Foreign Policy 2012 - Foreign Policy Initiative

Foreign Policy 2012

About Foreign Policy 2011

As we seek to educate leaders and policymakers about how to meet the global challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) conducts briefings for candidates of both political parties, as well as sitting members of Congress and their staff of both political parties. FPI briefings bring the experience and expertise of Washington‘s leading foreign policy thinkers to current and aspiring members of Congress and other candidates. The sessions, which can range from an hour to a half-day, are personally tailored to the interests of those being briefed. FPI will make available experts on the major foreign policy challenges facing the United States including topics such as the Arab Spring, the rise of China, the Iranian nuclear threat, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are prepared to brief candidates and members of Congress on critical issues ranging from the War on Terror to transatlantic relations and from the defense budget to democracy and human rights. In conjunction with our briefings, we have developed Foreign Policy 2011, a briefing book available on the FPI website at www.foreignpolicyi.org. This document pulls together key points, notable facts and additional resources from leading thinkers in each of the key foreign policy issue areas. FPI will be updating the briefing book on a regular basis in 2012. To suggest additional articles or content for the briefing book, please email [email protected]. To schedule a briefing, please contact Elise Stefanik at [email protected] or (202) 296-3322.

2

About The Foreign Policy Initiative In 2011 the United States—and its democratic allies—face many foreign policy challenges. They come from rising and resurgent powers, including China and Russia. They come from other autocracies that violate the rights of their citizens. They come from rogue states that work with each other in ways inimical to our interests and principles, and that sponsor terrorism and pursue weapons of mass destruction. They come from Al Qaeda and its affiliates who continue to plot attacks against the United States and our allies. They come from failed states that serve as havens for terrorists and criminals and spread instability to their neighbors. The United States faces these challenges while engaged in military operations across the globe, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. The sacrifice of American lives and significant economic expenditure in these conflicts has led to warnings of U.S. strategic overreach, and calls for American retrenchment. There are those who hope we can just return to normalcy—to pre-9/11 levels of defense spending and pre-9/11 tactics. They argue for a retreat from America‘s global commitments and a renewed focus on problems at home, an understandable if mistaken response to these difficult economic times. In fact, 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 allies—the allies that helped us defeat fascism and communism in the 20th century, and the alliances we have forged more recently, including with the newly liberated citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. Our 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 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 safe-guarding 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.

3

Table of Contents Afghanistan/Pakistan ………………………………………………………………………………… 5 America‘s Role in the World ………………………………………………………………………… 7 Arab Spring …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 Asia Pacific ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 12 Central & South America …………………………………………………………………………... 14 China …………………………………………………………………………………………………... 16 Democracy & Human Rights ……………………………………………………………………… 19 Defense Policy ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 22 Europe - NATO ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 25 Iran …………….……………………………………………………………………………………….. 27 Iraq …………….……………………………………………………………………………………….. 29 Israel/Peace Process ……………………………………………………………………….……….. 31 Non-Military Foreign Aid …………………………………………………………………...……….. 33 Russia ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 35 Trade …………..……………………………………………………………………………………….. 37 War on Terror/Islamic Extremism ………………………………………………………………….. 39

11/21/11 Edition *Full text of article not included in this briefing book; text available from original publication source. 4

Afghanistan/Pakistan President Obama made the right decision when he ordered a surge of 33,000 troops to Afghanistan in December 2009. Since then, significant gains have b een ma de by pursuing a combined counterinsurgency and counterterrorism strategy. These gains remain fragile and reversible despite the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011. Regrettably, the President‘s June 2011 decision to accelerate the withdrawal of these surge forces makes it more difficult to consolidate our gains and expand our success. In short, the precipitous withdrawal of the troop surge for political reasons has the potential to set back U.S. efforts to not only ensure that Afghanistan is no longer a sanctuary for America‘s enemies but also to thwart Islamist gains in Pakistan.

Key Points: 

The United States has a vital interest in ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists like those who attacked us on September 11, 2001. International disengagement from Afghanistan in the 1990s contributed to it becoming what is best termed a ‗failed state‘ ─one that eventually became a safe haven for al Qaeda. Today, failure in Afghanistan will only increase the terrorist risk to the U.S. homeland and vital interests across the globe and the likelihood that we will be drawn back into the region. Brookings Institution expert Michael O‘Hanlon described the consequences of defeat in Afghanistan as: a ―Taliban takeover of at least southern Afghanistan; and associated sanctuaries for the world‘s worst terrorist groups, which still want to strike American cities, gain control of Pakistan‘s nuclear arsenal and provoke another India-Pakistan war.‖



Boosted by President Obama‘s 2009 troop surge, U.S. and coalition forces have gained operational control of larger swaths of territory from the Taliban—in particular, the southern provinces bordering Pakistan. U.S. and allied forces have also killed or captured many senior al Qaeda leaders, as well as other lower-level terrorists. However, the situation in Afghanistan remains perilous, with entrenched insurgent groups in the east actively undermining the security of Kabul.



Bolstered by the troop surge, U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan have been critical to enabling our successful counterterrorism operations in the region—especially in Pakistan. Some people have argued that the threat from al Qaeda and the Taliban can be best met, not by a broad counterinsurgency and state-building effort in Afghanistan, but by the use of actionable intelligence gathering and counterterrorism operations by U.S. Special Forces similar to the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. However, a counterterrorism-based strategy cannot operate effectively without the robust counterinsurgency campaign now in place in Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency operations continue to squeeze our enemies into a smaller area, build local security and civic institutions, and provide bases and staging areas from which counterterrorism operations can be launched.



The President‘s accelerated surge drawdown puts at substantial risk the recent gains we have made in Afghanistan and should be reconsidered. The President‘s decision to begin the withdrawal of the surge troops this summer—with the remainder out by the end of summer 2012—undermines the U.S. military‘s counterinsurgency campaign and hurts counterterrorism efforts. The precipitous drawdown will likely prevent further coalition gains in the eastern provinces of Afghanistan, and could lead to higher levels of violence and instability throughout the country. There have been media reports that the Obama 5

administration seeks even more drastic reductions in troop levels beyond the reduction of surge forces by 2012. 

The U.S. must remain committed to long-term success in Afghanistan—militarily, economically, and politically. Achieving success in Afghanistan will require maintaining as high a level of troops in country as possible until the 2014 transition to Afghan control. In order to effectively campaign against the Haqqani Network in eastern Afghanistan and cement hard-won security against from the 2010-2011 fighting season in the south, the United States will require the surge-level of forces to remain in country.

Notable Facts: 1.

The United States is 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 June 22, 2011, President Obama made public his decision to withdraw by September 2012 the ‗surge‘ of 33,000 U.S. troops that he had announced in his December 2009 speech at West Point.

4.

During the Lisbon Summit of November 2010, Afghanistan, the United States, and NATO allies all agreed on the strategic goal of having the Afghan government and the Afghan security forces fully in the lead by the end of 2014.

5.

As of April 2011, there were 92,000 more Afghan police and soldiers serving than there were in 2009. The Afghan National Army now numbers 170,000 and the Afghan National Police have 135,000.

6.

U.S. and Afghan leaders are negotiating a strategic partnership agreement to guide relations and America‘s troop presence in country beyond the 2014 transition to Afghan control.

