behavior is its eventual democratization and expose the connection between the nature of China‘s communist regime and its behavior at home and abroad.



Ultimately, China is still a country of, by, and for the Communist Party, not the Chinese people. Dissidents and activists like Chen Guangcheng view the United States as a crucial ally in their fight for democracy and human decency. America cannot and must not be indifferent to their struggle.



The United States should respond swiftly to activities undertaken by the Kremlin to thwart the democratic process or violate basic human rights inside Russia. In recent years, the Russian government has accelerated a systematic rollback of democratic reforms enacted in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, curtailed press freedom and political expression, and used the power of the state to harass political opponents and media outlets. Russia has also ignored its international obligation to establish and ensure a free and open political process inside its borders. The 2012 presidential election, in which Vladimir Putin returned to the Presidency for a third term, is a prominent example of the Kremlin‘s complete control of Russian politics. Congress sent a powerful signal in December 2012 by passing the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal Act of 2012, which targets Russian officials or persons who commit human rights abuses. The United States should speak out much more forcefully against these actions, and give greater support to the burgeoning protest movement against Putin‘s domination of the Russian state. Turning a blind eye to such undemocratic behavior further weakens democratic forces in Russia and harms American interests.



As Burma opens itself to incremental reforms, the United States should proportionally ease international pressure only in close and continuing coordination with the country‘s 23

democratic opposition. Despite initial political reforms, the Burmese government is still effectively ruled by military officials in civilian garb, who strongly control the country‘s politics and economy, and are still warring against the country‘s ethnic minorities. After the Obama administration lifted a long-standing investment on Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi—the Nobel Prize-winner whose opposition party won over 95 percent of open seats in the country‘s April 2012 parliamentary elections—emphatically urged Washington and the international community to resist ―reckless optimism.‖ She instead called for them to retain and use their leverage to encourage further democratic reforms in a nation that still remains largely shackled by dictatorial strongmen. 

The United States should embrace and champion the democratic revolutions that are remaking the Middle East. For decades, the United States sought to establish regional stability at the expense of freedom. This resulted in enshrined authoritarian governments that were unresponsive to the needs and aspirations of their people, stifled economies, and burgeoning radical Islamist movements. As post-revolutionary states like Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya continue to organize themselves, the United States should insist on free and fair elections, as well make clear that the new governments must respect the rights of all their citizens.



A policy that advances freedom and democracy in the Middle East is entirely consistent with American interests and values. In 2009, the Obama administration sought to diplomatically engage the Iranian regime on the country‘s controversial nuclear program. Following the June 12 presidential elections of that year, Iranians stormed into the streets in the hundreds of thousands to protest the fraudulent re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In their demonstrations, the protesters explicitly asked for American support. However, even President Obama‘s moral support during the summer of 2009 was, at best, tepid. If the administration had given the Iranian people more robust aid and support during this critical juncture, then the strategic situation in the Middle East might have been dramatically improved.

Notable Facts: 1.

The 2010 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. Liu, a signatory of Charter 08—a manifesto calling for democratic reform—was and is imprisoned by the Chinese government, and was prevented from attending his award ceremony. Beijing also successfully pressured 19 countries to boycott ceremony.

2.

Amid ongoing political and economic changes, Burma held by-elections on April 1, 2012, which were monitored by international observers. Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy party won 43 of 45 districts.

3.

The Iranian regime has used brutal tactics of repression to prevent another series of widescale demonstrations against the regime. Journalists, activists, and human rights defenders have been imprisoned and executed.

4.

The Arab Spring began in Tunisia on December 17, 2010, when Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26year-old street vendor, set himself on fire in a police station to protest harassment from authorities and the unlawful seizure of his cart. After street protests throughout Tunisia erupted in Bouazizi‘s name, dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled the country on January 14, 2011. Tunisia held the Arab Spring‘s first democratic elections on October 25, 2011.

5.

In August 2012, shortly after holding its first post-Qaddafi election, Libya‘s legislative body named Mohamed Magariaf of the National Front Party the first President of the General National Congress. He will serve as Libya‘s head of state until elections are held in 2013.

24

FPI Resources: 

―Open Letter to President Obama on Democracy and Human Rights in Turkey,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, Project on Middle East Democracy, Freedom House, & Reporters Without Borders, January 10, 2013.



―Rethink the Status of Tibet,‖ FPI Director of Democracy & Human Rights Ellen Bork, Wall Street Journal Asia, December 18, 2012.



―A Measure of Justice for Magnitsky‘s Murder, at Long Last,‖ FPI Government Relations Associate Kristina Olney, The Hill’s Global Affairs, December 10, 2012.



―Beware of Mirages,‖ FPI Director of Democracy & Human Rights Ellen Bork, Foreign Policy’s Democracy Lab, November 26, 2012.



―The Right Way to Engage Burma,‖ FPI Director of Democracy & Human Rights Ellen Bork, The Weekly Standard, September 22, 2012.



―FPI Bulletin: Burma in the Balance,‖ FPI Director of Democracy & Human Rights Ellen Bork, Foreign Policy Initiative, September 18, 2012.



―Tibet‘s Transition: Will Washington Take a Stand?‖ FPI Director of Democracy & Human Rights Ellen Bork, World Affairs Journal, September/October 2012.



―Democracy and the Asia Pivot,‖ FPI Director of Democracy & Human Rights Ellen Bork, The Weekly Standard, July 21, 2012.

Suggested Reading: 

―Putting Freedom Back on the Agenda,‖ David Kramer and Arch Puddington, Foreign Policy, January 15, 2013.



―Defending Freedoms,‖ Representatives Frank Wolf (R-VA) & James McGovern (D-MA), Katrina Lantos Swett, Politico, December 14, 2012.



―The Anti-Corruption Movement: Human Rights‘ Natural Partner,‖ Anne Applebaum, Washington Post, December 14, 2012.



―The Lady and the General,‖ Kurt Campbell, Foreign Policy, December 2012.



―A Second-Term Democracy Agenda,‖ David Kramer & Arch Puddington, Washington Post, November 30, 2012.



―Head Over Heels,‖ Joshua Kurlantzick, Foreign Policy, November 16, 2012.



―Tibet Is the Test of China's Rise,‖ Lobsang Sangay, Wall Street Journal, November 14, 2012.



―Erdoğan‘s Ambiguous Decade,‖ Arch Puddington & Zselyke Csaky, Freedom House‘s Freedom at Issue, November 2, 2012.



―Rethinking U.S. Relations With Dictators,‖ Daniel Calingaret, Huffington Post, October 9, 2012.



―In Zimbabwe, Democracy Must Be Driven from Below,‖ Vukasin Petrovic, Freedom House‘s Freedom at Issue, July 26, 2012.

25

26

Europe - NATO As rogue states continue to pursue dangerous weapons, terrorists seek to disrupt our way of life, and America is confronted by new and resurgent powers, it remains vital that the United States and European allies work together closely to meet these emerging threats. Since 1949, NATO—a transatlantic military alliance composed of democratic nations with shared values—has defended the Free World and its values in locales as varied as Libya and Afghanistan. However, continued defense budget cuts by NATO members risk crippling the alliance‘s ability to confront the threats of tomorrow and are already hampering current operations.

Key Points: 

A strong NATO alliance strengthens U.S. security. A unified and highly capable NATO is more likely to deter aggressors and deal successfully with future security challenges than a NATO that is politically divided and militarily weak. Europe‘s periphery is immediately surrounded by areas of instability and emerging threats—namely, the Middle East and North Africa. As illustrated by the deadly September 11th attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, terrorism and militant extremism continue to pose direct dangers to the United States, as well as its allies and partners. Each has the potential to impact transatlantic economic and military security.



The United States and NATO members in Europe should restore appropriate funding levels to their respective defense budgets. The threat of tyranny did not disappear after the Cold War but rather fragmented into new dangers and challenges. Thus, strategic thinking and budgetary decisions should focus on rebuilding air, land, and sea forces to meet current and future threats. Unfortunately, while NATO has been an indispensible partner in Afghanistan, its deployment has exposed major deficiencies in military readiness. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted: ―NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 40,000 troops.‖



President Obama‘s attempt to ―reset‖ relations with Russia alienated America‘s allies in Central and Eastern Europe. By moving strategically closer to Russia, Obama undermined Washington‘s relations with the democratic states of ―New Europe.‖ Many of these countries—including Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Georgia—had contributed significantly to the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush‘s ―Third Site‖ plans for missile defense in Europe became a symbol of reciprocal U.S. commitment to the security of Central and Eastern Europe. President Obama‘s decision to embrace closer relations with Moscow, coupled with his abandonment of the ―Third Site‖ in favor of the ―Phased-Adaptive Approach‖ system, left our allies feeling betrayed.



