Quando Henry Kissinger scrisse che «le condizioni sono propizie» per «la creazione di una North Atlantic Free Trade Area» in grado di sostenere globalmente il principio del libero scambio e che, «nel medesimo tempo, favorirebbe la cooperazione» tra Stati Uniti ed Europa, non si riferiva certo agli anni successivi alla “grande crisi” del 2007, benché con lungimiranza raccomandasse all’Occidente di rilanciare la propria economia di fronte all’imminente ascesa dell’Asia. Era il maggio del 1995.
Since the partition of the Korean peninsula, the crises between Seoul and Pyongyang have ranked high in the US political agenda. Nonetheless, the profile that the Obama administration has chosen to keep is relatively low. This choice has triggered criticisms, however the posture has brought its own benefits. Moreover, in a difficult economic situation, and in the face of increasing pressures for the curtailing of government expenditure, the ‘low profile’ approach meets the demands of a Congress whose support the White House increasingly needs. The main uncertainty is in the attitude of the PRC. However Beijing, more than any other nation, has a keen interest in keeping East Asia stable. This does not mean that China will become a sort of ‘US cop’ in East Asia. However, some forms of localized cooperation can be envisaged; a cooperation that could strengthen, as China will progress in occupying the international position that its leadership believes the country deserves.
“Rebalancing” to the Asia Pacific is the signature foreign policy initiative of the Obama administration. Despite the attention it has rightfully garnered, the rebalance remains poorly understood. In addition to misapprehension about its fundamental principles, discussion appears to be dominated by what this policy isn’t rather than what it is. This essay aims to clear up the confusion, explain what the U.S. is doing as it shifts its strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region, and its implications for the U.S.-Japan alliance.
Although the US’s recent ‘pivot’ toward the East Asian region has been much discussed, inadequate attention has been paid to the political and economic consequences of this initiative. This paper considers the political-economy of the pivot and suggests that it is best understood as part of a long-standing pattern of American engagement with the region. However, the rise of China is placing important new constraints on America’s ability to use economic leverage as an element of its overall policies in the region. The paper explains why and details some of the most important elements in the evolving Asia-Pacific political-economy.
This essay discusses the new US grand strategy towards the Asia Pacific, epitomized by the slogan "Asia pivot". It does so by describing the main drivers behind the renewed geopolitical centrality of Asia for the United States, the objectives of the Obama administration in the region and the tools deployed by Washington as a consequence of this new approach. The conclusions briefly examine the limits, dilemmas and contradictions of the "Asia pivot" and of the US attempt to re-balance towards the Far East.
The existence of territorial and diplomatic disputes in East Asia raises serious concerns and, if escalated, could risk the region’s stability and prosperity. Focusing on three territorial and diplomatic disputes involving Japan, the Northern Territories, Takeshima, and the Senkaku Islands, this article explores ways to manage those disputes so as to maintain regional stability and prevent the situation from escalating in consistent with international law, practice and norms. The most basic principles to be adhered in this regard include, first, allowing the other party (or parties) to disagree, and second, maintaining the status quo not trying to change it by force. While these measures cannot by themselves solve the disputes, we at least need to prevent the current tensions from escalating into armed conflicts amongst the involved parties.
The predominantly military approach adopted by the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan is showing its limits. An increase in attacks against on the Coalition forces, especially by personnel infiltrated in the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) cast serious doubts on their reliability and arise some questions about the future of Afghanistan. The transfer of power from NATO troops to the Afghan government, now in its fourth and final stage, seems to be in a very deep crisis. Moreover, the assessment of the situation on the ground leaves open many questions for what concerns security, governance and socio-economical situation. The Resolute Support Mission, which from 2015 will replace ISAF is therefore likely to be the same mission with a different name.
To overtake the uncertainties about the role of US and NATO in the future of Afghanistan and to involve the regional partners: that's the only way for achieving the right conditions for a successful transition in all the three fundamental aspects of security, governance and development.
Only a top level and shared agreement could permit to achieve the conditions necessary to bring in an effective and successful shift of power.
In Italia il dibattito sulla presenza delle forze armate italiane nelle missioni all’estero è polarizzato fra coloro che sostengono il ritiro da tutte o quasi le operazioni in corso e coloro che sostengono la necessità di adempiere agli impegni presi in sede internazionale.
C’è una battuta che circola in questi giorni nelle piazze ribelli d’Egitto. «Del primo presidente ci siamo liberati in diciassette giorni, del secondo in quattro, per il terzo basterà un tweet» scherzano i giovani protagonisti dello tzunami politico che loro chiamano rivoluzione contro i Fratelli Musulmani e molti, all’estero, colpo di stato militare.
The predominantly military approach adopted by the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan is showing its limits. An increase in attacks against on the Coalition forces, especially by personnel infiltrated in the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) cast serious doubts on their reliability and arise some questions about the future of Afghanistan. The transfer of power from NATO troops to the Afghan government, now in its fourth and final stage, seems to be in a very deep crisis.