FPI Resources: 

―FPI Fact Sheet: Success In Afghanistan Is Critical To Prevailing In The War On Terror,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, June 23, 2011.



―Don‘t Come Home, America,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, The Weekly Standard, July 4, 2011.



―Why The Summer Of 2012?‖ FPI Director William Kristol, The Weekly Standard Blog, June 23, 2011.



―Afghanistan: The Way Forward,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, National Review Online, June 23, 2011.

Suggested Reading: 

―They Can Do It,‖ Max Boot, The Weekly Standard, November 5, 2011.



―The Way Ahead In Afghanistan,‖ Gen. John Keane (USA, Ret.) House Armed Services Committee, July 27, 2011.



―Staying The Course In Afghanistan,‖ Max Boot, Los Angeles Times, June 22, 2011.



―Success Against al Qaeda Depends on Success in Afghanistan,‖ Frederick Kagan, The Weekly Standard Online, June 19, 2011. 6

America‘s Role in the World The United States remains the world‘s indispensable nation─ vital to international peace, security, and stability, and crucial to safe-guarding and advancing the ideals and principles we hold dear. America cannot afford to turn its back on its international commitments and allies ─ the allies that helped us defeat fascism and communism, and the alliances we have forged with other nations, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan, to advance freedom and strengthen our security. At home, U.S. economic difficulties will only deepen by pursuing a protectionist retreat within our borders. Today, the challenges we face require a vision and policies anchored in a renewed commitment to robust American global leadership, not in the fatalism of America‘s inevitable decline espoused by some.

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 spoke frequently of America‘s unique role in the world. As Benjamin Franklin observed, ―Our cause is the cause of all mankind.‖ President Reagan called America ―the last best hope on earth,‖ while President Clinton proclaimed, ―America stands alone as the world‘s indispensable nation.‖



The United States must maintain robust engagement in the world ─ diplomatically, militarily, and economically ─ to secure a safer, more 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 our national security and diminish economic opportunities for our citizens.



To secure a more prosperous, peaceful future, the United States should maintain vigorous support for democratic allies and oppose regimes that threaten American interests and subvert the cause of freedom. As such, America should pursue policies that: promote political freedom and stand against human rights abuses across the globe ─ abuses that mock the universal principles we hold dear; work to strengthen ties with our allies through better trade relations to increase U.S. exports, and greater diplomatic and military coordination; and encourage all nations-- particularly China and Russia— and international institutions to act responsibly in their deliberations and activities.

Notable Facts: 1.

America‘s security budget (including the costs of the wars) amounts to less than 5% of GDP. For that amount, the United States upholds a system of global peace and prosperity. America‘s global system of alliances and extended deterrence has largely prevented the outbreak of major wars between states, and keeps the global commons open for trade.

2.

Funding for the State Department and affiliated agencies has increasingly been used to support civilian missions in war zones and unstable states. Though comprising less than 1.5% of the federal budget, this funding helps support the spread of democracy and human rights abroad, the capacity-building of partner militaries, and stabilizing nations to help prevent the rise of ungoverned territory, which could foster extremists and militants.

7

3.

After the Cold War, the United States enjoyed commanding power vis-à-vis other nations in the world. However, the concurrent rise of China and India, as well as the resurgence of Russia over the past decade, has narrowed the gap between their respective capabilities and America‘s. Yet America remains the world‘s primary and unparalleled power.

4.

Despite repeated cries to return to a non-interventionist foreign policy, the United States has frequently engaged in foreign missions abroad, particularly since 1898. These interventions have been supported by presidents of every political ideology.

FPI Resources: 

―Nation-Building, Our National Pastime,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, The New York Times, October 14, 2011.



―Ron Paul Is Wrong About Defense Spending And The Deficit,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie Fly and FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate, The Daily Caller, September 29, 2011.



―Why National Security Conservatives -- And The World -- Will Miss Pawlenty In The GOP Race,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie Fly, Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, August 19, 2011.



―The Price Of Power,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, The Weekly Standard, January 15, 2011.


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



―U.S. Foreign Policy: In Praise Of Nation-Building,‖ Max Boot, Los Angeles Times, July 5, 2011.

8

Arab Spring After decades of authoritarian rule, the wave of popular uprisings in the Middle East gives hope to a region choked by corruption, political repression and economic stagnation amid growing, restless youth populations. The uprisings offer the opportunity to establish moderate, democratically-based governments anchored in the rule of law and, in time, to spur dynamic, job-creating economies. Reformers in places like Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and those brutally repressed in Syria and Iran, deserve support from America and our allies. Though there will be setbacks and challenges as these nations evolve at different paces and with varying leadership, the United States should aid the democratization process as much as possible.

Key Points: 

Decades of authoritarian rule in the Middle East region produced a stagnant political and economic culture characterized by rampant corruption, political oppression, high unemployment, and anti-Americanism. Far from promoting stability in the region, Osama bin Laden and other terrorists 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. 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 movement underway from Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, to Syria and Iran. For example, while the well-organized Muslim Brotherhood is expected to do well in upcoming Egyptian elections and Islamist parties did well in Tunisia‘s recent election; other competing political parties are now being formed to participate in the democratic process. Should the newly-elected government in Egypt fail to meet voter expectations on improving the economy, it will likely face a competitive field of opposition parties in the next election. Within this process, political space is opened for citizens to discuss and debate issues, civic institutions mature, and the governing authority will be accountable to the will of the people.



The United States and our allies should pursue polices specifically designed to advance the promise of the Arab Spring and side with the reformers against the autocrats. Even though the pace and success of the reform movement in each nation will be uneven, the U.S. should pursue policies—whether economic aid, diplomatic recognition, or technical expertise, that has helped other nations transition to democracy—that advance the general reform effort significantly in the short and long term. At the same time, such support should be reviewed and/or withdrawn in the event the democratic process has been subverted by the respective government.



Unfortunately, President Obama has repeatedly failed to grasp the opportunities presented by the Arab Spring, instead often trying to ―lead from behind.‖ The people of the region should never have cause to question whether the United States stands on their side or that of their dictatorial rulers. U.S. policy, as these indigenous revolutions break out should be to balance competing U.S. interests carefully, but to consistently support those fighting for freedom. 9

Notable Facts: 1.

The Arab Spring began in Tunisia on December 17, 2010, when 26-year old street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in a police station to protest harassment from authorities and the seizure of his cart. Street protests flared in his name, and dictator Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali was ousted on January 14, 2011.

2.

Shortly after Ben Ali‘s ouster in Tunisia, protests spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa, including Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria.

3.

Seeking to perpetuate their hold on power, dictators have steadily increased the use of lethal force against peaceful mass protesters. While 224 people were killed in Tunisia‘s revolution, 846 were killed in Egypt. As of publication, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has killed at least 3,500 protesters, and over 30,000 people are believed to have been killed in the fighting in Libya.

4.

While much of the Arab Spring has been characterized by street protests and violent retaliation from autocrats, several of the monarchies in the region have responded with power-sharing constitutional reforms.

5.

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.

6.

Tunisia held the Arab Spring‘s first democratic elections on October 25, 2011, and the country‘s newly elected civilian leaders will now seek to write a national constitution.

7.

