Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

December 30, 2010 |  54 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Editorial Team

What Should Top the Transatlantic Agenda in 2011?

Editorial Team: We invite you to tell us which three topics you think should top the agenda for the transatlantic partners in 2011. Your preferences will determine atlantic-community.org’s focus in the New Year.

 

As the first decade of the twenty first century comes to a close, some of the old certainties of international politics seem a little strained.

Many observers believe that the initial optimism surrounding the election of President Obama and its supposedly revitalizing effect on the European-American partnership was misplaced. Russia has moved closer to NATO. Global economic turmoil has tested the solidarity of the European Union, just as it tries to speak with one voice, opening embassies throughout the world. The United States struggles with its mountain of debt while China continues its rise skyward.

Therefore in these changing times, we would like to ask you, the members of the Atlantic Community, what specific issues you would like to focus on in the year ahead. Please choose three from the list below in the poll. Should you have other suggestions not covered in the poll, please discuss them in the comments section below. Your choices will be prioritized while we will continue to focus on developing current issues.

NATO and Russia

In November, we finally saw a degree of convergence between NATO and Moscow over the future of European security in general. Positive topics included further cooperation in Afghanistan, missile defense as well as arms control. How viable is this new strategic partnership between old enemies and how can the successes of the NATO-Russia summit be realistically implemented in the coming months?

Iran's Nuclear Program

The ongoing saga of Tehran's efforts to be counted among the world's nuclear powers is still cause for concern in the West and Middle East. What can the transatlantic partners do to stop Iran's nuclear program, or is it too late? Should serious alternatives be looked at, such as focusing on other issues where cooperation is possible, rather than just the nuclear issue, and if so, how?

The Future of Afghanistan

Afghanistan has been described in the past as the "graveyard of empires". The British, the Soviets and now the Americans have all been tested to the limit in the country. For the US, what is the most responsible exit strategy? How can the transition to self governance be managed without completely destabilizing Afghanistan?

The Debt Threat

First Greece, then Ireland and now the markets have set their sights on Portugal and Spain. These are testing times for the European common currency with commentators predicting either its break-up or a move toward closer top down political and fiscal union. Moreover, the US is also struggling with huge amounts of debt. What does the ongoing sovereign debt crisis mean for the future of the transatlantic partners as world economic leaders and engines of growth?

China: Rivalry to Partnership

Taking the recent example of the Nobel Peace Prize boycott in Norway, Beijing is becoming more assertive, particularly with other East Asian nations, in challenging Western norms and interests on the international stage. Despite this, there are issues such as North Korea, in which China can share responsibility with the West. What prospects are there for encouraging China to become a responsible member of the international community, rather than an aggressive, unstable superpower?

Climate Change

Another year, another climate conference which has ended without concrete progress in reducing emissions. Following failure at Copenhagen and now, Cancun, what are the best ways in which consensus between the developed and developing world can be reached? Moreover, from a realistic perspective, how can the deeply indebted Western economies convince an increasingly skeptic public to place climate change toward the top of the political agenda?

Cyber Security

The protection of sensitive electronically stored information from outside infiltration and attack has been identified as a key priority by NATO in its new Strategic Concept. Considering the impact which the Wikileaks revelations have had on international diplomacy it is clear that the internet is becoming an extremely powerful force in international relations. Yet, is cyber security as great an issue as conventional terrorism, or has it been exaggerated?

The New Terrorist Hotspots

It has long been known that the tribal areas of Pakistan which border Afghanistan are breeding grounds for al-Qaeda. Do you believe that in the next year, this could threaten the viability of Pakistan itself, edging it toward failed state status? Furthermore, ungoverned areas of northern Yemen have also made headlines as the source of recent cargo plane bombs. Could lawless Yemen become the next Afghanistan and what should be done about it?

 

Are there other key issues which you would like to see covered? Please let us know in the comment section below what you think Europe and North America should focus their cooperative efforts on in 2011.

Atlantic-community.org will publish new articles starting January 13, 2011.

Written on behalf of the editorial team by Eoin Michael Heaney. Eoin is a recent graduate of the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna and University College Dublin.

  • 7
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Felix F. Seidler

December 30, 2010

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
With the Euro´s crisis continuing the debt threat will be most important issue next year. Furthermore, this is underlined by the US national budget´s situation. As more their budgets get worse, the less scope of action transatlantic partners have. Secondly, after Stuxnet and Wikileaks there is no chance to stop the emerging importance of cyber security. Power shifts in Asia will do their share to both developments. China started to buy Portugal and Greece. Moreover, Beijing improves its cyber intelligence capabilities.
 
