April 18, 2016
By Charles G. Cogan, Associate, International Security Program
Created as a state only in 1830, largely at the instigation of the British, who wanted it as a buffer against possible further French imperialism, it could be argued that the country could have been divided along linguistic lines, between France and the Netherlands.
April 18, 2016
Op-Ed, Foreign Policy
By Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program
"Gazing solely in the rearview mirror also discourages us from thinking about the actual problems we face today and devising constructive and creative solutions to them. Case in point: The United States is not going to go back to being a society with a comfortable Anglo-Protestant majority, no matter how much some people might want it to be. It's not going to be a country where gay people are back in the closet. It is not going to have a nuclear monopoly; it's not likely to turn its back on global trade (and if it does, it will be poorer), and it's not going to be able to dictate terms to anybody who gets in our way."
April 18, 2016
Op-Ed, The Boston Globe
By Niall Ferguson, Member of the Board, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
When I was a little boy, my mother liked to quote the following quatrain (sometimes attributed to the New York wit Dorothy Parker):
See the happy moron,
He doesn’t give a damn,
I wish I were a moron,
My God! perhaps I am!
I often think of the happy moron when I settle down to the read the International Monetary Fund’s semiannual publication, the World Economic Outlook. Almost without fail, this publication acknowledges that its previous projections were too optimistic and need to be revised downwards. The Fund’s economists then proceed to make new projections, surely knowing that they too will soon need to be revised downwards.
April 18, 2016
By Se Young Jang, Associate, Project on Managing the Atom
Extended deterrence has been a main pillar of the security alliance between the United States and South Korea (Republic of Korea [ROK]) since the end of the Korean War. The changing dynamics of US extended deterrence in Korea, however, affected Seoul’s strategic choices within its bilateral alliance relationship with Washington. Examining the evolution of US extended deterrence in the Korean Peninsula until the Nixon administration, this article explains why South Korea began its nuclear weapons programme in a historical context of the US–ROK alliance relationship. This article argues that President Park Chung-hee’s increasing uncertainty about the US security commitment to South Korea in the 1960s led to his decision to develop nuclear weapons in the early 1970s despite the fact that US tactical nuclear weapons were still stationed in South Korea.
April 15, 2016
Op-Ed, Harvard Magazine
By Lawrence Summers, Charles W. Eliot University Professor
THE DECADE since Lawrence H. Summers departed Massachusetts Hall, the former Harvard president, now Eliot University Professor, took a sabbatical; resumed teaching; joined President Barack Obama’s administration to help secure recovery from the recession; and then re-engaged as a teacher, economics scholar, and participant in high-level policy discussions around the globe. Harvard Magazine visited Summers at his Kennedy School office for a reflective conversation about these activities and some of the ideas that interest him now.
April 15, 2016
Magazine or Newspaper Article, NATO Review
By Vera Mironova, Research Fellow, International Security Program
"...ISIL also wanted to increase the flow of dedicated foreign fighters. For that, they needed to increase the grievances of Western Muslims who could potentially become fighters. France and Belgium were chosen for an attack because those are countries with large Muslim populations, some of whom had already been attracted to ISIL. The attack could increase anti-Muslim sentiment and, as a result, the grievance of Western Muslims, which could increase the number of potential dedicated foreign recruits."
April 15, 2016
As India’s civilian nuclear energy program expands with the assistance of international nuclear suppliers, it creates new potential pathways to the acquisition of fissile material that could be diverted for military purposes. A key question is whether and how India’s civilian and military nuclear facilities are separated. In this discussion paper from the Belfer Center’s Project on Managing the Atom, Kalman A. Robertson and John Carlson argue that India has not established a complete and verifiable separation of its civilian and military nuclear programs. The authors recommend steps for India to take under its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to provide assurances to all states that components of its civilian program are not contributing to the growth of its nuclear arsenal. These steps include renouncing options that would facilitate the use of safeguarded items to produce unsafeguarded nuclear material, and placing the proliferation-sensitive components of its nuclear power industry under continuous safeguards.
April 14, 2016
Russia in Review: a digest of useful news from U.S.-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism for April 8-14, 2016
The world order that was created in the aftermath of World War II has produced immense benefits for peoples across the planet. The past 70 years have seen an unprecedented growth in prosperity, lifting billions out of poverty. Democratic government, once rare, has spread to over 100 nations around the world, on every continent, for people of all races and religions. And, although the period has been marked by war and suffering as well, peace among the great powers has been preserved. There has been no recurrence of the two devastating world wars of the first half of the 20th century.
NOTE: This white paper is republished with peermission from the World Economic Forum, the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The views expressed in this paper are those of the Global Agenda Council on the United States and do not necessarily represent the views of the World Economic Forum or its Members and Partners.
By Xiaoqi Xu, Former Giorgio Ruffolo Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Sustainability Science Program/Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, 2013–2014, Laura Diaz Anadon, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School; Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and Henry Lee, Director, Environment and Natural Resources Program
Various policies targeting at building energy efficiency have been promulgated by the Chinese government in the past decade. However, few studies evaluate if China is on the right path to meet its energy goals through these policies by providing an assessment of their effect in reducing energy consumption in residential buildings or the feasibility of such policies to catalyze these reductions. This paper attempts to fill this gap by systematically quantifying (1) the energy savings catalyzed by existing policy instruments; (2) the additional energy savings that could be realized by strengthening these policies; and (3) the relative advantages of each policy.