US PRIMACY
AP Photo
November 1, 2009
"A Middle Way, Best Solution to Nuclear Crisis"
Op-Ed, Iran Review
By Kayhan Barzegar, Research Fellow, Project on Managing the Atom/International Security Program
"Although it is difficult under the current circumstances to predict Iran's response to the agreement, but all signs point to a middle way, which if chosen carefully, could be positive and in line with Iran's national interests. In fact, if Iran kept part of the enriched uranium in the country and sent the rest to another country, it would pave the way for the continuation of cooperation."
AP Photo
Summer 2009
"Hard Decisions on Soft Power: Opportunities and Difficulties for Chinese Soft Power"
Magazine or Newspaper Article, Harvard International Review, issue 2, volume 31
By Joseph S. Nye, Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor and Wang Jisi
"But just as China's economic and military power does not yet match that of the United States, China's soft power still has a long way to go as demonstrated by a Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll. China does not have cultural industries like Hollywood, and its universities are not yet the equal of the United States. It lacks the many non-governmental organizations that generate much of US soft power. Politically, China suffers from corruption, inequality, and a lack of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. While that may make the "Beijing consensus" attractive in authoritarian and semi-authoritarian developing countries, it undercuts China's soft power in the West. Although China's new diplomacy has enhanced its attractiveness to its neighbors in Southeast Asia, the belligerence of its hard power stance toward Taiwan hurt it in Europe when China sought to persuade Europeans to relax their embargo on the sale of arms. Given the domestic problems that China must still overcome, there are limits to China's ability to attract others, but one would be foolish to ignore the gains the country is making."
Belfer Center
September 25, 2009
Ernest May: Bridging the Chasm Between History and Policy
Highlight
By Sharon Wilke, Associate Director of Communications
On September 24, 2009, the Belfer Center hosted a seminar to discuss Ernest May's unique ability to serve as a bridge between history and policy. A member of the Belfer Center's board of directors until his death in June 2009, Ernest May was a world renowned historian of international relations and foreign policy and a member of the Harvard faculty for over 50 years. During the seminar, "Reflections on Ernest May: A Rare Bridge Between History and Policy," a number of May's colleagues, students, friends, and family members reflected on Ernest (Ernie) May, the man, and on his "extraordinary" contributions.
AP Photo
September 14, 2009
"American Power in 21st Century"
Op-Ed, The Korea Times
By Joseph S. Nye, Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor
The problem for American power in the 21st century is that there are more and more things outside the control of even the most powerful state. Although the U.S. does well on military measures, there is much going on that those measures fail to capture.
AP Photo/Eyad Baba)
August 24, 2009
"Talk to Hamas"
Op-Ed, Agence Global
By Rami Khouri, Senior Fellow, The Dubai Initiative
Is it important for Israel and the United States to sit down with Hamas and talk business? Yes, it is, according to Rami Khouri, for the same reasons the US is trying to extract itself from its self-inflicted mess in Afghanistan by negotiating with Taliban elements, and from Iraq by partnering with and paying off Sunni insurgents who had spent several years killing Americans.
AP Photo
July 29, 2009
"Obama's Jaha to Israel"
Op-Ed, Agence Global
By Rami Khouri, Senior Fellow, The Dubai Initiative
The Obama jaha of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell, National Security Adviser James Jones and White House senior adviser Dennis Ross aims simultaneously to impress, comfort, pressure and woo the Israeli government to accept the terms of engagement in the Arab-Israeli peace-making process that the United States has unilaterally put on the table.
Summer 2009
"The Waning of U.S. Hegemony—Myth or Reality? A Review Essay"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 1, volume 34
By Christopher Layne, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 1995-1996
Over the next two decades, international politics will be shaped by whether the international system remains unipolar or is transformed into a multipolar system. Can the United States sustain its primacy? Or will the emergence of new great powers reorder the distribution of power in the international system?
AP Photo
June 2009
"Improving Russia-U.S. Relations: The Next Steps"
Policy Memo
By Thomas M. Nichols, Research Fellow, International Security Program/Project on Managing the Atom
There is no endemic reason for Russian-U.S. relations to be as tense as they have become over the past several years. Th is situation is largely due, on one side, to mishandling of Russian affairs by both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and on the other by the obvious manipulation of anti-Americanism for domestic gain by the Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev administrations in Russia. Unfortunately, this means that only unilateral U.S. action can undermine the cynical policies of the Russian leadership and restore dynamism to the Russian-U.S. relationship.
AP Photo
May 1, 2009
"U.S.-China Relations: Key Next Steps"
News
By Beth Maclin, Communications Assistant
With the United States and China expected to be the two dominant powers in the twenty-first century, it is essential that they actively manage their relationship to avoid military conflict, a group of distinguished Chinese and American scholars said at a major conference in Washington, D.C. The scholars—from Harvard Kennedy School, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and elsewhere—have worked together for more than two years to create a blueprint for a new relationship between the two countries.
AP Photo
Spring 2009
"How Smart and Tough Are Democracies? Reassessing Theories of Democratic Victory in War"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 4, volume 33
By Alexander B. Downes, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2007-2008
New evidence challenges the near-conventional argument that democracies are more likely than nondemocracies to win wars they start. A reanalysis of original data on war outcomes and an in-depth case study of the Johnson administration's decisions regarding Vietnam in 1965 demonstrate that democracies of all types are not significantly more likely to win wars. Furthermore, they are constrained by domestic politics and are often pressured into unwinnable wars.
