Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

We are pleased to announce that Justice Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar of the Supreme Court of California will become the next president of the Carnegie Endowment. https://lnkd.in/ezGWRXCx

Climate change litigation is experiencing an unprecedented moment as more and more states turn to international tribunals to determine what their obligations under international law are to address the climate crisis. The International Court of Justice is analyzing what the legal consequences are for those that have harmed the climate system. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has been tasked with clarifying states’ human rights obligations in relation to the climate emergency, including on climate-related mobility. Similarly, the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) was asked to look at states’ obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to mitigate pollution of the marine environment. In May, ITLOS delivered its advisory opinion, confirming that carbon emissions “constitute pollution of the marine environment” as defined by the UNCLOS. It's now time to explore what this ruling means in practice. Will there be progress on accountability for polluters? And considering that one of the impacts of climate change is increased involuntary human mobility, do courts offer promise for governing climate mobility? Liliana Gamboa will be joined by Antonia Urrejola, Lee-Anne Sackett, Viviana Krsticevic, and Ama Francis for a panel discussion on this landmark decision and the future of climate litigation. RSVP to tune in on July 31 at 11:00 a.m. EDT: https://lnkd.in/guK-zsWS

U.S. foreign policy could be on the cusp of major change. Or desires for change could fall prey to forces of inertia. How do big foreign policy shifts actually get made? In a new report for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, my American Statecraft Program team explains how: https://lnkd.in/d8hNiJ3z We examined five cases since 1945 in which U.S. administrations tried to implement strategic changes. Even in the era of the “imperial presidency,” presidents faced huge obstacles — which some successfully overcame and others didn’t. Jimmy Carter took office in 1977 intending to withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea. The Army, opposed to giving up its mission, teamed up with members of Congress to impose costs on Carter until two years later, he gave up. Carter never had a plan to convince the bureaucracy and Congress — two perennial sites of resistance to change — that his favored policy would serve their own interests. Trying to strongarm them rarely works, even when you’re the president. (See Trump’s Syria “withdrawal.”) By contrast, the Clinton administration formulated a clever plan to launch the post-Cold War enlargement of NATO. Proponents bypassed a skeptical Pentagon, getting President Clinton to sign on and then creating a sense of inevitability that the alliance would expand. Clinton’s team also needed the Senate to ratify the accession of new states into NATO. So it designed the policy itself to be Senate-friendly. Enlargement started with just three of the strongest, most sympathetic candidates: the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. The internal mantra was “small is beautiful” plus “robust open door” — start modestly, get the Senate used to approving new members of NATO, and then it would become easier to admit many more countries into the alliance. The plan worked brilliantly — perhaps too well. Another takeaway: international crises often spur change. 9/11 is a case in point. But the role of crises is not straightforward. Crises often elevate preconceived ideas whose actual connection to the crisis at hand is debatable. Prior to 9/11, neoconservatives hadn’t focused on the problem of terrorism emanating from Afghanistan. They were more concerned with Iraq. But they seized on the crisis atmosphere after 9/11 to push for transformational wars in the greater Middle East. Likewise, it took the outbreak of the Korean war in 1950 to convince President Truman to overcome his skepticism of the strategic document NSC-68, which called for a major conventional military buildup to wage a global cold war against Communism. The report puts forward a number of best practices for achieving strategic change. For example, it’s better to emphasize how the status quo will produce damaging losses than to talk up the potential to reap gains from change. All this and more, free to download. With co-authors extraordinaires Christopher Chivvis, Jennifer Kavanagh, Sahil Lauji, Adele Malle, Samuel Orloff, and Reid Wilcox!

Today, a growing number of analysts argue that the United States needs a major strategic reorientation, to be more selective in its commitments and engagements to remain secure and prosperous in the decades to come. The era of American hyperpower is over, and the country must exercise greater discipline in the commitments it makes. Nevertheless, U.S. foreign policy deals with every nation in the world, every potential transnational issue, and every world institution. America’s approach to the world is also highly institutionalized. These realities impede a new president or administration from introducing a major change, especially if that change involves being more selective and doing less. The American Statecraft's new report, Strategic Change in U.S. Foreign Policy, identifies and analyzes the major sources of resistance to strategic change in the United States so that those seeking to shift the country’s course, particularly in the context of a new administration, will have a better picture of how this can be done. Authors Christopher Chivvis, Stephen Wertheim, Jennifer Kavanagh, Sahil Lauji, Adele Malle, Samuel Orloff, and Reid Wilcox analyze cases of strategic change since 1945, concluding that these factors are especially important in precipitating strategic change: 💡 A major external crisis 💡 Concerted White House effort to overcome bureaucratic resistance 💡The president’s willingness to spend political capital on changing course 💡United executive and legislative branches of government 💡An approach that addresses the psychological obstacles to change These case studies demonstrate that making major strategic change in U.S. foreign policy involves not just the White House but also the government bureaucracy, Congress, the wider expert community, the public, and foreign actors. Proponents of change need to account for all these actors to some degree in order to be successful. Read the full report here➡️ https://lnkd.in/epgqC7UD