America must voice support for European democrats as they continue to fight against authoritarianism. For example, Alexander Lukashenko‘s regime in Belarus—Europe‘s last dictatorship—continues to crackdown on dissent, rights, and freedom of the press. Under the leadership of the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine is back-sliding on many of the democratic gains won by the 2005 Orange Revolution. The United States and European Union must continue to embrace a vision of a Europe whole and free, and pursue policies that draw Minsk and Kiev further into the West.

27

Notable Facts: 1.

Defense budgets across Europe will continue to decrease as a result of the world financial crisis and ongoing debt crisis. A 2012 report from NATO notes that only two European nations met NATO‘s budgetary requirement of 2% GDP on defense last year. Whereas the U.S. accounted for 50% of NATO members‘ defense spending a mere decade ago, that number has risen to more than 75% today. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated in November 2012 that ―Compared to 2009, total Allied defense expenditure last year declined by over 56 billion US dollars in real terms.‖

2.

NATO‘s 2011 Libya operation showed the limitations of Europe‘s military capabilities. Of the 28 NATO nations, only 16 participated in the Libya intervention. As NATO SecretaryGeneral Anders Fogh Rasmussen conceded, ―The fact is that Europe couldn‘t have done this on its own.‖

3.

U.S. forces stationed in Europe help to train and build the military capacity of allies and partners—who, in turn, are better able to cooperate with the United States in military operations and other collective actions. As a result of military-to-military cooperation, America‘s European allies are continuing to play key roles in meeting regional and global security challenges. For example, roughly 90 percent of the 40,000 non-American troops serving in Afghanistan come from Europe.

FPI Resources: 

―FPI Bulletin: U.S. Forces in Europe Protect America‘s National Security and Prosperity,‖ FPI Senior Policy Analysts Patrick Christy & Evan Moore,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, December 20, 2012.



―FPI Analysis: Missed Opportunities at the 2012 NATO Summit,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, May 25, 2012.



―Europe‘s Looming Defense Crisis is a Threat to NATO,‖ FPI Senior Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, The Commentator, January 5, 2012.



―NATO in Libya,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly & Gary Schmitt, The Weekly Standard, October 1, 2011.

Suggested Reading: 

―A Misguided Report on the Tymoshenko Case,‖ Arch Puddington, Freedom House‘s Freedom at Issue, December 19, 2012.



―Trans-Atlantic Trade Stimulus,‖ Editorial, Wall Street Journal, December 4, 2012.



―Removing Brigade Combat Teams from Europe Undercuts NATO Allies,‖ Luke Coffey, The Heritage Foundation, November 13, 2012.



―Georgian Dream Shows Its Dark Side,‖ James Kirchick, Foreign Policy’s Democracy Lab, November 29, 2012.



―Ukraine Slides Away from Democracy,‖ Editorial, Washington Post, November 8, 2012.



"The Abandoned Alliance," Michael Kuz, National Review Online, August 8, 2012.



―How Obama Lost Poland,‖ Benjamin Weinthal, Foreign Policy, July 30, 2012.



―The End of the Affair,‖ Mark Leonard, Foreign Policy, July 24, 2012.

28

Foreign Aid (Non-Military) U.S. non-military foreign assistance plays a critical role in advancing America‘s strategic interests and moral values around the globe. From major aid programs, such as the Marshall Plan that helped to rebuild postwar Europe and stem the advance of communism, to today‘s smaller development initiatives, properly targeted and monitored U.S. aid promotes prosperity and opportunity.

Key Points: 

The United States has a national interest in continuing properly monitored and targeted nonmilitary foreign assistance. For example, the Millennium Challenge Corporation is an independent U.S. agency that awards grants to nations that have shown a commitment to good governance and economic freedom. These grants have been used for water supply and sanitation projects, finance and enterprise development, democracy promotion, and other activities. In turn, such aid helps not only to strengthen current U.S. allies and partners, but also to develop new ones, at a time when China and other emerging powers have become more active across the globe. The Republic of Georgia, Ukraine, and the Philippines are among the strategically important nations that have received such grants.



U.S. foreign assistance has helped millions of people, and reflects the generous character of our people. No doubt, all efforts should be made to ensure that American aid is spent properly and for its intended purpose. At the same time, it is important to remember that foreign assistance has saved countless men, women, and children from starvation and disease, particularly in African nations. It also has helped to transition nations ruled by dictators to governments that uphold the human rights, the rule of law, and freedom of its citizens. And, over the decades, American aid has also contributed to increasing prosperity in many nations and, in the process, created new markets for U.S. goods and services.

Notable Facts: 1.

The U.S. federal government‘s budget for international affairs represents roughly 1% of total federal outlays. Funding for democracy and human rights programs currently makes up less than one-tenth of one percent of the total budget.

2.

Non-military foreign assistance is essential in areas where the United States is at war. As General David Petraeus, then-commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, told Congress in 2011, ―Inadequate resourcing of our civilian partners could, in fact, jeopardize accomplishment of the overall mission.‖

3.

Foreign assistance promotes health, education, infrastructural development, economic growth, and good governance. For example, incidents of malaria have been cut by more than 50% in 43 countries, and 42 million Africans have been enabled to attend school.

4.

The Obama Administration has worked to change America‘s development model by crafting the first U.S. development policy. This approach emphasizes economic growth and accountability, with the aim of creating the conditions in which foreign assistance is no longer needed.

29

5.

An historical example of the success of this method is South Korea. Whereas the country once had a GDP and life expectancy on par with countries in sub-Saharan Africa and heavily relied on U.S. aid, it now has one of the largest economies in the world, and is a donor of foreign assistance.

6.

Foreign assistance has historically enjoyed bipartisan support. President George W. Bush‘s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and the Millennium Challenge Corporation paved the way for the Obama administration‘s approach. In the last Congress, Members from both parties and both houses supported legislation to reform foreign assistance.

FPI Resources: 

―FPI Analysis: in Defense of America‘s International Affairs Budget,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, February 24, 2012.



―Congress and the Budget Quandary,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, February 23, 2011.



―Seven Foreign Policy and Human Rights Orgs: Proposed Cuts to State And Foreign Ops Budget Threat to National Security,‖ Open Letter by Foreign Policy Initiative, et al., February 17, 2011.

Suggested Reading: 

―How Global Diplomacy Pumps Ohio‘s economy,‖ Bill Frist and Bill Richardson, Columbus Business First, October 5, 2012.



―A New Model for Foreign Aid,‖ Daniel W. Yohannes, Foreign Policy, September 24, 2012.



―Rebuilding U.S. Global Leadership,‖ Tom Ridge, Washington Times, September 10, 2012.



―Foreign vs. Domestic Aid Is a False Choice,‖ Mark Green, The New York Times’ Room for Debate Blog, August 15, 2012.



―Extend the Success Against AIDS to Other Devastating Diseases,‖ George W. Bush, Washington Post, July 22, 2012.

30

Iran The Islamic Republic of Iran poses a grave threat to the United States and its allies and partners in the Middle East. A state sponsor of terrorism, Iran is continuing to violate its international obligations by developing the capability to make nuclear weapons on short notice. Iran has also falsely claimed that organized internal dissent has disappeared, and that its rule is unquestioned, in an attempt to demonstrate to the world that it has no choice but to accept the regime‘s domestic, regional and nuclear ambitions. Contrary to the assertions of many skeptics, the pro-democracy ―Green Movement‖ is still very much alive.

Key Points: 

The United States and its allies should support Iran‘s democratic opposition and hold the regime in Tehran accountable for ongoing violations of human rights. In particular, Washington should: repeatedly raise Iranian human rights violations, whether in bilateral diplomacy or in international forums; press for the release of political prisoners and ask that Iran hold the perpetrators of human rights abuses to account; and support further sanctions against individual regime human rights abusers.



Democratic change in Iran is in the long-term strategic interest of the United States. Though a democratic Iran would not automatically resolve all major political issues, it would likely go a long way towards addressing international concerns about Iran‘s nuclear and regional ambitions. An Iran that abides by basic norms of human rights and representative government is more likely to pursue its national interests lawfully and rationally, and is less likely to divert its national resources toward exporting violence and nuclear weapons.



