EAST ASIA
September 15, 1990
Our Ounce of Prevention Saves the Allies Billions;Burden-Sharing: Compared with the Benefits of Oil Peace, Contributions Promised by Japan Germany and Others Hardly Make a Down Payment.
Op-Ed, Los Angeles Times
By Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School and Kerry Abelson, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 1988-1989
Although Japan and Germany are two of biggest beneficiaries of the American military buildup in the Persian Gulf, both seek to shirk their fair share of the costs. After vacillating, the Japanese government first pledged a symbolic $1 billion but waffled on what it intended to count. In response to sharp criticism, Japan has now doubled its pledge, but is still short on specifics. Similarly, last week Germany just said no. A senior government official explained that because the military deployment was primarily American, "it should be paid for by one nation." Sen. Sam Nunn expressed the annoyance of a growing chorus of Americans when he called these responses "absolutely ridiculous."
August 2007
Reassessing Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific: Competition, Congruence, and Transformation
Book
By Amitav Acharya and Evelyn Goh
Since the 1990s, Asia-Pacific countries have changed their approaches to security cooperation and regional order. The end of the Cold War, the resurgence of China, the Asian economic crisis, and the events of September 11, 2001, have all contributed to important changes in the Asia-Pacific security architecture.
Winter 2003/04
"Will Asia's Past Be Its Future?"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 3, volume 28
Amitav Acharya comments on David Kang’s spring 2003 article “Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytic Frameworks." Acharya praises Kang for challenging the pessimists’ view that Asia“is ripe for rivalry,” but questions his use of evidence in suggesting that Asian states are more likely to bandwagon with Chinathan balance against it.
AP Photo
November 2010
"Institutions for International Climate Governance"
Policy Brief
By Harvard Project on Climate Agreements
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has significant advantages but also real challenges as a venue for international negotiations on climate change policy. In the wake of the Fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-15) in Copenhagen, December 2009, it is important to reflect on institutional options going forward for negotiating and implementing climate change policy.
November 2009
"Climate Finance"
Policy Brief
By The Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements
The finance of climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries represents a key challenge in the negotiations on a post-2012 international climate agreement. Finance mechanisms are important because stabilizing the climate will require significant emissions reductions in both the developed and the developing worlds, and therefore large-scale investments in energy infrastructure. The current state of climate finance has been criticized for its insufficient scale, relatively low share of private-sector investment, and insufficient institutional framework. This policy brief presents options for improving and expanding climate finance.
April 2012
"Nuclear Collisions: Discord, Reform & the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime"
Paper
By Steven E. Miller, Director, International Security Program; Editor-in-Chief, International Security; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom, Wael Al-Assad, Jayantha Dhanapala, C. Raja Mohan and Ta Minh Tuan
Nearly all of the 190 signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) agree that the forty-two-year-old treaty is fragile and in need of fundamental reform. But gaining consensus on how to fix the NPT will require reconciling the sharply differing views of nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states. Strengthening the international rules is increasingly important as dozens of countries, including some with unstable political environments, explore nuclear energy. The result is an ever-increasing distribution of this technology. In this paper, Steven E. Miller outlines the main points of contention within the NPT regime and identifies the issues that have made reform so difficult.
July 2003
An American Security Policy: Challenge, Opportunity, Commitment
Paper
By Ashton B. Carter, Former Co-Director, Preventive Defense Project, Harvard & Stanford Universities, Dr. William J. Perry, Former Co-Director, Preventive Defense Project, Secretary Madeleine K. Albright, Samuel R. Berger, Louis Caldera, General Wesley K. Clark, Former Senior Advisor, 2001-2009, Preventive Defense Project, General (ret.) John M. Shalikashvili, Former Founding Senior Advisor, Preventive Defense Project, Dr. Elizabeth D. Sherwood-Randall, Former Founding Senior Advisor, Preventive Defense Project, Alfonso E. Lenhardt and John D. Podesta
A paper by the National Security Advisory Group
AP Photo
April 2012
"Safe, Secure and Effective Nuclear Operations in the Nuclear Zero Era"
Paper
By Ronald G. Allen, Jr., Former Research Fellow, International Security Program/Project on Managing the Atom, 2011–2012
Without significant change in the geopolitical landscape, nuclear weapons will remain a relevant portion of America's long-term national security strategy. Therefore, the burdens and responsibilities of maintaining an effective nuclear deterrent force are paramount to ensure credibility for America and her allies. Bottom line: nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence are still relevant today and for the foreseeable future. Therefore, to maintian international strategic stability we must embrace the necessity of nuclear deterrence, develop strategic policy that supports deterrence as an essential element and adequately resource the enterprise.
Spring 2013
"From the Director"
Newsletter Article, Belfer Center Newsletter
By Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School
"The strategic partnership between Harvard and China is unique among universities of the world," writes Belfer Center Director Graham Allison, "this relationship is reflected in decades of scholarship in Cambridge, tens of thousands of Chinese graduates of Harvard graduate and executive programs, and the policies of both governments that have brought us to this point."
March 26, 2013
"China Doesn't Belong in the BRICS"
Op-Ed, The Atlantic
By Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School
China's new president, Xi Jinping, arrives in South Africa today for a summit of the BRICS: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The leaders who gather will search for what these nations have in common. The larger question, however, is whether this acronym has become an anachronism. Graham Allison explores whether lumping these nations under a single label confuses more than it clarifies.