After forty years in power, Libya dictator Muammar Gaddafi was killed by Libyan rebels on October 20, 2011. This was the culmination of the NATO-led intervention to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime‘s security forces that began in March 2011. Libya‘s interim government, the Transitional National Council, will remain in power until the country‘s first elections are held next summer.

8.

President Bashar al-Assad continues his violent crackdown against the Syrian people, eight months after initial protests began. The Obama administration has imposed sanctions on specific government officials responsible for human rights abuses, but has failed to rally the international community in a collective response to the ongoing atrocities.

FPI Resources: 

―FPI Joint Bulletin: The Assad Regime‘s Continuing Mass Murder Of Syrians: Policy Options For U.S. Response,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative and Foundation for Defense of Democracies, October 25, 2011.



―NATO In Libya,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie Fly and Gary Schmitt, The Weekly Standard, October 1, 2011.



―FPI Bulletin: What Congress Can Do To Hasten Assad‘s Exit,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie Fly and Policy Director Robert Zarate, Foreign Policy Initiative, September 22, 2011.



―FPI Directors Sign Open Letter Regarding The Next Steps For The Obama Administration To Take On Syria,‖ Open Letter, August 19, 2011.



―FPI Fact Sheet: Five Steps To Hasten Assad's Exit,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, July 14, 2011.



―Foreign Policy Experts Urge House Republicans To Support U.S. Operations In Libya,‖ Open Letter, June 20, 2011.

10



―The Egypt Test,‖ FPI Director for Democracy and Human Rights Ellen Bork, The Weekly Standard, May 30, 2011.



―Foreign Policy Experts Urge President To Take Action To Halt Violence In Libya,‖ Open Letter, March 15, 2011.



―Foreign Policy Experts Urge President to Take Action to Halt Violence in Libya,‖ Open Letter, February 25, 2011.



―A Time for Choosing,‖ FPI Director for Democracy and Human Rights Ellen Bork, The Weekly Standard, February 14, 2011.



―A Time For Leadership,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie Fly, National Review’s The Corner, January 30, 2011.


―America's Opportunity In Libya,‖ Paul Wolfowitz, The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2011.



―The Arab Spring's First Democratic Election,‖ Senator Joe Lieberman, The Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2011.



―US Must Take Sides To Keep The Arab Spring From Islamist Takeover,‖ Ray Takeyh, The Washington Post, March 23, 2011.



―A Regional Strategy For Democracy In The Middle East,‖ Zalmay Khalilzad, The Washington Post, March 15, 2011.

11

Asia Pacific China‘s more assertive regional behavior has upended the security situation in the wider Asia Pacific region. Australia and Japan have announced changes to their defense strategies in response to China‘s increasing strength. India, which has border disputes with China, has similarly embarked on a large-scale military modernization. Beijing‘s claim on islands in the South China Sea has even pushed Vietnam increasingly toward the West. Allowing the military 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 the expenditures required to keep the peace.

Key Points: 

The United States should implement policies that reassure Asian allies that have had doubts about America‗s ability to maintain its dominant security position in the region and deter China. Specifically, America should pursue increased arms sales to Japan, Taiwan (such as the F-35 and submarines), South Korea, Australia and India, and an expanded regional missile defense network to counter China‘s ballistic missile threat. Both would dramatically improve the security situation in the Asia Pacific. Furthermore, Washington should bolster economic and diplomatic ties with regional allies, engage potential allies, and substantially increase American naval and air assets in the region. The United States should also encourage our regional allies to increasingly conduct joint political conferences, as well as military exercises.



Policymakers should continue the long-standing U.S. policy of support for Taiwan. The United States should sell Taiwan new model F-16 C/Ds to upgrade its Air Force vis-à-vis China, as Taipei requested. However, because the Chinese air force is rapidly overshadowing Taiwanese capabilities, the Obama administration should begin discussions immediately regarding selling Taiwan the F-35—an advanced 5th generation U.S.-built fighter that it already plans to sell to Japan and Australia—as well as explore other means to bolster the island‘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 even greater cooperation on economic, diplomatic and security fronts.

Notable Facts: 1.

Over the past two decades, China has procured more than 40 new submarines, including conventional and nuclear powered, attack and nuclear armed. 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, which when completed, will have underground facilities to safely port perhaps up to 20 submarines. Finally, China is now moving forward with an aircraft carrier program.

12

3.

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 Americanmade 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 2008, total bilateral trade surpassed $43.4 billion, up from just $14 billion in 2000.

5.

In 2011, India signed its biggest defense deal with the United States so far—a $4.1 billion contract to procure ten C-17 airlift aircrafts.

FPI Resources: 

―FPI Bulletin: U.S. Should Use High-Level Summit To Reinvigorate India Partnership,‖ FPI Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, Foreign Policy Initiative, July 19, 2011.



―Mr. President, Meet With The Dalai Lama,‖ FPI Director of Democracy and Human Rights Ellen Bork, Foreign Policy Initiative, July 15, 2011.



―How The Obama Administration Should Follow Up On Its Rhetoric On Rights In China,‖ FPI Director of Democracy and Human Rights Ellen Bork, Foreign Policy Initiative, May 11, 2011.



―China‘s Jasmine Backlash,‖ FPI Director of Democracy and Human Rights Ellen Bork, Foreign Policy Initiative, April 7, 2011.



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



―Analysis: Time For A Strategic Reassessment Of U.S. Policy Toward China,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, January 17, 2011.



―Nobel Peace Prize To Liu Xiaobo Puts Pressure On China And President Obama,‖ FPI Director of Democracy and Human Rights Ellen Bork, Foreign Policy Initiative, October 8, 2010.



―FPI Analysis: President Obama's Trip To India,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, November 5, 2010.


―Debating The Pacific Century,‖ Multiple Authors, Foreign Policy, October 14, 2011.



―Asian Alliances In The 21st Century,‖ Dan Blumenthal with Randal Schriver, Mark Stokes, L.C. Russell Hsiao and Michael Mazza, Project 2049 Institute, August 30, 2011.



―Build, Hold, And Clear: An American Strategy For Asia,‖ Michael Auslin, National Review, August 15, 2011.



―Not A Chinese Century, An Indo-American One,‖ Daniel Twining, Global Asia, Spring 2011.



―A One-Sided Arms Race,‖ Dan Blumenthal and Michael Mazza, The Weekly Standard, January 15, 2011.

13

Central & South America America‘s strong presence in Central and South America is important to U.S. economic growth and security. With globalization, new and diverse sources of foreign investment and trade have lessened the hemisphere‘s economic dependence on the United States. At the same time, many democracies in the region continue to face pressure from autocratic rulers, Venezuelan petrodollars, and complex criminal organizations financed through illicit drug trade. It is, therefore, critical for the United States to do more to strengthen democratic institutions in the region and deepen trade ties with democratic partners. Unfortunately, many governments across the region have expressed disappointment that America has not been more engaged in areas important to advancing freedom and prosperity.

Key Points: 

The United States must do more to consolidate democratic gains in the region. Today, many across the region feel neglected by an administration distracted by domestic politics and other international challenges. Support for Washington has diminished while Chinese, Iranian, and Venezuelan influence continues to expand. Past U.S. initiatives remain incomplete, democracy and security funding to the region has been slashed, and few new policy proposals have emerged from the administration.