Paul-Robert  Lookman

December 30, 2010

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The single most important -- and decades overdue -- issue for 2011 is peace in the wider Middle East, in accordance with International Law and UNSc Resolutions. Just to quote from President Obama’s Cairo speech of June 4, 2009:

“… the Palestinian people have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”
 
Darrell Calvin Brown

December 30, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
A Reminder: Without the Earth, upon which we all must live, nothing else matters. Take this into consideration when you cast your votes.
 
Nabi  Sonboli

December 31, 2010

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I think its better that Atlantic community separate the issues from the countries and concentrate on the first. Although, we may call Afghanistan as an international problem because of AlQaeda, instability, NATO presence, drugs etc. However, it dose not seem to be true with regard to other countries that has been mentioned. I think the concentration on the following issues will be more helpful for Atlantic community. They are more related to the challenges and opportunities that the community faces during the next years:
1-Climate change
2-Consequences of Power Shift for global system
3-Strategic consequences of economic crisis
4-Energy Security
5-International Financial Security
6-Global perception toward Atlantic community
7-Eurasian Security landscape
8-Peace and Development in the Middle East
9-Middle East Nuclear Free Zone
10-Cyber Security

 
Joerg  Wolf

December 31, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@ Felix,

Thanks! Which cyber security experts shall we ask for an article? Moreover, if you have a specific question you would like to see discussed by this expert and the atlantic-community.org members, please let us know.

BTW: For anyone interested. Spiegel reports: "The number of cyber attacks in Germany and abroad has skyrocketed in recent years, costing the economy upwards of 10 billion euros annually. In response, the government in Berlin is planning to create an agency dedicated to documenting and stopping such high-tech assaults"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,736842,00.html

 
Joerg  Wolf

December 31, 2010

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@ Paul-Robert

Thank you for suggestion. I got a couple of questions for you:

1. Should Palestine be a priority on the transatlantic agenda due to humanitarian or strategic concerns?

2. What are the specific questions you would like to see discussed on atlantic-community.org?

3. Which experts should be invited to respond to these questions and provide policy recommendations for Europe and North America?

Please post a few suggestions and we will organize a theme week or something over the next 12 months.


Personally, I believe, the Israel-Palestine conflict has been discussed a lot for as long as I can remember. Everything that is to say about it, has been said a millionth time.

The solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is clear to the experts. The Palestinian and Israeli leaders also know how this compromise looks like. They just don't agree to it because they are afraid of domestic opposition.
First, Israelis need to be more united and Palestinians need to be more united. Then their leaders can agree to a solution. I don't think the North American and the EU countries can do much in the meantime.

I am not sure, a debate on atlantic-community.org would lead to new insights or accomplish anything, but we could give it a try, if you make some suggestions. Therefore I am asking you the above questions.

Thank you!
All the best for 2011
 
Joerg  Wolf

December 31, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@ Nabi

Thank you for your suggestions.

Which experts should we invite to write about these issues? I would appreciate your suggestions.

If you have specific questions you would like to see discussed by these experts and the atlantic-community.org members, please let us know in the comments section.

Moreover, I am curious what exactly you mean by "6-Global perception toward Atlantic community"

Thank you!!!

 
Mustafa Y. CELIK

December 31, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear All,

I wish you happy new years, to the Staff & Members of the Atlantic Community & the Humanity, in a more prosperous and peaceful 21st Century.

Mustafa

Tags: | New Year Wishes |
 
Member deleted

January 1, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Indeed, all are important issues, but when priorities are put in place, the top three stand out, quite naturally.

In fact, they are interconnected.

EU perhaps should cooperate with the US in advancing the experiments on European style sociocapitalism.

Even Soros are advocating "coordinating" US-China economic policies, probably few are holding their breath for that currently, which, by definition, is European style siciocapitalism, and not the capitalism people used to know.

China, a middle kingdom, is important but not nearly as important as US-EU alliance for the EU.

Time will tell.
 
Paul-Robert  Lookman

January 1, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr Wolf,

Just a quick response, I am leaving for a winter holiday where I will have little access to the internet.

First, I beg to disagree with “The solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is clear to the experts” There are a number of scenarios, from a two state, via a one state + a non-viable Palestinian reservation, a one state with Israeli’s and Palestinians with equal rights, a one state for Jews, with Palestinians “elsewhere in the Middle East”, etc. etc. There is no unanimity among the Israeli Jews about a final settlement, apart from obtaining as much land as possible.

