Magazine or Newspaper Article, The National Interest
In the United States and Europe, many believe that the best way to prevent Russia’s resumption of its historic imperial mission is to assure the independence of Ukraine. They insist that the West must do whatever is required to stop the Kremlin from establishing direct or indirect control over that country. Otherwise, they foresee Russia reassembling the former Soviet empire and threatening all of Europe. Conversely, in Russia, many claim that while Russia is willing to recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity (with the exception of Crimea), Moscow will demand no less than any other great power would on its border. Security on its western frontier requires a special relationship with Ukraine and a degree of deference expected in major powers’ spheres of influence. More specifically, Russia’s establishment sentiment holds that the country can never be secure if Ukraine joins NATO or becomes a part of a hostile Euro-Atlantic community. From their perspective, this makes Ukraine’s nonadversarial status a nonnegotiable demand for any Russia powerful enough to defend its national-security interests.
April 19, 2015
Op-Ed, The Korea Times
By Joseph S. Nye, Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor
"...Russia seems doomed to continue its decline ― an outcome that should be no cause for celebration in the West. States in decline ― think of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914 ― tend to become less risk-averse and thus much more dangerous. In any case, a thriving Russia has more to offer the international community in the long run."
April 17, 2015
In this installment of “Inside the Middle East: Q&A,” recorded on April 16, 2015, Nabil Fahmy, Former Foreign Minister of Egypt and Dean and Professor of Practice in International Diplomacy, School of Global Affairs and Public Policy (GAPP), American University Cairo, discusses Egypt’s transitional process, public policy challenges, and foreign policy, including relations with Iran and intervention in Yemen.
April 16, 2015
Op-Ed, Financial Times
By Kevin Rudd, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
When China’s economic output eventually surpasses America’s some time in the next decade, it will be the first time since the reign of George III that the world’s largest economy belongs to a country that is not western, not English-speaking and not a liberal democratic state. Yet, in the asymmetric world that is emerging, the US will remain the dominant military force. The fulcrums of economic and military power are separating. Can these changes in the distribution of power occur peacefully?
April 17, 2015
Russia in Review: a digest of useful news from U.S.-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism for April 10-17, 2015
April 16, 2015
Op-Ed, The Boston Globe
By Nicholas Burns, Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics, Harvard Kennedy School
In this article, Professor Burns reflects on the last decade of American attempts to negotiate with Iran. What neither party really wants to admit is that both of them were critical in getting the U.S. to this point. Democrats don't give President George W. Bush enough credit for having made the decision a decade ago to seek talks with Iran on the nuclear issue. And, Republicans can't bring themselves to acknowledge that President Barack Obama strengthened Bush's sanctions in a very effective way to induce Iran to negotiate.
While the two parties joust over Iran, it is in the interest of both to find a way to coalesce as the U.S. will be negotiating with Iran on a deal and its implementation for well beyond the next decade. As Congress inserts itself into the negotiations this week, it would be wise to do so in a way that strengthens, rather than weakens, the President's hand in the tough talks ahead with Iran.
Finally, Professor Burns notes that is is worth remembering how far we have come to reach a possible final agreement with Iran. After nearly thirty five years of bitter separation from Iran, it is smart and useful for Americans to be at the negotiating table with Iranians trying to work out our many differences rather than see them play out on a distant battlefield.
April 16, 2015
Op-Ed, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
By Ariane Tabatabai, Associate, International Security Program/Project on Managing the Atom
"The Middle East's only operating nuclear power plant, Bushehr, is located in Iran's south, close to the Persian Gulf. The rest of the eight reactors Tehran has planned will also be built in the area. This means that any safety breach would not only affect Iran's population, but also have cross-border implications."
April 15, 2015
The Future of Diplomacy Project proudly hosted former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright at the Spangler Center in April through the American Secretaries of State Project, jointly directed by Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School's Program On Negotiation. Led by Faculty Directors, Professor Nicholas Burns of the Harvard Kennedy School, Professor James Sebenius of the Harvard Business School, and Professor Robert Mnookin from Harvard Law School, the program seeks to interview former Secretaries of State to gain their insights into how modern diplomacy and negotiation can be used effectively in reponse to "intractable" conflicts.
April 14, 2015
By Chuck Freilich, Senior Fellow, International Security Program
"Netanyahu's actions are unprecedented in U.S. history. A foreign leader — from a country considered to be a close U.S. ally — has placed himself, frontally, between a U.S. president and a major presidential foreign policy initiative. Not diplomatic reservations, along with discrete behind the scenes efforts to improve the agreement. Not a polite request to amend the agreement, but total public opposition, designed to torpedo the agreement, along with unrealistic demands...."
April 8, 2015
Op-Ed, Just Security
By Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Based on an initial reading, I believe the framework for a nuclear agreement with Iran is worth trying to develop into a concrete deal, as long as the US-led coalition stays tough on terms, and recognizes that there are no verification measures that can guarantee that Iran won’t cheat. These negotiations are not about creating a legally binding document that replaces Iran’s existing obligations under the Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT), which remain binding. Thus, the details of compliance and measures of verification are notable, but they won’t prove to be decisive in ultimately assessing the merits of the agreement.