The United States should expand exports opportunities to Brazil. 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. President Obama should broaden export opportunities to Brazil and emulate the success of the U.S.-Brazil Commercial Dialogue established under Presidents Bush and Lula da Silva in 2006.



Signed into law—after long delay—in October 2011, the bilateral free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama will strengthen economic and strategic ties with two important democratic partners in the Western Hemisphere. The Colombia agreement will reward a stalwart ally of the United States and ensure economic ties with one of Latin America‘s fastest-growing economies. The Panama agreement will enhance America‘s longstanding ties with a nation increasingly fearful of the rapidly expanding drug war that is threatening governments across Central America.



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 only serve 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 U.S. 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 and promote freedom.



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 Mexican 14

government to curb the escalating violence that plagues our 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, organized crime and well funded drug cartels. El Salvador‘s democratically elected government too faces spiraling violence and regional uncertainty.

Notable Facts: 1.

In recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Assistant Secretary Arturo Valenzuela stated ―the United States has important national interests at stake in the Western Hemisphere, and the best way to advance these interests is through proactive engagement with all of the countries of the Americas.‖

2.

Though the overall trade balance between the United States and Latin America pales in comparison to balances with Asia and Europe, the region did represent America‘s fastest growing market between 1998 and 2009.

3.

Brazil‘s rapidly growing economy represents a growing market for American goods, as overall U.S. exports to Brazil grew 71% from 1998 to 2009.

4.

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

5.

An analysis by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) estimates that under the newly implemented FTA with Panama, U.S. exports of grain to Panama will increase by 61%; cars and light trucks by 43%; meat products by 62%; and processed foods by 36%.

FPI Resources: 

―Obama Should Apply Pressure Over FARC,‖ FPI Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, The Weekly Standard Blog, March 19, 2011.



―FPI Analysis: President Obama‘s Trip To Central And South America,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, March 11, 2011.


―Time For Latin America To Roll Up Iran Welcome Mat,‖ Roger Noriega and Jose Cardenas, The Washington Times, November 1, 2011.



―Latin America Deserves More Attention,‖ Jaime Daremblum, The Weekly Standard, October 20, 2011.



―Hugo Chávez‘s Long Shadow,‖ Vanessa Neumann, The Weekly Standard, October 17, 2011.



―New Peril In Central America,‖ Miami Herald (Editorial), April 28, 2011.



―Is There A Chavez Terror Network On America‘s Doorstep?‖ Roger Noriega, The Washington Post, March 20, 2011.



―President Obama‘s Visit To Latin America: Democracy, Trade, And Security First,‖ Ray Walser, The Heritage Foundation, March 17, 2011.

15

China The United States should pursue a strategy toward China that promotes America‘s interests and democratic values. Robust economic growth and deepening global trade ties have not yet spurred Beijing to pursue substantive democratic change, demonstrate respect for the human rights of its people, or fully embrace transparent business practices and market-based economic principles. Furthermore, China‘s continued military build-up, fueled by years of significant defense spending and an increasingly assertive foreign policy, has raised concerns throughout the region and the world.

Key Points: 

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 for its rogue nuclear activities. It has shown an unwillingness to exert significant pressure on North Korea, even as North Korea makes great strides in its nuclear weapons and missile programs. Beijing coddles the Burmese dictatorship, targets Taiwan with missiles, and spars with its neighbors over territorial disputes in the Western Pacific and South China Sea.



American policy should reassure Asian allies to counter-balance China‘s more aggressive foreign policy and the increasing capability and reach of its military. 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. Furthermore, Washington should bolster economic diplomatic ties with regional allies, engage potential allies, and maintain a robust naval and air presence in the region.



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-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 and North Korea; 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 16

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.

The official Pentagon estimate of the actual Chinese defense budget is over $150 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.

2.

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. In an annual report to Congress, the Department of Defense recently assessed that the People‘s Republic has a thousand short-range ballistic missiles in range of Taiwan, and is in the process of increasing their range, payload, and accuracy.

3.

The Chinese military is also developing a medium-range conventional ballistic missile capability that will be able to threaten American carrier groups.

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 their rate of production and purchase, China may be able to sustain a force of nearly 80 submarines. The U.S. submarine fleet is currently at 53.

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.

FPI Resources: 













―Analysis: Time For A Strategic Reassessment Of U.S. Policy Toward China,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, January 17, 2011.





―The Growing Threat From China's Air Force,‖ Michael Auslin, The Wall Street Journal, August 24, 2011. 17



―The Implications Of China's South China Sea Activities,‖ Dan Blumenthal, Staff Briefing for the Congressional China Caucus, July 29, 2011.



―Don‘t Discount Chinese Liberty,‖ Liu Junning, The Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2011.



―Hegemony With Chinese Characteristics,‖ Aaron Friedberg, The National Interest, June 21, 2011.



―Countering Beijing In The South China Sea,‖ Dana Dillon, The Hoover Institution, June 1, 2011.



―Tipping Point In The Indo-Pacific,‖ Michael Auslin, The American Interest, March/April 2011.

18

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 safe-guarding 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, the U.S. 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 Obama administration should increase pressure on the Burmese military dictatorship, one of the most repressive regimes in the world. In 1990, the people of Burma voted in an election that the ruling military junta hoped it could manipulate in order to rebuff international pressure for reform and consolidate its power. Though the party of the democratic opposition won overwhelmingly, the generals ignored the election results and have ruled since. To promote human rights and freedom, the United States. should launch a sustained international effort to establish a UN Commission of Inquiry to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity in Burma and apply additional U.S. financial sanctions targeting the regime‘s leaders as authorized by Congress.



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-enforced 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 American policy towards China and its 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.



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 United States should speak out much more forcefully against these actions. Turning a blind eye to such undemocratic behavior further weakens democratic forces in Russia and harms American interests.

19



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 radicalist movements. As post-revolutionary states like Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya begin 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. However, while the United States may not agree with or condone the decisions of these new governments, policy-makers should recognize that a democratic state forces leaders to be held accountable to their people.



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 to address and peacefully resolve the problem of Iran‘s 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, President Obama‘s moral support during the summer of 2009 was tepid, at best. 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 could have been dramatically improved.

Notable Facts: 1.

The Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act of 2008 imposes ―sanctions on officials of the State Peace and Development Council in Burma, to amend the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 to exempt humanitarian assistance from United States sanctions on Burma, to prohibit the importation of gemstones from Burma, or that originate in Burma, to promote a coordinated international effort to restore civilian democratic rule to Burma, and for other purposes.‖

2.

The U.S State Department noted that the 1990 Burmese election ―results were an overwhelming victory for Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy party, which won nearly 60% of the vote and 392 of the 485 seats, even though she was under house arrest at the time of the elections.‖

3.

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.

4.

Russia‘s political system is described by Kremlin officials as ―sovereign democracy.‖ While Russia maintains the facade of regular elections, they are not democratic. All major decisions are made by Prime Minister Putin or President Medvedev. The legislature is dominated by the rubber-stamp United Russia party, regional governors are appointed by Moscow, not chosen by local elections. Former government officials and KGB agents dominate state and private enterprise, ensuring close relations between the government and business.