The United States and the international community must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continues to report that Iran is developing sensitive technology that could be used in a nuclear weapons program. A nuclear-armed Iran would likely have grave consequences: neighboring states have already indicated they would begin their own nuclear programs; Iran‘s terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah would be emboldened, and Israel‘s security would be threatened.



Iran‘s continued defiance of its international obligations over its enrichment activities must be met with greater urgency by the United States and other nations. Without stronger action, it is only a matter of time before Iran acquires nuclear weapons. U.S. and international economic and political pressure on Tehran should be increased. In addition to strong support for Iran‘s reform movement, the United States should lead the international community in further tightening economic sanctions, especially on Iran‘s energy, shipping and financial industries. It is critical that all options—including the use of military force against Iran‘s contested nuclear program—remain on the table.



Failure to confront Iran over its nuclear program could force Israel to act alone. Tehran has repeatedly threatened Israel‘s national security and supported terrorism against Israeli citizens. If the United States fails to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will likely take preemptive action against Iran‘s nuclear facilities. Iranian-backed Hezbollah could retaliate with terrorism and rocket attacks against Israeli cities. 31



Iranian government forces continue to plan and orchestrate international acts of terrorism. In July 2012, Israel accused Iran and terrorist proxy Hezbollah for orchestrating an attack against Israeli tourists in Bulgaria that killed five and wounded dozens. In October 2011, U.S. officials uncovered an Iranian terror plot to kill the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States, in which plotters—backed by Iran‘s Qods Force, an elite unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps—planned to detonate an explosive device in Washington, D.C. In May 2012, Azerbaijan officials disrupted an alleged Iranian plot to attack U.S. and Israeli officials on their soil. Iran and Hezbollah have been blamed for ties to similar attacks against Israeli nationals in Cyprus, India, Kenya, Thailand, and Turkey.

Notable Facts: 1.

The number of imprisoned journalists, human rights defenders, and political activists in Iran rapidly increased since 2009. Though the regime denies having political prisoners, human rights activists—as noted by the Department of State—have been able to identify at least 900 languishing in Iranian prisons.

2.

A report by Human Rights Watch in January 2012 stated that ―Iranian authorities in 2011 carried out more than 600 executions and imprisoned more journalists and bloggers than any other country.‖ In 2011, Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi said at least 42 lawyers had faced government persecution since June 2009.

3.

In December 2012, the Committee to Protect Journalists reported that Iran ―the secondworst jailer with 45 behind bars, has sustained a crackdown that began after the disputed 2009 presidential election.‖

4.

Iranian government forces have supplied explosive devices, training, and weapons to militias in Afghanistan and Iraq to target U.S. forces. In July 2011, Iranian militia groups were responsible for the deaths of thirteen U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Testifying before Congress, then Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen stated: ―Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shia groups [in Iraq], which are killing our troops.‖

5.

Iran uses terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas as proxies for terrorism and instability against Israel, Lebanon, and nations across the Middle East. Iran—the chief ally and supporter of the Assad regime—continues to provide Syria with arms, financial support, and training.

6.

Iran‘s nuclear program was never materially halted by the 2010 Stuxnet cyberattack. With the secondary facility at Fordow functional, the Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that ―Iran could produce sufficient amounts of highly enriched uranium for a weapon in between 26 and 103 days… That window could fall to just 8 days by November 2012.‖

7.

At the start of President Obama‘s first term, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran possessed 1,000 kg of low enriched uranium (LEU) of 3.5 percent purity, and no high enriched uranium (HEU). However, the IAEA reported four years later that Iran now possesses not only 7611 kg of LEU—enough nuclear material, if further enriched, for at least 5 nuclear weapons; but also 232.8 kg of HEU with at least 20 percent purity— nuclear material that is therefore already technically usable in a very crude nuclear explosive device, but only in very large amounts. What‘s even more troubling is that, because each percentage point of enrichment is easier than the last, high enriched uranium of 20 percent purity represents roughly four-fifths of the effort need to produce HEU enriched up the military-preferred level of over 90 percent purity for use in a nuclear weapon.

8.

In 2012, the American Enterprise Institute assessed,, ―Any outcome that does not include the verifiable dismantling of Iran‘s nuclear program and the removal of all nuclear material—at any level—will allow Iran to retain the ability to acquire nuclear weapons fuel in short order.‖ However, the Spring 2012 negotiations in Istanbul and Baghdad did not give any indications that Iran would be willing to take these steps. While satellite imagery shows Iran is attempting to cover-up evidence of testing systems related to triggering a nuclear explosion, there is ample reason to believe that Iran is continuing to delay and deceive the international community about the true nature of its nuclear program.

32

FPI Resources: 

―The Obama Retreat,‖ FPI Director William Kristol & Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, The Weekly Standard, June 23, 2012.



―No Iranian Nukes,‖ FPI Director William Kristol & Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, The Weekly Standard, June 16, 2012.



―On Iran, It‘s Time for Obama to Set Clear Lines for Military Action,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly & Matthew Kroenig, Washington Post, May 18, 2012.



―FPI Fact Sheet: The False Promise of Negotiations Over Iran‘s Nuclear Program,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, April 12, 2012.



―Is Obama Embracing a Post-Iran Nuclear Arms Race?‖ FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate, The Weekly Standard Blog, February 14, 2012.



―The Case For Regime Change in Iran: Go Big—Then Go Home,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly & Gary Schmitt, Foreign Affairs, January 17, 2012.

Suggested Reading: 

―The Economic Cost of a Nuclear Iran,‖ Chuck Robb, Dennis Ross, and Michael Makovsky, Wall Street Journal, December 17, 2012.



―The Iranian Nuclear Program: Timelines, Data, and Estimates,‖ Maseh Zarif, American Enterprise Institute‘s Iran Tracker, November 23, 2012.



―Update on Iran‘s Nuclear Program,‖ Blaise Misztal, Bipartisan Policy Center‘s Bipartisan Beat Blog, November 19, 2012.



―Iran‘s Military Complex at Parchin and the Nuclear Connection,‖ Maseh Zarif, American Enterprise Institute‘s Iran Tracker, August 22, 2012.



"The Most Dangerous Man in the World," Reuel Marc Gerecht, The Weekly Standard, August 20, 2012.



―The Sources of Iranian Conduct,‖ Sohrab Ahmari, The American Interest, July 13, 2012.



―Iranian Influence in the Levant, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan,‖ American Enterprise Institute and Institute for the Study of War, May 23, 2012.

33

34

Iraq Iraq faces difficult challenges as it emerges from decades of dictatorship. Sectarian tensions remain, and the political process is at times sclerotic. The Obama administration‘s decision to withdraw all U.S. military forces from Iraq at the end of 2011 risks endangering the hard-won security gains of the 2007-2008 surge of U.S. troops into the country, and leaving Iraq vulnerable to internal destabilization, and external threats and influence. A residual force of as many as 20,000 U.S. troops could have helped to secure Baghdad‘s political and strategic orientation towards the West, and to better protect America‘s strategic interests throughout the Middle East. While the State Department will have thousands of personnel—many of them contractors—in Iraq after 2012, their numbers will be insufficient to this task.

Key Points: 

The decision not to secure a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) beyond 2011 is a dramatic failure of the Obama administration. There was wide-spread understanding among U.S. military and administration officials, as well as with their Iraqi counterparts, that an American military presence in Iraq beyond 2011 would be required to maintain the security achievements resulting from the surge.



A stable, democratic, prosperous Iraq can play a larger beneficial role in the region. The broadcast of open political debate and the sight of repeated elections in former totalitarian Iraq will likely add fuel to the reform movement active in neighboring nations Syria and Iran. Moreover, an Iraq allied with the United States boosts broader U.S. and allied efforts for an historic transformation of the region—a change that leads to governments that respect individual freedom and human rights, to an atmosphere that sparks profound economic reform and opportunity, and to the further repudiation of terrorism and Islamic radicals.



President Obama‘s decision to withdraw from Iraq empowers Iran. Iran has spent much of the post-2003 reconstruction period attempting to influence or intimidate Baghdad by arming and aiding Shia sectarian militias. Those militias still pose a serious security threat to Iraq. Because the United States has left before the Iraqi military could be properly trained and equipped, Iraqi government officials have been forced to make accommodations with Tehran in order to preserve Iraq‘s internal stability. Maintaining a strong U.S. presence incountry would have kept Baghdad strategically oriented towards the West.