With “First, Israelis need to be more united and Palestinians need to be more united”, you seem to lay the blame at the side of the Palestinians. The fact that they are divided is mainly due to the “divide and rule” tactic of Israel and the US. A swap between Marwan Barghouti and Gilad Shalit will set free a Palestinian leader who can unite the Palestinians. The large majority is in agreement about a solution, they just want their land back, even with a compromise in which Israel would withdraw behind the pre-1967 borders.

If AC puts this issue on its agenda, it should focus on strategic, international relations and international law issues. Hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims elsewhere see what happens in the Middle East as unjust and this breeds terrorism. With all players armed to the teeth, the issue could easily explode into a dangerous regional conflict, or even in WW4.

There are lots of authoritative authors on the issue, just to give you a few names:

• retired US Army Special Forces colonel Jean-François Angevin-Romey, see http://albalma.newsvine.com/_news/2008/12/31/2261664-letter-from-re...
• Matt Beynon Rees, see http://www.globalpost.com/bio/matt-beynon-rees
• Alan Hart, see http://mycatbirdseat.com/2010/09/alan-hart-obama-has-signalled-his-...
• Avi Shlaim, see http://mwcnews.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=601...
• Phyllis Bennis, see http://www.tni.org/article/israels-settlement-freeze-over-so-what
• other authors, which you can find behind the label “Israel Palestina conflict” on http://geopolitiek-in-perspectief.blogspot.com/, where you will find 48 articles on this issue

I would suggest to solicit expert-articles which approach the issue from different angles, leading to different “solutions”. Specific issues should also be:

1. the relation between terrorism and the Middle East conflict
2. the geopolitical implications of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the wider Middle East, incl. NATO’s missile defense putting Turkey in the frontline
3. peace in the greater Middle East, incl. peace with Syria
4. the nuclear imbalance in the Middle East

Hope this will enable you to go ahead! Cheers, I’m off now…
 
Niklas  Anzinger

January 1, 2011

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I agree with Joerg that the Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement has been discussed over and over again - even here in this thread.

Regarding Cyber Security and China, I would recommend Dean Cheng - http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/C/Dean-Cheng

Generally China, Qinglian He, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Qinglian Her book was published in the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

Regarding Terrorism, I would strongly recommend Bruce Hoffman - http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/brh6/?PageTemplateID=81

Hoffman could give us insightful views that allow us clearer insights what we have to exspect from terrorist cells in the future and give us an explanation that allows us a better interpretation of terrorism than Mr. Lookman offered. According to his logic the assassination attempts in Nigeria and Egypt and mass slaughters against Christians in the Middle East are the result of "unjustice" to the Palestinians.
 
Niklas  Anzinger

January 1, 2011

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I meant the recent attempts - http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2011-01/anschlaege-nigeria-aegypten
 
Nabi  Sonboli

January 1, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Joerg
By No.6 I mean trasatlantic Agenda cannot be global withouth paying enough attention to Global perception and reaction. To dvelop a global agenda, it is necessary to hear more from around the world.
With regard to writers, I think hearing acadmic voices is good but not enough. I suggest that in any field if you could find a practitioner who is familar with practical problems to write about the issue, it would be much helpful.
 
Paul-Robert  Lookman

January 1, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr Wolf: an authority on the relationship between terrorism and occupations in the Muslim world whom I should like to recommend additionally is Robert A. Pape (not to be confused with Ilan Pappe). In his recent article “It's the Occupation, Stupid” (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/18/it_s_the_occupatio...), professor Pape comes to the interesting conclusion that occupations in the Muslim world don't make Americans any safer -- in fact, they are at the heart of the problem.

Just to quote from his essay:

“In the decade since 9/11, the United States has conquered and occupied two large Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), compelled a huge Muslim army to root out a terrorist sanctuary (Pakistan), deployed thousands of Special Forces troops to numerous Muslim countries (Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, etc.), imprisoned hundreds of Muslims without recourse, and waged a massive war of ideas involving Muslim clerics to denounce violence and new institutions to bring Western norms to Muslim countries. Yet Americans still seem strangely mystified as to why some Muslims might be angry about this situation.”

and

“Israelis have their own narrative about terrorism, which holds that Arab fanatics seek to destroy the Jewish state because of what it is, not what it does. But since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90 percent.”

and

“… research shows that resistance to occupations is especially likely to escalate to suicide terrorism when there is a difference between the predominant religion of the occupier and the predominant religion of the occupied.“
 