5.

The Russian People‘s Freedom Party, led by former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov and other leading opposition figures has been barred from participating in upcoming parliamentary elections.

6.

As of November 8, 2011, 3,500 Syrians have been killed in President Bashar al-Assad‘s campaign against civilian demonstrators, according to the United Nations. 30,000 Syrians, additionally, have been imprisoned by the regime since the uprising began in March 2011.

20

7.

Tunisia held elections in October 2011 for an assembly to draft a new constitution. Egyptian parliamentary elections will be held in three states from late-November through early January.

8.

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

FPI Resources: 

―Towards a Post-Assad Syria: Options for the United States and Like-Minded Nations to Further Assist the Anti-Regime Syrian Opposition,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative and Foundation for Defense of Democracies, November 8, 2011.






―The Egypt Test,‖ FPI Director of Democracy and Human Rights Ellen Bork, Foreign Policy Initiative, The Weekly Standard, May 21, 2011.









―The Green Movement Returns,‖ Joint Statement of the Foreign Policy Initiative and Freedom House, March 30, 2011.





―The Internet Equalizer: Why Isn‘t The Obama Administration Doing More To Promote Social Media?‖ Brian Keeter, Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, September 28, 2011.



―Preventing Human Rights Abuses Means Supporting Democracy,‖ Michael Singh, Testimony before the House Of Representatives Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, September 26, 2011.



―Russia‘s New Protesters,‖ Leon Aron, American Enterprise Institute, June 2011.

21

Defense Policy In a dangerous post-9/11 world, the United States must ensure that its military forces have the troops, weapons and other resources needed to carry out any mission. In the 1990s, drastic cuts in defense spending resulted in the ‗hollowing out‘ of our forces, with units lacking sufficient personnel, supplies, and equipment. Unfortunately, the debt ceiling is bad news for modernization, force size, and overall training and the prospect of additional cuts looms over Pentagon planners. Should the projected defense spending cuts occur the United States would not have the capacity to meet its stated military commitments and American national security would be significantly weakened.

Key Points: Spending 

Under the debt-limit deal, the defense budget will face catastrophic cuts. First, spending caps are placed on the Pentagon for fiscal years (FY) 2012 and 2013. Continuing these spending caps over ten years will result in $350 billion in defense cuts. On top of this, if a select bipartisan deficit committee fails to reach agreement on further deficit reduction, additional cuts in the $500-600 billion range could result. In total, the defense budget could face cuts of $850-950 billion or more over the next decade.



Pro-defense policymakers should vigorously oppose such devastating defense cuts. If the debt deal governs defense policy for the next ten years, 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.. This would endanger U.S. national security.

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

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 previous administration deployed a limited missile defense system in Alaska and California to protect the U.S. homeland from such threats. The current administration should continue robust support for missile defense, including the planned deployment of a new missile defense network in Europe to defend America and our allies against long-range Iranian systems.

Notable Facts: 1.

Former Secretary of Defense Gates and current Secretary of Defense Leon Paenetta have both 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... We are not the problem.‖

2.

The United States spends more 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.

FPI Resources: 

―The Defense Budget Has Already Suffered Cuts,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie Fly, Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, October 18, 2011.



―The Military‘s Steep Cuts,‖ FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate, The Weekly Standard Blog, October 17, 2011.



―Sequestration's Hidden Trillion Dollar Cut to Defense,‖ FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate, The Weekly Standard Blog, September 16, 2011.



―FPI Analysis: Defense Spending And The Super Committee,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, September 12, 2011.



―Warning: Hollow Force Ahead!‖ Defending Defense project (American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, Heritage Foundation), July 21, 2011.

23






―The Price Of Power,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, The Weekly Standard, January 15, 2011.


―Will Congress Pull The Trigger And Shoot The U.S. Military?‖ Mackenzie Eaglen, AOL Defense, October 21, 2011.



―Why Defense Cuts Don‘t Make Sense,‖ Representative Buck McKeon, The Wall Street Journal, October 14, 2011.



―No More Cuts,‖ Gary Schmitt and Tom Donnelly, The Weekly Standard, October 10, 2011.



Prepared Testimony on Defense before the House Armed Services Committee, Tom Donnelly, House Armed Services Committee, September 13, 2011.

24

Europe - NATO As rogue states continue to pursue dangerous weapons, terrorists seek to disrupt our way of life, and new and resurgent powers emerge, it remains vital that the United States and our European allies work together closely to meet such threats. Since 1949, NATO, a military alliance composed of democratic nations with shared values, has defended and promoted freedom in locales as varied as Libya and Afghanistan. However, continued defense budget cuts by NATO members risk crippling the alliances‘ ability to confront the threats of tomorrow and is 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. Terrorism, nuclear and missile proliferation, instability in Africa and the Middle East, disruption of sea lanes critical to global commerce, a resurgent Russia, and a more assertive China are just a few examples of the wide range of challenges the United States and our democratic allies will face in the next decade. 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 Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted recently: ―NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 40,000 troops.‖



The President‘s attempt to ―reset‖ relations with Russia alienated America‘s allies in Central and Eastern Europe. By moving strategically closer to Russia, President Obama placed distance in Washington‘s relations with the democratic states of ―New Europe.‖ Many of these countries – including Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Georgia – had made major deployments of forces 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, and his abandonment of the ―Third Site‖ in favor of the ―PhasedAdaptive Approach‖ left our allies feeling betrayed.



America must voice support for European democrats as they continue to fight against authoritarianism. Alexander Lukashenko‘s regime in Belarus – Europe‘s last dictatorship – is in the midst of a full-fledged crackdown against civilian demonstrators following his victory in Presidential ―elections‖ in 2010. 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 trial and conviction of former Prime Minister – and opponent of Yanukovych in the 2010 presidential election – Yuliya Tymoshenko is one such example. The U.S. and European Union must continue to embrace a vision of a Europe whole and free, and maintain strong economic and diplomatic pressure against Minsk and Kiev.

25

Notable Facts: 1.

In two decades, the size of British armed forces has shrunk by nearly 40%, with the Royal Navy bearing the largest burden of downsizing. Further, the British government announced recently that the defense budget will be cut by another 8 percent over the next four years, with military manpower reduced by approximately 10%.

2.

Defense budgets across Europe will continue to decrease as a result of the world financial crisis and ongoing debt crisis. This year, only five of NATO‘s 28 members will meet NATO‘s budgetary requirement of 2% GDP on defense. 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.

3.

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

FPI Resources: 

―Maintaining Defense Spending Critical To U.S.-UK Special Relationship,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly and Henry Jackson Society Executive Director Alan Mendoza, Joint Bulletin, October 22, 2010.



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



―A Special Relationship In Jeopardy,‖ FPI Director Eric Edelman, The American Interest, July/August 2010.



―Open Letter to President Obama on Central Europe,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, October 2, 2009



―A Stab in the Back,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie Fly, The Weekly Standard, September 19, 2009



―Why Europe Needs Star Wars,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie Fly and Wess Mitchell, Foreign Policy, September 9, 2009


―Democratic Change In Belarus: A Framework For Action,‖ Center for European Policy Analysis and Freedom House, September 2011.