Notable Facts: 1.

In the fall of 2008, the United States and Iraq concluded a Status of Forces Agreement that allowed U.S. forces to remain in Iraq until the end of 2011.

2.

On October 21, 2011, President Obama formally announced that all U.S. forces would withdraw by the end of that year. Although Iraqi leaders had signaled their desire to negotiate for a U.S. military presence after 2011, the Obama administration did not recognize or reciprocate those advances until many months later. Negotiations became mired in Iraqi domestic politics, and ultimately collapsed after the administration proposed keeping only a token force of less than 5,000 troops in-country.

3.

For the immediate future, Iraq will continue to need support from the United States as it builds a military capable of defending its sovereignty and stability from outside states and internal threats.

35

4.

The Iraqi Council of Representatives elected in 2005 was dominated by religious and sectarian Shia parties. While that coalition still exists in the Iraqi government, Nouri alMaliki‘s security-focused party dominates his Islamist coalition partners, and the secular al-Iraqiya list led by former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi actually won the most seats of any party in the parliament.

5. Iran has used a wide variety of means—including proxy militant groups—to sway or pressure Baghdad. American efforts in response have so far been weak or non-existent.

FPI Resources: 

―Iraq Stands at the Brink of Disaster,‖ FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate, U.S. News & World Report, January 23, 2012.



―FPI Bulletin: Bringing the Iraq War to an Irresponsible End?‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly & Policy Director Robert Zarate, Foreign Policy Initiative, December 14, 2011.



―FPI Fact Sheet: The Case for A Continued U.S. Military Presence in Iraq After 2011,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, September 15, 2011.



―Foreign Policy Experts Urge President Obama to Reconsider Troop Drawdown in Iraq,‖ Open Letter, Foreign Policy Initiative, September 15, 2011.



―Was Iraq Worth It?‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, Henry Jackson Society, Summer 2010.

Suggested Reading: 

―Competing Initiatives Shed Light on Iraq‘s Uncertain Political Alliances,‖ Stephen Wicken and Marisa Sullivan, Institute for the Study of War, January 8, 2013.



―The Resurgence of Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq,‖ Sam Wyer, Institute for the Study of War, December 18, 2012.



―The Islamic State of Iraq and the 'Destroying the Walls' Campaign,‖ Sam Wyer, Institute for the Study of War, September 21, 2012.



―Political Islam and the Battle for Najaf,‖ Ayad Jamaluddin, Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2012.



―Blind in Baghdad,‖ Michael Knights, Foreign Policy, July 5, 2012.

36

Israel/Peace Process Israel faces continuing threats not only from Hamas and Hezbollah, but also from Iran and Syria. In particular, Iran is continuing to sponsor terrorism, and to march towards nuclear weapons-making capability in violation of its international obligations. It is in America‘s interest to help ensure that Israel remains safe, strong, and secure. Successive American presidential administrations have understood the U.S.-Israel relationship to be mutually beneficial, and vital to the preservation of a democratic ally facing extraordinary security challenges.

Key Points: 

The United State should not seek to impose preconditions for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. President Obama‘s call in 2011 for Israel to renew negotiations with the Palestinians based on its 1967 borders is unhelpful to concluding a viable peace agreement. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acknowledged that such preconditions are counterproductive to securing peace: ―The place where negotiating will happen must be at the negotiating table— and nowhere else,‖ noting that those negotiations ―will not happen—and their terms will not be set—through speeches, or in the streets, or in the media.‖ Reid added: ―No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else.‖



Israel needs a Palestinian partner that is not only willing to negotiate sincerely, but also has the capacity to enforce an agreement that would provide both the Palestinian people with a demilitarized, independent state, and Israel with secure and defensible borders. While Israel remains in contact with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, the United States should make it clear that the prospects for long-term peace remain remote so long as groups like Hamas refuse to recognize the existence of Israel, renounce violence, and abide by previous peace agreements.



To advance an enduring peace, the United States should also seek to strengthen moderate forces in Lebanon and work vigorously to ensure the success of the reform movement in Syria. In the long term, a democratic and moderate Syria is in America‘s interest and would benefit regional peace. To hasten the exit of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Washington should: (1) continue to demand that the Syrian president immediately step down; (2) work to impose further unilateral and multilateral sanctions on the Assad regime for its ongoing human rights abuses; (3) provide the full range of assistance to vetted Syrian opposition groups; (4) impose safe zones in Syria to protect embattled civilians; and (5) examine limited retaliatory airstrikes against Syrian military targets.



The United States should demand the conclusion of a comprehensive peace agreement prior to granting the Palestinian Authority statehood at the United Nations. In September 2011, the Palestinian Authority submitted a request to the United Nations to become a formal state. Although the United States said it will veto the request, the Obama administration has publicly supported the idea of a Palestinian state within two years. However, in the absence of a comprehensive peace agreement, statehood risks dissuading the Palestinians from peace negotiations, and possibly forcing Israel to surrender important territory.



Israeli leadership has a strong consensus on the need to defend the country against the existential threat posed by Iran‘s quest for nuclear weapons-making capability. The 37

consensus between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak testifies to this shared belief. President Obama attempted to persuade the Prime Minister that the United States would take military action against Iran if necessary when Netanyahu visited Washington in March 2012. However, there is a distinct difference between Israel‘s and the Obama administration‘s ―red lines‖ for action. While the Obama administration tends to focus on the near-acquisition of a nuclear weapon as grounds for military force, the Israeli leadership considers the capability to produce nuclear weapons as the threshold for a strike—a point that Iran is rapidly approaching.

Notable Facts: 1.

The Palestinian Authority‘s legislative council and president have well exceeded the democratic mandate of their terms. Although President Mahmoud Abbas was elected in January 2005 for a term that ended in January 2009, it was extended for one year. The parliament was elected in February 2006 and its term should have ended in January 2010. However, no elections were held in January 2010, and neither parliamentary nor presidential elections are now scheduled.

2.

Following the 2006 parliamentary election, control of the Palestinian territories was split between Abbas‘s Fatah party controlling the West Bank and Hamas controlling the Gaza Strip. Although Fatah and Hamas are negotiating terms for power sharing and a timetable for an interim government followed by elections, significant progress still remains elusive.

3.

The economies of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip are reliant on foreign aid, but there has been large economic growth in the West Bank over the past five years as Israeli security measures have eased.

4.

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has attempted to build the institutions of a functioning state—including strong security forces, separation of powers, government offices, infrastructure, and a stock market. Rather than focus his attention on demonizing Israel, he has embarked on positive internal developments within the Palestinian state.

5.

In the West Bank, Palestinian security forces have worked closely with Israel to quell supporters of Hamas.

6.

From 2009 to 2010, the Obama administration insisted on a complete freeze of Israeli settlement activity as a prerequisite to peace negotiations. The Bush administration recognized that natural growth in these settlements would require new construction, but asked that these new buildings not create a de facto expansion of Israeli territory–that is, an expansion ―upward,‖ but not ―outward.‖

7.

In November 2012, Israel launched Operation Pillar of Defense in response to increasing rocket attacks from Hamas-controlled territory in Gaza. Israel‘s advanced Iron Dome missile shield system intercepted hundreds of rocket attacks by Hamas, thus obviating the need for a large-scale ground invasion to defend against the violence. The eight-day campaign ended after Israel and the Hamas militant group agreed to a ceasefire.

FPI Resources: 

―The West Fights Back,‖ FPI Director William Kristol, The Weekly Standard, November 24, 2012.



―Why Israel Has Doubts About Obama,‖ FPI Director Dan Senor, Wall Street Journal, March 5, 2012.

Suggested Reading: 

―Patience, not Panic, on Israeli-Palestinian Peace,‖ Michael Singh, Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, January 8, 2013.



―Wading Into the Middle East Morass,‖ Jackson Diehl, Washington Post, January 6, 2013. 38



―The Palestinian Implosion,‖ Ziad Asali & Ghaith al-Omari, Foreign Policy, January 3, 2013.



―After Abbas,‖ Jonathan Schanzer, Foreign Policy, December 13, 2012.



―The Iron Dome Military Revolution,‖ Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren, Wall Street Journal, December 6, 2012.



―The End of the Forty-Year Peace Between Israel and Arab States,‖ Robert Satloff, The New Republic, December 4, 2012.



―Israel's Right to Defend Itself: Implications on Regional Security and U.S. Interests,‖ Elliott Abrams, Testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, November 29, 2012.



