"Frameworks for Evaluating Policy Approaches to Address the Competitiveness Concerns of Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions"
By Joseph E. Aldy, Faculty Affiliate, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements
Joseph Aldy examines competitiveness risks from domestic carbon pricing policies, as well as the risks posed by competitiveness policies (for example, border tax adjustments) intended to alleviate adverse impacts of carbon pricing. The paper presents two alternative frameworks for evaluating competitiveness policy options.
July 12, 2016
Op-Ed, The Business Times
By Derwin Pereira, International Council Member, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
In a dramatic gesture intended to refocus China's attention on its relations with Indonesia, President Joko Widodo visited the Natuna Islands recently.
July 12, 2016
By Ben Heineman, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Corporations have been attacked from both right and left during the 2016 presidential election: on trade, on immigration, on campaign finance, on crony capitalism, on inequality. Fortune Editor and long-time political reporter Alan Murray says business-government relations in the U.S. are “easily the worst in the three decades I’ve covered them.” But the current across-the-spectrum, anti-corporate distemper and distrust is a global trend as reflected in the Brexit vote which overrode consensus concerns about injury to both UK and non-UK business.
July 11, 2016
Op-Ed, The World Post
By Charles G. Cogan, Associate, International Security Program
"Barack Obama has an elegance of speech which takes us back to FDR and JFK. But unlike LBJ, who was rather repugnant to Eastern Seaboard eyes and ears, he doesn't know how to move in the distinctly American legislative arena."
July 11, 2016
Op-Ed, The Diplomat
By Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
This week the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) will deliver its award in the Philippines’ case against China over maritime disputes in the South China Sea. In a bid to thwart Beijing’s attempt to turn the South China Sea into its own virtual lake, Manila contends that China’s claim to exclusive sovereignty over all the islands and shoals within the nine-dashed line – which encompasses 86 percent of the Sea – has no basis in international law. There is not much suspense about what the tribunal will decide: it will almost certainly side with the Philippines. The United States and its allies have already started criticizing China for signaling in advance that it will ignore the court’s ruling, which one Chinese official derided last week as “nothing more than a piece of paper.”
July 10, 2016
Op-Ed, Financial Times
By Lawrence Summers, Charles W. Eliot University Professor
It is clear after the Brexit vote and Donald Trump's victory in the Republican presidential primaries that voters are revolting against the relatively open economic policies that have been the norm in the US and Britain since the second world war.
July 8, 2016
In this report, the Kosciuszko Institute invited authors to take up the most pressing cybersecurity challenges facing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The NATO Summit in Warsaw should begin the discussion about these key areas. Everything indicates that in the coming years, the discussions on the direction of the Alliance’s involvement in cyber operations will be dominated by two issues. The first concerns the need for the Alliance to specify exactly the activities carried out in the framework of collective defence and the development of NATO’s capabilities, including offensive, to operate in cyberspace. The second, frequently brought up in the discussion about the cybersecurity of the Alliance, is the need for comprehensive measures to be implemented to counter hybrid threats, including the multi-dimensional use of cyberspace as one of the most critical elements.
July 8, 2016
By Kate Miller, Former Research and Project Assistant, Cyber Security Project
While the issue of cyber operations beyond NATO’s own networks is a politically difficult one given the complex mosaic of national, transnational (EU), and international law; the role of national intelligence efforts in certain types of operations; and ever-present disputes over burden-sharing, the Alliance already has invaluable experience in developing policies and procedures for contentious and sensitive tools in the form of the Nuclear Planning Group (NPG). This article begins with a brief overview of actions NATO has already taken to address cyberthreats. It will then explore why these, while important, are insufficient for the present and any imaginable future geopolitical threat environment. Next, it will address the history of the NPG, highlighting some parallels with the present situation regarding cyber and drawing out the challenges faced by, and activities and mechanisms of, the NPG. Finally, it will make the case that a group modeled on the NPG can not only significantly enhance the Alliance’s posture in cyberspace, but can serve as an invaluable space for fostering entente and reconciling differences on key aspects of cyber policy. It concludes that the Alliance needs to consider offensive cyber capabilities and planning, and it needs a Cyber Planning Group to do it.
July 8, 2016
Op-Ed, The Boston Globe
By Simon Saradzhyan, Director, Russia Matters Project; Assistant Director, U.S.-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Leaders of NATO countries will open a summit in Warsaw on Friday which is expected to authorize a force of 4,000 soldiers in the Baltics and Poland — an attempt to prevent Russia from repeating its Ukraine policy of instigating an insurgency somewhere in the alliance’s eastern flank. Russia has already vowed to respond by deploying three divisions to its border on a permanent basis. Moscow may be planning to announce additional measures after the NATO summit.
July 8, 2016
Op-Ed, Foreign Policy
By Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program
"...[W]hat this (mostly) tongue-in-cheek exercise really tells you is that the whole conversation about U.S. interests, strategies, power, and purpose hasn't seen a lot of new ideas in the past couple of decades, and certainly hasn’t seen much in the way of new rhetoric."