―Promise And Reversal: The Post-Soviet Landscape Twenty Years On,‖ Arch Puddington, Freedom House, August 19, 2011.



―Keeping New Allies: An Assessment Of U.S. Policy In Central Europe,‖ Center for European Policy Analysis, July 15, 2011.



―The Security And Defense Agenda (Future Of NATO),‖ Address by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, June 10, 2011.



―Sounding The Alarm: Protecting Democracy In Ukraine,‖ David Kramer, Robert Nurick, Damon Wilson, with Evan Alterman, Freedom House, April 2011.

26

Iran Iran is one of the most critical security threats facing the United States and our democratic allies. The Islamic Republic of Iran has falsely c l a i m ed that organized dissent has disappeared and that its rule is unquestioned, in an attempt to demonstrate to the United States and its Middle Eastern allies that they have no choice but to accept Iran‘s domestic, regional and nuclear ambitions. The recent eruption of unrest in Iran in response to similar Arab Spring protests across the Middle East proves that discontent remains widespread in the country and that, contrary to the predictions of many, the prodemocracy reformers‘ ‗Green Movement‘ is still very much alive.

Key Points: 

The United States and our allies should support Iran‘s democracy movement and hold its government accountable for ongoing violations of human rights. To this end, the United States and our allies should: 1) repeatedly raise Iranian human rights violations, whether in bilateral diplomacy or in international forums; 2) press for the release of political prisoners and ask that Iran hold the perpetrators of human rights abuses to account; and 3) support further sanctions against individual regime human rights abusers.



Democratic change in Iran is in the 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 toward 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 stand firmly against Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. The International Atomic Energy Agency continues to report that Iran is working to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. A nuclear-armed Iran would likely have grave consequences: neighboring states have already indicated they would begin their own nuclear programs; Iran‘s regional ambitions and proxies such as Hezbollah would be energized, and Israel‘s security would be highly 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‘s only a matter of time before Iran acquires nuclear weapons. While all options should remain open, U.S. and international economic and political pressure on Tehran should be increased. In addition to strong support for Iran‘s reform movement, economic sanctions, including a ban on gasoline exports to Iran, should be tightened further.



Failure to confront Iran over its nuclear program will force Israel to act alone. Tehran has repeatedly threatened and made clear that nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to Israel‘s national security. If the United States fails to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will likely take preemptive action against Iran‘s nuclear facilities. Iranianbacked Hezbollah would retaliate with terrorist and rocket attacks against Israeli cities.

27



Iranian government forces continue to plan and orchestrate international acts of terrorism. In October, U.S. officials uncovered an Iranian terror plot to kill the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States. The plot, backed by Iran‘s Quds Force, an elite unit of Revolutionary Guards, planned to detonate an explosive device in Washington, D.C.

Notable Facts: 1.

The number of imprisoned journalists, human rights defenders, and political activists rapidly increased in 2010.

2.

Reporters Without Borders reported in December 2010, ―The number of journalists now detailed in the Islamic Republic of Iran now stands at 37, which makes it the world‘s biggest prison for the media.‖

3.

In January 2011, more than six political prisoners were executed and at least 90 other executions were carried out. This prompted the European Parliament‘s Foreign Affairs Committee and UN experts to call for a moratorium on executions.

4.

Though the regime denies having political prisoners, activists have been able to identify at least 1,000 languishing in Iranian prisons.

5.

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.‖

6.

Iran uses terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas as proxies for terrorism and instability and 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.

FPI Resources: 

―Speak Softly… And Fight Back,‖ FPI Director William Kristol, The Weekly Standard, October 15, 2011.



―Iran Is Dangerous And Diplomacy Has Failed,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie Fly, National Review Online‘s The Corner, October 14, 2011.



―Foreign Policy Initiative/Freedom House Analysis: The Green Movement Returns,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative and Freedom House, March 30, 2011.



FPI Executive Director Jamie Fly Testimony on Nonproliferation, House Foreign Affairs Committee, September 23, 2010.


―The New IAEA Report: Beyond Weaponization,‖ Blaise Misztal, The Bipartisan Policy Center‘s Beat Blog, November 10, 2011.



―The Hidden Hand,‖ Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn, The Weekly Standard, August 15, 2011.



―Ahmadinejad Vs. The Ayatollahs,‖ Abbas Milani, The National Interest, June 21, 2011.



―The Logic Of Our Iran Sanctions,‖ Reuel Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz, The Weekly Standard, December 25, 2010. 28

Iraq With the critical assistance of the United States, Iraq has made strides toward establishing a fairly stable, functioning democracy in the heart of a region experiencing transformative revolutions. Even so, Iraq still faces difficult challenges as it emerges from decades of dictatorship. Lingering sectarian tensions remain, and the political process is at times sclerotic. The Obama administration‘s decision to withdraw all U.S. military forces from the country by the end of 2011 will potentially endanger the hardwon security gains of the 2007-2008 surge of forces into Iraq, and leave Iraq vulnerable to external threats and influence. A residual force of approximately 20,000 U.S. troops could have helped secure Baghdad‘s political and strategic orientation towards the west, and defended the country from external threats until the Iraqi military was trained and equipped to be able to do so. While the State Department will have thousands of personnel, many of them contractors in Iraq after 2012, their presence will be insufficient to this task.

Key Points: 

Substantial progress has been made in Iraq. It is worth recalling how Iraq looked just a few years ago: widespread sectarian violence, frequent al-Qaeda-staged, high-profile bombings, poorly trained and ill-equipped Iraqi security forces, an always grid-locked parliament, and low oil production. Nonetheless, Iraqis today still face political, economic and security challenges.



The failure to secure a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) beyond 2011 represents a dramatic diplomatic failure for 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 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 the broader U.S. and allied effort for an historic transformation of the region ─ a change that leads to governments that respect individual freedom and human rights, an atmosphere that sparks profound economic reform and opportunity, and 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-invasion period attempting to influence or intimidate Baghdad by arming and aiding Shia sectarian militias. Those militias are still the pre-eminent security threat that Iraq faces. Because the United States will have left before the Iraqi military could be properly trained and equipped, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will likely be forced to make accommodations with Tehran in order to preserve Iraqi sovereignty. Maintaining a strong U.S. presence in-country would have kept Baghdad strategically oriented towards the west.

29

Notable Facts: 1.

In the fall of 2008, the United States and Iraq agreed to a Status of Forces Agreement that government the legal status of U.S. forces in Iraq until 2011.

2.

On October 21, 2011, President Obama formally announced that all forces would withdraw by the end of the year. While Iraqi leaders signaled their desire to open negotiations on allowing a U.S. troop mission past 2011, the Obama administration did not recognize or reciprocate those advances until 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. Civilian State Department personnel will fill this role, moving forward.

4.

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

5. Iran has used a wide variety of means—including the use of proxy military groups—to

sway or pressure Baghdad into its strategic orbit. American soft power efforts in response have thus far been weak or non-existent.

FPI Resources: 

―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 Fly, Henry Jackson Society, Summer 2010.


―Defeat In Iraq,‖ Frederick Kagan, Kimberly Kagan, and Marisa Cochrane Sullivan, The Weekly Standard, November 7, 2011.



―Retreating With Our Heads Held High,‖ Frederick Kagan and Kimberly Kagan, The Weekly Standard Blog, October 21, 2011.