―Israel's Right to Defend Itself: Implications on Regional Security and U.S. Interests,‖ Danielle Pletka, Testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, November 29, 2012.



―America‘s Responsibility in the New Middle East,‖ Dennis Ross, The New Republic, November 26, 2012.



―Winners and Losers,‖ Elliott Abrams, The Weekly Standard, November 24, 2012.



―The Unseen Hand Behind Hamas's Clash With Israel,‖ Saul Singer, Wall Street Journal, November 16, 2012.



―Israel's Iron Dome: Why America is Investing Hundreds of Millions of Dollars,‖ Lazar Berman, American Enterprise Institute, September 24, 2012.



―After 20 Years, Moving Beyond Oslo,‖ Rabbi Benny Elon & Yossi Beilin, National Review Online, July 19, 2012.

39

40

Latin America America‘s strong presence in Latin America is important to America‘s national security and economic growth. Thanks to globalization, new and diverse sources of foreign investment and trade have decreased the region‘s economic dependence on the United States. At the same time, many democracies in Latin America face pressure from autocratic rulers, Venezuelan petrodollars, and complex criminal organizations financed by international crime and illicit drug trade. It is therefore critical for Washington to do more to strengthen democratic institutions in the region and deepen trade ties with democratic partners.

Key Points: 

The United States must do more to consolidate democratic gains in the region. As a result of the Obama administration‘s increasing neglect of the region, support for Washington has diminished while Chinese, Iranian, and Venezuelan influence has grown. Past U.S. initiatives remain incomplete, democracy and security funding to the region has been reduced, and few new policy proposals have emerged from the current administration.



The United States should expand exports opportunities to Brazil. As one of the fastest growing economies in the world and the largest economy in the region, Brazil is America‘s second largest Latin American trading partner.



Signed into law in October 2011, the bilateral free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama strengthen economic and strategic ties with two important democratic partners in the Western Hemisphere. The Colombia agreement rewards a stalwart ally of the United States and ensures economic ties with one of Latin America‘s fastest-growing economies. The Panama agreement enhances America‘s longstanding ties with a nation increasingly fearful of the rapidly expanding drug war that is threatening governments across Central America. Colombia is soon expected to surpass Argentina to become South America‘s second largest economy.



The United States should continue to demand that the Cuban government release all political prisoners, end human rights abuses, and embrace real democratic political reform. Cuba‘s transition to freedom will not be accelerated by U.S. policies that serve only to strengthen the current regime. As Senator Marco Rubio noted, ―Sanctions are an important tool of leverage for democratic change, particularly in a post-Castro era. In the interim, sanctions have the effect of denying funds to the Cuban regime‘s repressive apparatus, which it would otherwise use to exert further economic and political control over the Cuban people.‖ Rather, the United States should increase its support for Cuba‘s pro-democracy movement, using tools that have worked well against other tyrannies, such as making more effective use of the Internet to undermine the regime.



The United States should boost assistance to democratic allies in the region‘s facing an ongoing war against powerful drug traffickers and criminal gangs. The Obama administration has rightly continued implementation of the Bush administration‘s $1.3 billion Merida Initiative, a program that targets criminal organizations in Central and South America. The Obama administration should work in greater cooperation with the newly elected Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto to curb the escalating violence that plagues America‘s neighbor to the south. In Central America, the greatest near-term threat to U.S. security lies in Guatemala. Guatemalan officials face increased levels of gang violence, 41

organized crime, and well-funded drug cartels. El Salvador‘s democratically elected government also faces spiraling violence and regional uncertainty.

Notable Facts: 1.

Violence related to transnational criminal activity and drug trafficking has made Central America‘s North triangle—including El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—home to the world‘s highest homicide rates, according to the United Nations.

2.

A 2012 report by Freedom House stated that ―media freedom is on the defensive in much of Central and South America.‖ Governments in Argentina, Bolivia, and Ecuador, in addition to the repressive governments in Cuba and Venezuela, implemented significant restrictions on media freedoms.

3.

By slashing Colombian tariffs for U.S. goods (which are sometimes as high as 35%), the Colombia free trade agreement will increase American exports to Colombia by approximately $1.1 billion.

4.

Iranian companies continue to launder billions in funds through Venezuelan banks and ventures in order to avoid international financial sanctions. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will face reelection on October 7, 2012 despite his ongoing bout with cancer.

5.

Bilateral trade with Latin America‘s largest economy, Brazil, reached $101 billion in 2011. The United States held a trade surplus with Brazil of $25 billion in 2011, according to the office of the United States Trade Representative.

FPI Resources: 

―FPI Analysis: A Latin America Security Agenda for President Obama,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, April 13, 2012.



―Latin America Loses Faith in Obama,‖ FPI Senior Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, The Weekly Standard Blog, April 12, 2012.



―Will Obama Defend Freedom in the Americas?‖ FPI Senior Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, The Weekly Standard Blog, April 5, 2012.

Suggested Reading: 

―Midnight in Havana,‖ Yoani Sanchez, Foreign Policy, January 2, 2013.



―An Action Plan for U.S. Policy in the Americas,‖ Roger Noriega & Jose Cardenas, American Enterprise Institute, December 5, 2012.



―U.S., Mexico Should Build on their Economic Ties,‖ President Enrique Peña Nieto, Washington Post, November 23, 2012.



―Cuba Policy in a Second Obama Term,‖ Jose Cardenas, Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, November 13, 2012.



―Latin America‘s Wavering Democracies,‖ Arch Puddington, Freedom House‘s Freedom at Issue, September 6, 2012.



―Chávez‘s Dangerous Liaisons with Tehran,‖ Roger Noriega, AEI‘s The American, July 2, 2012.



―U.S. Foreign Policy, Close to Home,‖ Senator Marco Rubio, Los Angeles Times, April 25, 2012.

42

North Korea North Korea is the most brutally repressive regime in the world, a nuclear-armed state, and a key proliferator of missile and nuclear technology to its other rogue regimes around the world. For decades, Pyongyang has pursued a strategy of brazenly provoking the United States and its allies in order to force de-escalatory negotiations and extract economic and food concesssions from the international community. Instead of continuing negotiations in the hope of denuclearization, the United States should rally the world to apply maximum moral and economic pressure against the North Korean regime.

Key Points: 

The North Korean regime shows no regard whatsoever for human rights. Over 200,000 people are imprisoned in a system of gulags for political crimes, often for arbitrary reasons. The North Korean people do not enjoy any political rights, and extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture are widespread. North Korea‘s ―military-first‖ philosophy ensures that the country‘s military receives preferential treatment over the people, and that international food aid often does not reach those who it is meant to help.



North Korea is the leading proliferator of nuclear and missile technology to the world. Pyongyang has played a key role in the development of Iran‘s missile programs. Syria‘s secretly-built nuclear reactor near Dair al-Zour—destroyed by an Israeli airstrike in September 2007—was a near mirror-image of the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon. North Korea was a key participant in the A.Q. Khan proliferation network, and has sold missiles to Libya, Syria, Vietnam, and Yemen, among others.



U.S. policy towards North Korea for the past two decades has been rooted in quid pro quo agreements in which the U.S. promised aid in exchange for North Korean good behavior. Unfortunately, North Korea has rejected these inducements, and repeatedly conducted long-range missile tests, shelled South Korean territory, and sank a South Korean ship. Instead of further bilateral deals, the United States should lead an international effort to undermine the stability of the regime by freezing Pyongyang‘s financial assets abroad; stopping North Korea‘s sale of conventional arms, ballistic missile and nuclear technology; increasing efforts to help North Korean escapees; and improving broadcasts into the country to inspire the population against the regime.

Notable Facts: 1.

The new North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Un, is believed to be in his late-twenties. He assumed power following the death of the country‘s former leader, his father Kim Jong-il in December 2011. Kim Jong-Il had succeeded North Korea‘s first leader, his father Kim IlSung, in 1994. While it is unclear if Kim Jong-Un has full control over the regime, it is believed that a circle of older relatives and advisers assist him in the day-to-day affairs of the state.

2.

The current crisis over North Korea‘s nuclear program began in 1993, when Pyongyang blocked international inspectors from investigating its nuclear activities, and threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The Clinton administration negotiated and signed the Agreed Framework in 1994, in which the U.S. provided fuel oil, economic aid, and permitted the construction of two light-water plants in return for a freeze on North Korea‘s plutonium production program. In 2002, it was revealed that North Korea has pursued a secret nuclear program during the eight years of the Agreed Framework. North Korea provocatively tested a nuclear explosive device in 2006, and again in 2009. Currently, the North has completed physical preparations for a third nuclear test, but has not yet made the political decision to do so.