Anamaria  Tamas

January 2, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Mr. Wolf,
Although I do agree with you that the Arab-Israeli conflict has been debated since the beginning of time- or so it feels- and a certain degree of fatalism has crept into the minds of intellectuals regarding this topic, I think we must not forget the urgency of this man-made humanitarian disaster that is not only a moral issue, but is threatening the economic and cultural wellbeing of the Western civilization. You asked whether it is strategic or humanitarian? I doubt you can divide the two. Nevertheless, as a political scientist whose ultimate goal should be to strive for the development of this world by improving the lives of the people, I would like to see more input regarding the deplorable hardships that Palestinians must face under the occupation and try to challenge the cushy Westerner's perception that these are a terrorist people who blow themselves up not out of desperation, but due to their innate antagonism to civilization and life.
 
Nabi  Sonboli

January 2, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Joerg
I think drug-trafficking plays an important role in financing terrorism and is a big challenge for Atlantic community and other parts of the world. Having a debate on this issue is necessary in 2011.
 
Zoltán Miklós Ferenczi

January 3, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Community,

I shall first thank the author for the stimulating topic as well as the members for their contributions. All are indeed very important issues globally but also concerning the fate of the transatlantic partnership itself.

I consider climate change as the most important one that SHOULD constitute the transatlantic agenda in 2011. However, to what extent we can shift away from a normative level remains to be seen. This issue is a global problem that would require a multilateral solution. However, that solution does not seem to occur shortly. As the author of the article convincingly pointed out neither Copenhagen nor Cancun delivered the desired outcome despite Europe's active role. The problem is as simple as a Prisoner's Dilemma, but will Europe commit the larger pollutors by playing cooperatively in the game while others freeride? Obama was unable to realise his objectives; domestic opposition in the US is strong and with a republican majority perspectives are quite grim. However, without the US China is unlikely to change its stance.

I agree with the arguments made concerning the new hotspots of terrorism. I shall also highlight a somewhat neglected aspect of this problem: maritime security. Many institutions and actors report increased pirate activities first of all at the Eastern coast of Africa (Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania), aggravating major naval routes (for example, see Strategic Insights, No.28, November 2010, Risk Intelligence). I would be glad to see some problem-oriented debate on that too.

 
Niklas  Anzinger

January 5, 2011

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
http://www.heritage.org/events/2010/04/china-and-cybersecurity

Here a little video conference about China and Cyber Security.

I agree with Mr. Seidler that Cyber Security will be a main issue in international policy and should be considered in AC next year.

Cyberspace has become the fifth domain of warfare, after land, sea, air and space, experts say.
 
Mike  McCormack

January 9, 2011

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The debt threat will undoubtedly be the top transatlantic priority this year. Of course, it has more of "elephant in the room" status than issue that will prove to be a major flashpoint. Otherwise I feel that Afghanistan will be the continuing issue and that this may be the make-or-break year for its future.
 
Greg Randolph Lawson

January 11, 2011

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
This is an excellent run down of some of the most pressing issues on the international and, consequently, transatlantic agenda.

http://www.eurasiagroup.net/pages/top-risks

Note this as being ranked number one from the Eurasia Group,

"1 - The G-Zero

In the G-Zero, the world's major powers set aside aspirations for global leadership—alone, coordinated, or otherwise—and look primarily inward for their policy priorities. Key institutions that provide global governance become arenas not for collaboration but for confrontation. Global economic growth and efficiency is reduced as a result...

No new global alignment sits over the horizon. Why the G-Zero and not bloc-formation where countries pool their influence? Because the default policy response to a breakdown in global economic governance is every man/nation for himself. As demonstrated even in a politically integrated Europe, without common rules, there's no such thing as collective economic security. In the G-Zero, domestic constituencies will become increasingly effective in pushing populist agendas on trade, currency, and fiscal policy."

How does this dovetail with some of the idead Parag Khanna has been bringing to the table lately? A sort of quasi neo-Middle Ages? A strange concoction of spontaneous order and omnipresent disorder that eludes simple answers? This appears to be the age we are entering. It is not an "Atlantic Century", nor is it likely to be simply a purely "Asian Century" either, despite power shifts eastward. It is going to be something far more complex and almost infinitely more difficult to navigate.
 