―Losing Iraq?‖ Max Boot, The Weekly Standard, September 19, 2011.



―The Case For Staying In Iraq,‖ Michael O‘Hanlon, The National Interest, September 12, 2011.



―Iraq Trip Report,‖ Marisa Cochrane Sullivan and Ramzy Mardini, Institute for the Study of War, August 4, 2011



―Iraq Threat Assessment: The Dangers To The United States, Iraq, And Mideast Stability Of Abandoning Iraq At The End Of 2011,‖ Frederick Kagan, Critical Threats Project, American Enterprise Institute, May 2011.

30

Israel/Peace Process The United States and Israel share fundamental values and also many concerns. Today, Israel faces ongoing threats from Hamas, Syria and its Lebanon-based surrogate Hezbollah, and from Iran, which continues to pursue a rogue nuclear program and sponsor terrorist organizations. It is critical for the United States to maintain its special relationship with Israel ─ a relationship that successive American administrations have understood 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. For example, President Obama‘s call in early 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 (D-NV) acknowledged that such preconditions were counterproductive to securing peace: ―The place where negotiating will happen must be at the negotiating table – and nowhere else…. Those negotiations … will not happen – and their terms will not be set – through speeches, or in the streets, or in the media…. No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else.‖



Israel needs a Palestinian partner who is not only willing to negotiate sincerely, but also has the capacity to enforce an agreement that would provide both the Palestinian people with an independent state and Israel with secure, 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, or abide by previous peace agreements.



To advance an enduring peace, the United States should seek also 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 assistance to Syrian opposition groups; (4) impose a no-fly / no-go zone in Syria; 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, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas submitted his request to the United Nations to become a formal state. The United States has said it will veto the legislation, though the Obama administration has publically supported the idea of a Palestinian state within two years. Palestinian statehood would dissuade peace negotiations and possibly force Israel to surrender valuable land.

31

Notable Facts: 1.

Though the Palestinian leadership was duly elected, the parliament and president have well exceeded the democratic mandate of their terms. President Mahmoud Abbas was elected in January 2005 for a term that ended in January 2009, though 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 were split between Abbas‘s Fatah party controlling the West Bank, and Hamas controlling the Gaza Strip.

3.

Though the economies of both the West Bank and Gaza are reliant on foreign aid, 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 2009-2010, 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 – i.e. allowing expanding ―upward,‖ but not ―outward.‖


―Israel: A True Ally In The Middle East,‖ Robert D. Blackwill and Walter B. Slocombe, Los Angeles Times, October 31, 2011.



―The Gaza Flotilla and International Law,‖ Peter Berkowitz, Policy Review, August 1, 2011.



―The Settlement Obsession,‖ Elliott Abrams, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2011.



―Fatah, Hamas, And The Statehood Gambit,‖ Jonathan Schanzer, Commentary, June 2011.



―The End of The ‗Peace Process,‘‖ Elliott Abrams, Council on Foreign Relations, May 6, 2011.

32

Non-Military Foreign Aid American aid to nations and international organizations plays a critical role in advancing U.S. interests and values around the globe. From major aid programs, such as the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild post-war 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: 

Properly monitored and targeted, the United States has a national interest in continuing foreign development aid. 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 strengthen American allies and develop new ones at a time when emerging powers, such as China, have become active across the globe. The Republic of Georgia, Ukraine, and the Philippines are among the strategically important nations that have received such grants.



American foreign aid has helped millions of people and reflects the generous character of our people. While all efforts should be made to ensure that American aid is spent properly and for its intended purpose, it is important to remember that U.S. aid has saved countless men, women and children from starvation and disease, particularly in African nations. It has helped transition nations ruled by dictators to governments that uphold the human rights 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 American goods and services.

Notable Facts: 1.

The total international affairs budget represents a little more than 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.

Civilian foreign assistance is essential in areas where the United States is at war. As General David Petraeus, the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, testified before Congress, ―Inadequate resourcing of our civilian partners could, in fact, jeopardize accomplishment of the overall mission.‖

3.

Foreign aid promotes health, education, infrastructural development, economic growth, and good governance. Forty-three million countries have cut incidents of malaria in half, 42 million Africans have been enabled to attend school.

4.

The Obama Administration has worked to change our development model by crafting the first U.S. development policy. This approach emphasizes economic growth and accountability, in order to create the conditions in which foreign assistance is no longer needed.

33

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 relied on U.S. aid, now it has one of the largest economies in the world and a foreign assistance donor.

6.

Foreign aid 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 foreign assistance reform legislation.

FPI Resources: 

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



―Open Letter: 7 Foreign Policy And Human Rights Orgs: Proposed Cuts To State And Foreign Ops Budget Threat To National Security,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, et al, February 17, 2011.


―Conservative Foreign Aid,‖ Elliott Abrams, National Review, November 28, 2011



―Soft Power Part of Reagan Legacy,‖ Former Senator Norm Coleman and Governor Mike Huckabee, POLITICO, November 18, 2011



―USAID Is Foreign Policy‘s Best Dollar Value,‖ J. Brian Atwood, Henrietta Holsman Fore, M. Peter McPherson and Andrew Natsios, POLITICO, November 3, 2011.



―Invest In US Global Leadership,‖ Former Senator Tom Daschle and Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, POLITICO, July 29, 2011.



―Why Congress Shouldn‘t Slash Foreign Aid,‖ Former U.S. Representatives Jim Kolbe and Connie Morella, The Daily Caller, April 6, 2011.



―What Is Foreign Aid For?‖ Paul Miller, Foreign Policy Online, January 27, 2011.



―The Realist Case for Nation-Building,‖ Paul Miller, Foreign Policy Online, September 23, 2010.



―USAID: Mend It, Don‘t End It,‖ Max Boot, Commentary‘s Contentions Blog, January 21, 2011.



―More Effective Foreign Assistance Can Pay Real Dividends,‖ Mark Green, Jim Kolbe, and Rob Mosbacher, The Daily Caller, January 28, 2011.

34

Russia The Obama administration's effort to 'reset' relations with Russia should not overlook the challenges that Moscow's current policies pose not only to a more stable, democratic world, but also to the survival of the fading democratic process within Russia. Together with our democratic allies, especially in Europe, the U.S.-Russian relationship should account for the reality of Russian behavior and is consistent with American interests and values. Continued violations of democratic rights and rule of law inside Russia should alarm everyone who expresses support for universal democratic rights and freedoms.

Key Points: 

The price of the administration‘s ‗reset‘ effort to gain Russian cooperation on non-proliferation and arms control, for example, should not be American timidity toward other Russian actions that harm U.S. interests. The United States should work with Russia when we have mutual interests, as we have in seeking a responsible reduction in nuclear armaments and securing loose nuclear materials. At the same time, Russia has prevented more effective sanctions to curb Iran‘s nuclear enrichment program and has sold Iran advanced anti-aircraft weapons systems. The U.S. diplomatic response to both actions has been weak and irresolute.



As appropriate, the United States should also seek solutions to major international issues without Russia. Although multiparty talks (the P5+1 and Six Party Talks) that included Russia and China may have seemed like a promising method to deal with Iran and North Korea, in practice they have served as another mechanism by which Russia and China continue to resist efforts to compel their client states. Instead, the United States, working with democratic allies, should seek other avenues to impair these regimes‘ capabilities.