43

3.

The Bush administration created the Six-Party Talks in 2003 in an effort to break from the Clinton administration‘s bilateral model for negotiations, and get key regional powers— namely, Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan—to join the United States in pressuring North Korea. The Six-Party Talks broke down when Russia and China undermined negotiations by taking North Korea‘s side during negotiations.

4.

Although President Obama did not initially respond to North Korean provocations by calling for further negotiations, his administration ultimately agreed to the short-lived ―Leap Day Deal‖ of 2012, in which the United States agreed to provide food aid in return for Pyongyang‘s cessation of long-range missile launches, nuclear tests, and nuclear weapons-related activities. However, the North‘s failed—but nonetheless provocative— launch of a satellite-bearing rocket in April 2012 scuttled that agreement.

5.

While South Korea eventually emerged from the Korean War as a global economic powerhouse, North Korea is heavily dependent on China‘s aid for assistance.

FPI Resources: 

―FPI Bulletin: North Korea‘s Missile Launch is a Wake-Up Call,‖ FPI Senior Policy Analyst Evan Moore, Foreign Policy Initiative, December 13, 2012.



―Don‘t Return to Korea Status Quo,‖ FPI Senior Policy Analyst Evan Moore, The Diplomat, April 20, 2012.



―Seeking Instability,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, The Weekly Standard Blog, December 23, 2011.

Suggested Reading: 

―Don't Engage Kim Jong Un—Bankrupt Him,‖ Joshua Stanton & Sung-Yoon Lee, Foreign Policy, January 9, 2013.



―New Face at the Top but the Same North Korea,‖ Blaine Harden, Washington Post, December 14, 2012.



―Downrange From North Korea,‖ Editorial, Wall Street Journal, December 12, 2012.



―A Korean Missile and a Policy Misfire,‖ Jack David, Wall Street Journal, December 10, 2012.



―Escaping from the North Korean Stalemate,‖ Jay Lefkowitz, Commentary, November 2012.

44

Russia As the Obama administration seeks to ―reset‖ relations with Russia, it should not overlook how many of the Kremlin's current policies are challenging not only the promotion of a more stable and liberal world order, but also efforts within Russia to promote the impartial rule of law, respect for human rights. The United States, along with its democratic allies in Europe, should pursue a relationship with Russia that accounts for the reality of the Kremlin‘s policies in a manner that is consistent with the West‘s strategic interests and moral values. Moscow‘s continuing violations of human rights and subversion of the rule of law inside Russia should alarm everyone who supports democratic rights and freedoms.

Key Points: 

The price for the Obama administration‘s ―reset‖ effort to gain Russian cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation and arms control should not be American timidity toward Russian actions that harm U.S. and allied interests elsewhere. The United States should work with Russia on issues where both share interests, as they have in securing loose nuclear materials against the threat of terrorist seizure. At the same time, Russia has not only prevented more effective sanctions to curb Iran‘s controversial nuclear program, but also sold Iran advanced anti-aircraft weapons systems. The U.S. diplomatic response to such Russian provocations has been weak and irresolute.



When Russia obstructs international consensus, the United States should not hesitate to pursue alternative multilateral approaches that exclude the Kremlin. Although it may have seemed promising to engage Russia and China in multilateral talks with Iran and North Korea, in practice Moscow and Beijing have used such negotiations to protect their client states from international pressure. When appropriate, the United States should work with democratic allies and like-minded partners to pressure Iran, North Korea, and other states of concern.



The United States should respond swiftly to activities undertaken by the Kremlin to thwart the democratic process and violate basic human rights inside Russia. In recent years, the Russian government has accelerated a systematic rollback of democratic reforms enacted in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, curtailed press freedom and political expression, and used the power of the state to harass political opponents and media outlets. Russia has also ignored its international obligation to establish and ensure a free and open political process inside its borders. The United States should speak out much more forcefully against these actions as then-Senator Obama did in condemning Russia‘s flawed 2008 election as a ―tragic step backwards.‖ Turning a blind eye to such undemocratic behavior further weakens democratic forces in Russia and harms American interests.



The United States and our allies should maintain strong support for the independence and sovereignty of the democratic states on Russia‘s borders. Russia has threatened its neighbors—and even invaded Georgia—and used its regional energy distribution dominance to gain political leverage in foreign capitals dependent on Russian fuel. American policy should seek to strengthen economic, military, diplomatic, and cultural ties to the region.

45

Notable Facts: 1.

With the passage of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, the United States sent a powerful message in support of human rights in Russia. Named after the anti-corruption lawyer who died after being tortured in a Russian prison in 2009, the Magnitsky Act empowers the United States to hold accountable Russians who commit gross human rights abuses—including those culpable for Magnistky‘s imprisonment, torture, and murder. The new law authorizes the Executive Branch to freeze the assets of and revoke or deny the visas of human rights abusers in Russia. Moreover, it also will impose new sanctions, which are different from any other U.S.-imposed sanctions on record, that require those sanctioned with a travel ban to be publicly named and shamed.

2.

In March 4, 2012, Vladimir Putin was elected to his third term as Russian President, which will end in 2018. The election was beset by fraud, and opposition demonstrators began a campaign of protests and activism that remain ongoing.

3.

In a surprise development, Russian voters in the December 2011 parliamentary elections dealt Prime Minister Vladimir Putin‘s political machine a stunning blow. Putin‘s United Russia party, which has dominated the country‘s politics for over a decade, lost 77 seats in the Russian State Duma, retaining only a slim majority of 238 seats in the 450-member lower house. The outcome was all the more astonishing given widespread allegations of ballot-box stuffing, harassment of election monitors, and other irregularities aimed at boosting United Russia‘s performance at the polls.

4.

Through its membership in the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE), Russia has agreed specifically to ―respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities.‖

5.

The Indem think tank estimates market corruption at over $300 billion annually, roughly 25% of Russia‘s gross national product. In 2000, Transparency International ranked Russia 82nd in the global ratings; in 2010, Russia had fallen to 154th.

6.

In August 2008, the Russian Federation invaded the country of Georgia, and after recognizing the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, continues to occupy them. These actions violate the cease-fire agreement that then-Presidents Medvedev and Saakashvili signed on August 12, 2008.

FPI Resources: 

―A Measure of Justice for Magnitsky‘s Murder, at Long Last,‖ FPI Government Relations Associate Kristina Olney, The Hill’s Global Affairs, December 10, 2012.



―FPI Bulletin: Mr. President, Drop the Russian Reset,‖ FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate & Senior Policy Analyst Evan Moore, Foreign Policy Initiative, June 18, 2012.



―A Bill that Cracks Down on Russian Corruption,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan & David Kramer, Washington Post, June 6, 2012.



―FPI Bulletin: Reassessing U.S.-Russia Relations as President Putin Returns,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, Foreign Policy Initiative, May 9, 2012.



―Beware ‗Flexibility‘,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly and Policy Director Robert Zarate, The Weekly Standard, March 31, 2012.

46

Suggested Reading: 

―Russian Children: Pawns in Putin‘s Power Play,‖ David Kramer & Arch Puddington, Washington Post, January 1, 2013.



―What the Magnitsky Act Means,‖ David Kramer & Lilia Shevtsova, The American Interest, December 18, 2012.



―Putin Turns Back the Clock in Russia,‖ Fred Hiatt, Washington Post, December 16, 2012.



―Backtracking in Russia,‖ Lyudmila Alexeyeva, International Herald Tribune, December 16, 2012.



―For Dignity in Democratic Citizenship: Russia's Unfinished Moral Revolution and AntiAuthoritarian Movements Today,‖ Leon Aron, American Enterprise Institute, November 28, 2012.



―A Quest for Democratic Citizenship,‖ Leon Aron, American Enterprise Institute, September 4, 2012.



―Russia‘s Choice,‖ David Satter, National Review, July 30, 2012.



―The Right Way to Sanction Russia,‖ Garry Kasparov & Boris Nemtsov, Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2012.



―The Promise of Russia‘s Middle Class,‖ Condoleezza Rice, Washington Post, March 8, 2012.