Kelli Elizabeth Wilbert

January 12, 2011

  • 5
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Climate change definitely needs to be given special attention and I agree with Zoltán’s thread about the current prisoner’s dilemma scenario and have more to comment on regarding U.S. opposition and failed domestic environmental policies. As an American I believe my country needs to take global warming serious, particularly since the U.S. is looked to regarding agenda setting.

I have lived in both the states and Europe and the difference in energy consumption, alternative forms of energy and the recycling of goods is astonishing. I feel “American Exceptionalism” is once again the culprit. The idea that the U.S. is an exceptional nation, inherently different than other countries, and a maverick, still guides foreign policy. This concept stems from the 1800s with America’s entry to the world stage. And since then the U.S has left a major carbon footprint.

Indeed I believe we are exceptional, but all too often for the wrong reasons. It is exceptional to produce and market the largest vehicles and home appliances that consume the most energy and subsequently emit more environmental toxins. And we are exceptional by the fact that the majority of Americans expect to be a car owner and own a home with the luxuries of a washer, dryer and dishwasher machine.

I do think more individuals are taking action by choosing electronic cars and using solar energy for their homes, but I just do not feel pressure will come from the citizenry-an overhauling national policy has to be implemented for substantial change. Once we take this threat seriously as nation, then we will more readily work in the framework of international institutions, be accountable to the Kyoto protocol, and sway other major polluters like China.

We as Americans and our policymakers need to stop making exceptions to being exceptional when the environment is concerned.
 
Unregistered User

January 12, 2011

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
My first reaction to this was - non of the above.

Unfortunately this questionnaire completely reflects the mainstream media, which is targeting typical "Western" problems and diverting attention from the roots of the real problems we face today.

The question was about which policy areas "should" top the agenda. Of course superficially the issues stated will be among those addressed this year. However, they are all just symptoms of bad politics, not the cause. By creating such a biased questionnaire, you are yourselves contributing to the mainstream, which will never address the root causes of todays problems.

For example, there will never be any real progress on combating climate change unless lobbying laws are changed to take power away from the big players. Therefore lobbying laws should be addressed.

The debt threat is having far greater consequences in the developing world, where poverty and inequality will remain until the issue of tax havens are addressed - arguably the greatest cause of poverty in the world today.

I could continue. But basically I am appalled at the one-sided questionnaire and would advise you to engage in some free-thinking and not just reflect the mainstream media.
 
Jan  Schierkolk

January 12, 2011

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Does "Cyber Security" include cyber freedom of information? If this is also hinting at WikiLeaks and the like, which any debate will touch upon sooner or later, maybe a title that suggest that not all new aspects of this are necessarily bad, and that the challenge for democratic societies in some cases is more about regulation or even protection of this phenomenon than defense from it, which "Cyber Security" seems to suggest.

How about "Cyber Threats and Opportunities", "The Digital Age", or something similarly neutral? By the way: hard to find tags here for what I am saying... (;
Tags: | cyberwar | cybersecurity |
 
Unregistered User

January 12, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Tomorrow 1/13/2011, Brooking will hold an event called "The Top Foreign Policy Issues for 2011" with prominent panelists like Robert Kagan, Stephen Cohen, Kenneth Lieberthal and Michael O'Hanlon in Washington DC. Here is the link: http://www.brookings.edu/events/2011/0113_meet_the_press.aspx. I am sure those experts can contribute to this debate!!
 
Joerg  Wolf

January 12, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@ Robert

Thank you. Great suggestion. I will try to get a report or transcript from the event as well.
 
Joerg  Wolf

January 12, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@ Jan

"Does 'Cyber Security' include cyber freedom of information?"

It could be. You are refering to the debate on network neutrality and censorship?

As you correctly observed on th lag of tags: We have not discussed these issues very much so far. Please let us know which specific questions you would like to see discussed. And for which problems should we try to develop policy recommendations?

Cyber security could mean all kinds of things. Thus we need to break it down into specific issues. I have read Richard Clarke's book on "Cyber War" over the holidays and I am now very interested in cyber security relating to critical infrastructure like power grids. I think that is more important than for instance cyber security relating to leaks of diplomatic cables (wikileaks).
 
Unregistered User

January 12, 2011

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
There is a common saying that where there is the will, there will always be a solution! For many observers of the challenges in our regions and world, such a saying seems much too simplistic. It is unfortunate that our experiences and exposures are many and also different enough to make such obvious variations hard to co-ordinate meaningfully in order to enjoy the special type of optimism conveyed by the saying. Our world is old but "we" the occupants, by virtue of our ability to reproduce, remain young and creative. This is the hope and nature has been the one to endow us with it. It is my best way to welcome the Transatlantic Community to the New Year: 2011!