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.

35

Notable Facts: 1.

Russia‘s parliamentary elections are scheduled for December 2011 and the presidential election is scheduled for March 2012.

2.

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.‖

3.

In 2000, Transparency International ranked Russia 82nd in the global ratings; in 2010, Russia had fallen to 154th.

4.

Today, the Indem think tank estimates market corruption at over $300 billion annually, roughly 25% of Russia‘s gross national product.

5.

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 Presidents Medvedev and Saakashvili signed on August 12, 2008.

FPI Resources: 

―Time to Abandon ‗Reset‘?‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly and Policy Director Robert Zarate, National Review Online, October 10, 2011.



―Loosening Putin‘s Grip,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, The Washington Post, June 17, 2011.



―FPI Analysis: Evaluating the U.S.-Russian ‗Reset,‘‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, June 22, 2010.


―The Dying Bear: Russia‘s Demographic Disaster,‖ Nicholas Eberstadt, Foreign Affairs, November 1, 2011.



―He‘s Back,‖ Cathy Young, The Weekly Standard, October 8, 2011.



―Russian Reality-Check,‖ David J. Kramer and Christopher Walker, Wall Street Journal Europe, October 4, 2011.



―After New START,‖ Mark Schneider, National Review Online, July 21, 2011.



―The Russian Reset: A Eulogy,‖ Jamie Kirchick, Commentary, April 2011.

36

Trade Free trade is critical to promoting America‘s economic prosperity by opening foreign markets for U.S. goods and services. Trade also enhances American 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. Absent U.S. leadership on trade, global protectionist sentiment could rise, delivering another blow to U.S. businesses and consumers resulting in fewer jobs, reduced wages and higher prices.



After a long delay, President Obama submitted free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea to Congress on October 3, 2011. The agreements—initially signed by the Bush administration in 2006 and 2007—received bipartisan support in Congress and were signed into law by President Obama several years after. 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 also expand export opportunities to Brazil and India. 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. President Obama should broaden export opportunities to Brazil and emulate the success of the 2006 U.S.-Brazil Commercial Dialogue. Additionally, the United States and India are bound together by increasingly shared values, face major terrorist threats, and stand to reap great benefits from deeper trade relations.



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. 

The U.S. economy benefits from the direct foreign investment that flows into U.S. companies. In turn, these companies often use this investment capital to fund research & 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.

37

2.

Combining 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 American farms is planted to feed hungry consumers overseas.

4.

In June 2011, the U.S. Department of Commerce‘s Economics and Statistics Administration reported that foreign direct investment in the United States over the past decade has supported more than 5 million U.S. jobs.

FPI Resources: 

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



―FPI Bulletin: High Time For Free Trade With South Korea, Colombia And Panama,‖ FPI Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, Foreign Policy Initiative, September 7, 2011.


―Enhance U.S. Security: Pass Free Trade Agreements With Colombia, Panama, And South Korea,‖ Ray Walser and Bruce Klingner, Heritage Foundation, June 21, 2011.



―Letter to President Obama,‖ former U.S. Trade Representatives Mickey Kantor and Charlene Barshefsky, et al, March 2, 2011.



―The U.S. Has No Good Reasons to Stall on Latin America Free-Trade Deals,‖ Washington Post (editorial), December 20, 2010.



―Colombia and Obama‘s Latin America Policy: Time To Close Ranks And Support A Friend,‖ Ray Walser, Heritage Foundation, July 23, 2010.

38

War on Terror/Islamic Extremism The United States must continue to isolate and defeat terrorists determined to attack the U.S. homeland and strategic interests and hold governments that cultivate such extremism accountable. The United States and our allies must also maintain resolve to succeed in Afghanistan and support Iraq, and seize the opportunities presented by the reform movements that are sweeping the Middle East. In doing so, the United States will dramatically weaken the message and appeal of Islamic extremism and further isolate such radicalism as a political force among Muslim populations.

Key Points: 

The United States must stay on the offense against terrorist organizations using all instruments of national power. Because the threat of another major attack remains, America, with allied help, must maintain sustained, comprehensive and global operations against our enemies using an array of tools: the Patriot Act and other homeland security measures, National Security Agency (NSA) terrorist surveillance programs, diplomatic initiatives, and covert/military operations ensuring a comprehensive approach, not solely focused on technical means is essential.



Success in Iraq and Afghanistan is critical to the long-term security interests of the United States. A stable, democratic, prosperous Iraq can play a larger beneficial role in the region. A U.S.-allied Iraq will enhance the historic transformation of the region currently underway─ a change that leads to democratic governments that respect individual freedom and human rights, an atmosphere that sparks profound economic reform and opportunity, and the repudiation of Islamic extremism. In Afghanistan, the United States has a vital interest that Afghan territory never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists threatening the U.S. homeland. Failures in Iraq and Afghanistan will only increase the terrorist risk to the U.S. homeland and vital interests across the globe and the likelihood that we will be drawn back into these countries.



In countering the forces of extremism, the United States must also focus on the vast majority of Muslims who seek a better future for themselves and their families. In particular, America and our allies should work with reformers who seek to build free, prosperous societies. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report noted the importance of such societal 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.‖



Thus, the United States should implement polices specifically designed to advance the longterm success of the Arab Spring. Even though the pace and success of the reformers in each nation will be uneven, America should pursue policies—whether economic aid, effective public diplomacy, or technical and legal expertise that has helped other nations transition to democracy—that advance the general reform effort. At the same time, such support should be reviewed and/or withdrawn in the event the respective government engages in anti-democratic activity.

39

Notable Facts: 1.

The United States remains at risk for terrorist attacks. Since 9/11 several high profile terrorist attacks against the homeland have been foiled because of U.S. intelligence gathering including the 2009 Christmas Day attack, the October 2010 parcel plot, and most recently the Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil.

2.

Since September 11, 2011 alone, an additional 40 attempted terrorist attacks against the homeland have been foiled according to The Heritage Foundation.

3.

Though 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.

FPI Resources: 

―We Can‘t Just Play Whack-A-Mole In The War On Terror‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie Fly and Policy Analyst Evan Moore, National Review Online‘s The Corner, September 30, 2011.



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



―The War Goes On,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie Fly, National Review Online‘s The Corner, May 2, 2011


―Targeted Killings Can't Be Total Strategy to Defeat Al Qaeda,‖ Frederick Kagan, American Enterprise Institute, September 30, 2011.



―Ten Years After 9/11: Al Qaeda's Reemergence In Yemen,‖ Katherine Zimmerman, American Enterprise Institute, September 20, 2011.



―What We Got Right In The War On Terror,‖ Abe Greenwald, Commentary, September 2011.



―Terror Partnership: AQAP and Shabaab,‖ Maseh Zarif, Critical Threats Project, American Enterprise Institute, July 2, 2011.



―The Threat to the U.S. Homeland Emanating from Pakistan,‖ Testimony of Frederick Kagan to the U.S. Committee on Homeland Security Committee, May 3, 2011.

40

© Foreign Policy Initiative 2011 For more information, please visit our website at www.foreignpolicyi.org.

41