47

48

Syria Syria‘s internal crisis is spinning out of control. Dictator Bashar al-Assad‘s regime has ramped up its use of military force by employing not only artillery and tanks, but also helicopters, warplanes, and now short-range ballistic missiles, to indiscriminately kill Syrian rebels and unarmed civilians. Intelligence officials in the United States and allied nations now worry that the Syrian dictator may mobilize and use his arsenal of chemical weapons against the country‘s armed opposition groups. Current U.S. policy towards Syria—which has relied primarily on international diplomacy, economic pressure, and non-military assistance—has abjectly failed to halt the country‘s civil war, let alone persuade Assad to step down. Indeed, America‘s unwillingness to take decisive actions has only served to empower those in Syria who do not share America‘s values or interests. The Assad regime and Syria‘s various armed opposition groups are now locked in what appears to be a bloody stalemate, with no end in sight.

Key Points: 

The regime of dictator Bashar al-Assad is a dangerous enemy of the United States. Over the past decade, the Assad regime has supported terrorist groups across the Middle East, destabilized its neighbors, pursued a secret nuclear program with North Korean assistance, aided foreign militants that have killed American and allied soldiers in Iraq, and served as a key regional ally to the Middle East‘s most dangerous country, Iran. Senior military leaders in Tehran have admitted that Iranian military personnel, including members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps‘ Qods Forces, are operating inside of Syria and directly assisting the Assad regime‘s military forces.



America‘s national security interests and moral values will be advanced by an end to the emerging civil war in Syria—and to the Assad regime itself. The United States certainly has a moral obligation to work with others to try and halt the continuing humanitarian crisis in Syria. But it also has a powerful strategic interest in seeing not only the collapse of the Assad regime, but also the emergence of a post-Assad Syria with moderate, representative government that respects human rights, upholds the impartial rule of law, promotes stability in the Middle East, and dramatically weakens the region‘s Iranian-led anti-American bloc.



Russia and China continue to use their vetoes to prevent the United Nations Security Council from imposing more severe sanctions on Syria. In 2012, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan noted: ―How sad is that the United Nations is as helpless today as it was 20 years ago when it watched the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people in the Balkans, Bosnia and Srebrenica.‖



Syria‘s escalating conflict now threatens to directly affect the country‘s neighbors, including Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel. As of publication, the United Nations estimates that over 600,000 refugees have fled Syria into neighboring states. In October, the United States reportedly sent military planners and specialists to Jordan to help handle the growing humanitarian crisis.



The United States—working with European allies, Turkey, and other regional partners—should advance a new strategy that uses combined airpower to impose a safe zone in northern Syria, where the country‘s armed opposition groups have de facto control of large territory, and the Assad regime‘s air defense systems are weaker and fewer in number. Specifically, the safe zone in Syria should extend a partial no-fly zone over the Idlib and Aleppo provinces, and create protected space not only for embattled civilians to find refuge and 49

humanitarian aid, but also for various armed opposition groups to better organize themselves by establishing civilian control and a durable chain-of-command. 

Through a safe zone, the United States and its allies should be able to better vet and identify members of the opposition who share America‘s interests and values, and provide them with critical training, equipment, and self-defense aid in a more controllable and accountable manner. Moreover, a safe zone could fundamentally change the terms of the conflict by prompting more desertions from the Assad regime‘s military, helping to reverse fragmentation among the rebels, and creating the critical mass needed to advance serious planning for a post-Assad Syria that respects the impartial rule of law, minority and women‘s rights, and peace with its neighbors, including Israel.

Notable Facts: 1.

In January 2013, the United Nations and other sources estimated that the Assad regime has killed over 60,000 Syrians, injured many tens of thousands more, and internally displaced over 2.5 million civilians since February 2011. As CNN reported, ―To put [Syria‘s death toll] in perspective: 60,000 people is roughly the population of Terre Haute, Indiana; or Cheyenne, Wyoming. It‘s how many people would fit in Dodger Stadium, and it's more than the 50,000-plus U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam.‖

2.

The Syrian military has not been involved in a serious military conflict since the 1970s and 1980s, and much of its equipment is antiquated and poorly maintained. In 1982, the Israeli Air Force scored stunning victories over Syrian forces in the Bekaa Valley, destroying with minimal losses 19 Syrian surface-to-air defense batteries and radar sites, and downing over 80 Syrian Air Force fighters and aircraft. In recent years, Israel has breached Syrian air defenses on several occasions, raising questions about how capable the Syrian air defense system actually is. The Syrian military‘s performance since February 2011—in particular, its challenges in quelling increasingly assertive and resistant members of the armed opposition who typically wield only light weapons—also suggests that Syria‘s capabilities may be less extensive than many opponents of intervention often claim.

FPI Resources: 

―The Menace of Syrian Chemical Weapons,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, Wall Street Journal, January 1, 2013.



―Obama Dangerously Blurs His Syria 'Red Lines,'‖ FPI Senior Policy Analyst Evan Moore, U.S. News and World Report’s World Report, December 13, 2012.



―Now is the Time for a Safe Zone in Syria,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative & Henry Jackson Society, October 16, 2012.



―Inaction May Force Syrian Rebels to Deal with the Devil,‖ FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate & Senior Policy Analyst Evan Moore, The Weekly Standard Blog, July 27, 2012.



―Foreign Policy Experts Urge President Obama to Take Immediate Action to Establish Safe Zones in Syria,‖ Open Letter Organized by the Foreign Policy Initiative & the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, July 24, 2012.



―America‘s Syria Policy Emboldens Assad—and Iran,‖ FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate, The Weekly Standard’s Blog, May 1, 2012.



―FPI Fact Sheet: The Case for Intervention in Syria,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, March 15, 2012.

50

Suggested Reading: 

―Syria‘s Descent into Hell,‖ Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT)& Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Washington Post, December 30, 2012.



―Syria's Time Is Running Out,‖ Frederic Hof, Foreign Policy, December 19, 2012.



―Obama‘s Syria Disaster,‖ John Hannah, Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, December 13, 2012.



―Obama vs. Assad,‖ Thomas Donnelly, The Weekly Standard, December 8, 2012.



―Time to Back the French and British on Arming the Syrian Opposition,‖ Dov Zakheim, Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, November 19, 2012.



―Disappointing Friends and Allies,‖ Lee Smith, The Weekly Standard, November 17, 2012.



―The Campaign in Northern Syria, November 2012,‖ Joseph Holliday, Institute for the Study of War, November 9, 2012.



―Among Assad‘s Opponents, Moderation Reigns,‖ David Pollock, Washington Post, September 21, 2012.



―Jihad in Syria,‖ Elizabeth O‘Bagy, Institute for the Study of War, September 17, 2012.



―Unraveling the Syria Mess: A Crisis Simulation of Spillover From The Syrian Civil War,‖ Kenneth M. Pollack, Frederick W. Kagan, Kimberly Kagan, & Marisa C. Sullivan, Brookings Institution, August 7, 2012.



―Syria's Maturing Insurgency,‖ Joseph Holliday, Institute for the Study of War, June 21, 2012.

51

52

Trade Free trade is critical to promoting America‘s economic prosperity. By opening foreign markets for U.S. goods and services, free trade also enhances America‘s national security interests by strengthening ties with democratic allies and cultivating future partners. Protectionist policies ultimately hurt U.S. interests, particularly given that 95% of the world‘s consumers live outside U.S. borders.

Key Points: 

American leadership on trade is critical to increasing U.S. economic growth and creating more jobs for Americans. Without U.S. leadership on trade, global protectionist sentiment could rise, delivering another blow to U.S. businesses and consumers that could result in fewer jobs, reduced wages, and higher prices.



After a long delay, President Obama signed into law the congressionally-approved U.S. free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea on October 23, 2011. The agreements were initially signed by the Bush administration in 2006 and 2007. The White House estimates the South Korea agreement alone will increase U.S. GDP by at least $11 billion and support 70,000 jobs.



The United States should successfully conclude negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. The TPP is a proposed multilateral agreement that would eliminate barriers to foreign trade and investment among certain countries in North America and the Asia-Pacific. Currently 11 countries are involved in ongoing negotiations for a TPP pact— namely, the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. This voluntary but legally-binding agreement would require signatories to eliminate all tariffs against member states over a 10-year period, and encourage private-sector initiatives by reducing support for state-owned enterprises. The TPP accord will promote the economic growth of partner countries while strengthening America‘s trade presence in the region and adding billions to the U.S. economy.