Over the past decade, as internet usage has doubled in low- and middle-income countries and breakthroughs in artificial intelligence have unlocked new capabilities, many of the great hopes for how technology could improve our world have started coming to fruition: technologies are bringing life-changing health services, knowledge, and economic opportunity to even the most remote and marginalized communities. However, these developments also risk increasing gaps between the digital haves and digital have-nots, perpetuating inequities and biases, and giving authoritarian governments increasingly powerful tools to harm populations around the world. USAID Administrator Samantha Power will deliver keynote remarks and sit down with Carnegie President Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar to explore how technology is perhaps the single most decisive force shaping global development today—and to outline how to minimize the risks and maximize technology's potential to improve people’s lives. Tune into this special conversation on Thursday, July 25 @ 10:30 AM: https://lnkd.in/ewiSF8xG

Earlier this week, Carnegie hosted its second annual New Voices, New Ideas Conference. This day-long conference welcomed students, interns, and young professionals from all backgrounds to engage in timely conversations on the state of nuclear policy today, as well as challenges the field is likely to face in the future. Participants were also able to take part in a nuclear crisis simulation, offering hands-on experience in crisis management and response. Amber Greene, the acting special representative for racial equity and justice at the U.S. Department of State, delivered keynote remarks and participated in a fireside chat with Kylie Jones, a research assistant in Carnegie's Nuclear Policy Program. In the panel discussions that followed, speakers explored how diversity and inclusion efforts enrich policy discussions and initiatives across all issue areas. Conference participants were also able to engage and network with nuclear policy experts, and one another, to form vital personal and professional connections.

🌍🌱 African Participation in #COP: A Growing Influence 🌱🌍 Africa's role in the UN Climate Negotiations (COP) has significantly evolved since its inception in 1995. Despite contributing less than 4% to global greenhouse gases, African nations face severe climate impacts, losing 5-15% of GDP annually due to climate change. A recent article by Victoria Markiewicz, Praise P.T. Gandah, and Nicholas R. Micinski explores the evolution of African representation at COP. ⭐ Key Highlights ⭐ - Increased participation from fast-growing African delegations - Strategic alliances via blocs like the Africa Group - Capacity building programs - Civil society involvement in agenda setting “Since 1995, Africa has increased its voice and presence dramatically at COP.” But challenges remain, especially in securing adequate climate finance from developed nations. It remains to be seen whether the amplified visibility of African countries will result in better climate outcomes in future negotiations. For more, read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/eXAh5YiK

How does the United States make major foreign policy shifts—and how much could its foreign policy change in the next four years? A growing number of analysts argue that the era of U.S. hyperpower is over and that the country needs a strategic reorientation. But major changes in U.S. foreign policy are difficult to achieve and have occurred only rarely in history. Carnegie’s American Statecraft Program has examined key moments since World War II when the United States has adopted new strategies, and has identified the ingredients any future president would need to steer foreign policy in a new direction. To launch Carnegie’s report, Strategic Change in U.S. Foreign Policy, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim sit down with Beth Sanner, who served in the U.S. national security community for three decades. They will explain what factors promote major changes in foreign policy and to debate their implications for the next presidential administration. RSVP to join us in-person on Tuesday, July 23, at 11 a.m.: https://lnkd.in/evWXBMAj

🇮🇳 The #BJP's narrow 2024 win hinted at a return to coalition politics. But "the nature of the political order has fundamentally shifted in ways that will have a lasting impact on Indian democracy," writes Milan Vaishnav in his essay for the Journal of Democracy. 💭 How Has India Changed Under the BJP? 💭 India's political landscape has seen a significant shift under the BJP, moving from secularism to a civilizational-state ethos. This transition challenges conventional notions of democracy, framing India as a revived civilizational state with deep democratic roots predating Western models. Central to this shift is a narrative of historical victimization and cultural revival, promoting Hindutva as central to a unified Hindu identity. This redefines secularism, emphasizing state intervention in religious affairs while ostensibly safeguarding cultural diversity. India's foreign policy has aligned with domestic agendas, asserting global leadership through initiatives like the "International Day of Yoga" and advocacy for millet cultivation. Simultaneously, internal policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act reflect a move towards "One Nation" initiatives, reshaping federal dynamics with a more unitary state structure. #India #ForeignPolicy #Democracy Read the full article at the Journal of Democracy ➡️ https://lnkd.in/ema4VPVS

💭 Why is Armenia is on the search for new foreign policy partners? Thomas de Waal's latest paper explores the uncertain geopolitical environment in which Armenia finds itself. 🔷 Armenia's relationship with Russia is increasingly fraught, but it continues to depend heavily on Russia for energy and trade and remains its formal military ally. 🔷 Public support for a diversification of foreign policy is strong and opinion polls show there is almost no endorsement for a return to pre-2020 security dependence on Russia. 🔷 The West offers increased political and economic support, but mostly for the long term, and Armenia remains years away from alignment with Western institutions. 🇦🇲 🇦🇿 | Armenia is now searching for new set of global partners and seeking to loosen its close ties to Russia. De Waal argues that the West can encourage this diversification effort by supporting a peace process between #Armenia & #Azerbaijan. To learn more and read the full paper, visit: https://lnkd.in/eqK9jetw