The United States and the European Union should advance formal negotiations for a free trade agreement as soon as practicable. A U.S.–EU free trade agreement would not only benefit each other‘s economic interests but would also further economically align partners who already share many core political values and, in particular, advance the Transatlantic Community‘s commitment to free markets as an engine of economic growth. The American and European economies already form the world‘s biggest and most prosperous market, accounting for 54% of global GDP in terms of value and 40% of GDP in terms of purchasing power. Individually, Americans and Europeans are still wealthier than Chinese, with a GDP per capita of roughly $50,000 in the U.S. and $32,000 in the EU, compared to only $9,000 in China. According to a 2010 study for the European Center for International Political Economy, a free trade agreement could lead to dynamic gains in GDP of as much as $69 billion for Europe and $181 billion for the United States.



The United States should also expand export opportunities to Brazil and India. With one of the fastest growing economies in the world and the largest economy in South America, Brazil is America‘s second largest Latin American trading partner. Yet the U.S.-Brazilian trade relationship still has great potential to grow. In addition, the United States and India, which are increasingly bound together by shared strategic and economic interests, stand to reap great benefits from deeper trade relations.

53



U.S.-Chinese economic interdependence should not hinder efforts to ensure that American businesses are treated fairly. China‘s growing economy and population offer both tremendous opportunity for U.S. companies and benefits for American consumers. China‘s businesses should operate in a transparent fashion, its currency should be allowed to float to reflect its market value, and Beijing should respect and enforce vigorously the intellectual property rights of Americans firms. However, in working with China to end such practices, it would be a mistake to impose U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports. The Obama administration has refused to support new tariffs, which would likely lead to a counterproductive trade war with China that hurt U.S. companies and raise the cost of goods for American consumers.



The U.S. economy benefits from the foreign direct investment (FDI) that flows into U.S. companies. In turn, these companies often use this investment capital to fund research and development activities, equipment purchases, and new or expanded production facilities.

Notable Facts: 1.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, international markets represent 74% of the world‘s purchasing power, 87% of its economic growth, and 95% of its consumers. Developing countries purchased 53% of U.S. goods exports in 2010, led by a boom in sales to East Asia and the Americas.

2.

When it comes to the sales of manufactured goods, farm products, services, and natural resources, the United States tops both Germany and China by about $200 billion as the world‘s top exporter.

3.

More than 50 million Americans work for companies that engage in international trade, according to the U.S. Department of Treasury. One in three manufacturing jobs depends on exports, and one in three acres of U.S. farmland is planted to feed hungry consumers overseas.

4.

The U.S. Department of Commerce‘s Economics and Statistics Administration reported in 2011 that foreign direct investment (FD) in the United States over the last decade has supported more than 5 million U.S. jobs.

FPI Resources: 

―Obama Drops the Ball on India,‖ FPI Senior Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, The Diplomat, March 27, 2012.



―FPI Bulletin: Boost U.S. Economy with Free Trade—Not Unilateral Tariffs,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly & Senior Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, Foreign Policy Initiative, October 6, 2011.

Suggested Reading: 

―Trans-Atlantic Trade Stimulus,‖ Editorial, Wall Street Journal, December 4, 2012.



―Fool Me Once...‖ Phil Levy, Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, November 19, 2012.



―America Needs a Business Pivot Toward Asia,‖ Curtis S. Chin, Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2012.



―How About a Free-Trade Deal With Europe?‖ Paula Dobriansky & Paul Saunders, Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2012.

54

The War on Terror Terrorists continue to pose real and grave dangers to the United States and its allies. This fact was demonstrated by alQaeda‘s surprise attacks on September 11, 2011, and by the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, that claimed the lives of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and other U.S. officials. As France launches new operations against militant Islamist groups in Mali, North Africa has emerged as another front in the ongoing Global War on Terror.

Key Points: 

The United States must stay on the offense against terrorists by using all instruments of national power. The continuing objective is to actively isolate, disrupt, and defeat terrorists seeking to attack America‘s homeland and strategic interests. Towards this end, the United States and its allies must sustain comprehensive, and global operations against its terrorists by using a broad array of tools—including diplomatic and economic initiatives, the PATRIOT Act and other homeland security measures, National Security Agency (NSA) terrorist surveillance programs, and covert and overt military operations. America must hold accountable foreign governments that would provide safe havens to or otherwise cultivate terrorists.



Success in Afghanistan is critical to America‘s long-term security against terrorism. The United States has a vital national interest in ensuring that Afghan territory never again becomes a safe haven for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. If Afghanistan once again becomes a failed state, that will only increase risks of terrorist attacks on America and its allies, and the likelihood that the United States will be drawn back into the region.



In countering the forces of violent extremism, the United States must also focus on the vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful and seek a better future for themselves and their families. America and its allies should work with reformers in the Muslim world who want to build free, pluralistic, and prosperous societies, with the aim of marginalizing the message and appeal of Islamic extremist ideologies. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report noted the importance of socio-political changes in the region to countering Islamic extremism: ―Tolerance, the rule of law, political and economic openness, the extension of greater opportunities to women—these cures must come from within Muslim societies themselves. The United States must support such developments.‖



As the Arab Spring and other revolutionary movements continue to sweep the Muslim world, the United States should actively work to advance America‘s long-term strategic interests, including the promotion of democracy and human rights. While the pace and success of reform in each nation will be uneven, America should pursue efforts to help promote the rule of law, respect for human rights, economic development, and accountable governance. U.S. tools that have helped other nations successfully transition to democracy include effective public diplomacy, economic aid, and technical and legal support. At the same time, such support should be reviewed and/or potentially withdrawn in the event the recipient government engages in fundamentally anti-democratic activity.

Notable Facts: 1.

The United States remains at risk for terrorist attacks, as demonstrated by the tragic attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. Since September 11, 2001, several high-profile terrorist attacks against the homeland—including the 2009 Christmas Day attack, the October 2010 parcel plot and, most recently, the Iranian plot to

55

kill the Saudi ambassador on American soil—have been foiled because of U.S. intelligence gathering and counterterrorism efforts. In addition, 40 other attempted terrorist attacks against the U.S. homeland have been foiled, according to The Heritage Foundation. 2.

Although al-Qaeda‘s central leadership continues to reside in Pakistan, the organization‘s regional affiliates are increasing their profile within the network by directing terrorist acts against Western targets.

3.

On May 2, 2011, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in a daring raid by U.S. Navy SEALS. Bin Laden‘s lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, reportedly took control of the alQaeda network. On June 4, 2012, Abu Yaha al-Libi, Zawahiri‘s new second-in-command, was killed in Pakistan by a CIA drone strike.

FPI Resources: 

―A War that‘s Bigger than Afghanistan,‖ FPI Director William Kristol, Washington Post, May 2, 2012.



―We Can‘t Just Play Whack-A-Mole in The War on Terror,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly & Senior Policy Analyst Evan Moore, National Review Online’s The Corner, September 30, 2011.



―The Will and Moral Courage,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, National Review Online, September 9, 2011.

Suggested Reading: 

―Those Unilateral French,‖ Editorial, Wall Street Journal, January 14, 2013



―Why We Must Help Save Mali,‖ Vicki Huddleston, The New York Times, January 14, 2013.



―Mali: Vive La France,‖ Elliott Abrams, Council on Foreign Relations‘ Pressure Points, January 14, 2013.



―France Takes the Lead in Mali,‖ Max Boot, Commentary’s Contentions, January 14, 2013.



―Al Qaeda Lives,‖ Thomas Joscelyn, The Weekly Standard, December 15, 2012.



―Al Qaeda 3.0: Terrorism‘s Emergent New Power Bases,‖ Bruce Riedel, The Daily Beast, December 3, 2012.



―Al Qaeda‘s Not as Battered as Obama Thinks,‖ Daniel Byman, The New Republic, November 29, 2012.



―Obama and Terror: A Four-Year Scandal,‖ Michael Mukasey, Commentary, November 2012.



―Boko Haram: An Overlooked Threat to U.S. Security,‖ Congressman Patrick Meehan, The Heritage Foundation, July 24, 2012.



―Civilian Casualties Plummet in Drone Strikes,‖ Peter Bergen & Jennifer Rowland, CNN.com, July 13, 2012.



―Terror Is Their Family Business,‖ Jeffrey Dressler, The Weekly Standard, July 7, 2012.



―The Drone Blowback Fallacy,‖ Christopher Swift, Foreign Affairs’ Snapshots, July 1, 2012.

56

57

© Foreign Policy Initiative 2013 For more information, please visit our website at www.foreignpolicyi.org.

58