The basic thing here is the admonition: think positive, release the best of you and be always optimistic. How do these relate to the eight main challenges wisely and carefully selected and listed by the AC Editorial Team as those to task efforts in the new year:
1) NATO and Russia
2) Iran's Nuclear Program
3) The Future of Afghanistan
4) The Debt Threat
5) China: Rivalry and Partnership
6) Climate Change
7) Cyber Security
8) The New Terrorist Hot-spots ... ?

Per-se, the question tasks philosophy, which we do not necessarily need to rehearse here at this time of our knowledge and cues of experiences. I mean to emphasize that without much philosophical explanations, we know that thinking positive, releasing the best of us and remaining as far as possible optimistic - are also realistic attributes that help to calm, but raise true concern about how to understand the scope and nature of the problems and range of possible solutions. Luckily, none of the problems listed above is fresh to us. We have great knowledge of them. It is an advantage, with an extra challenge though: ability to now think clearly!

It is the job of thinking clearly that is likely to cause one to order or prioritize the problems, as a starting point, for one simple reason that dealing with all at a time may muddle-up things. Care must be taken to select, order, but keep all on watch while taking the 'major' ones first. This way of thinking, without being too academic, brings me to three problems, prioritized from the list, below:
1) NATO and Russia
2) Climate Change
3) The Debt Threat
There are obvious reasons why the three should be prioritized. Briefly, for the first, NATO is the soul of Trans-Atlantic Community engagements. It is about America and the "Old" Europe, which the "New" Europe has come in to make greater sense for peace, economic progress and better understanding - thanks to the EU openness and evolution of Russia, hopefully in a new light: to grow, improve and be sustainable. For the 2nd, "mother earth" is our home and base as we journey, come and depart, but reproduce for the circle to keep turning, so if we destroy it, where else have we to run to even with our "scientific" victory? The third is a reminder of how we have failed with the job of running our systems with a good sense of discipline and commitment to sustainable values - monetary, consumption, life-style and growth! We blindly put faith in "raw" capitalism and flirt with "neo-liberalism", fueled by misconceived greed, selfishness and carelessly fragmented political values in the service of party politics and badly disciplined culture of democracy. Our knowledge as a resource has become too exploitative that we are living to see our own very purposes grossly defeated. We want the good, but what steers us into evil, we allow that to remain a myth - refuse to seek to truly understand and change but peck pointing fingers to wrong directions, shading crocodile tears along the way! The "debt threat" provides us with the moment to ransack and be up to the task with correction, not by starving the poor more and making the rich richer - for even though there will always be differences, their extremes will never be of good to mankind.

It is good that other commentators have had things to add to the overall list of problems. Personally, what I would like to add to the list is by nature suggestive: possibility to better co-ordinate national and world intelligence works and efforts, with peace in mind and effective control of all forms of crimes. Cyber crimes, the most stupid of all, is a shame on our technical achievements - a proof that we work to abort our own progress! So we have done with our military art, diplomacy, politics, economic structures and the environment! If we now truly wake-up to take stock, we shall then agree that and make success of "yes we can", and "we shall [and can] overcome".

I quote: "Many observers believe that the initial optimism surrounding the election of President Obama and its supposedly revitalizing effect on the European-American partnership was misplaced". Many might wonder over this, if they value, among others the importance of the Bill recently passed by the US Congress on Nuclear Disarmament between US and Russia, not to mention the general efforts on nuclear disarmament as a global goal - a policy/diplomatic step interesting when thinking of Iran. Someone has observed here the need for Europe and America to keep the faith and be of help to each other, especially now that bad times ignite negative psychological and social experiences dysfunctional for pragmatic politics and consensual democratic practices. It is truly time to help each other and do so with the knowledge of the weight of past failures, if doom is to be avoided and wars are to "reasonably" end!
 
Unregistered User

January 12, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I was reading as to our problems and was thinking sadly that is an iota of what we must address and solve but I was thinking it would take at least a thousand pages. Then I saw a comment stating where there is a will there is a way and that is the whole problem in every instance. There is only a will to get ones own way, period. Morality be damned!

If we as a world regain our morality,If we do not get back to doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing whether it is one's interest or not we are not going to satisfy any of the worlds growing problems or succeed in progressing through the 21st century in a form we would call success "and we are not doing it".


Tags: | morality | 21st century |
 
Unregistered User

January 12, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I vote mainly out of politeness. While I appreciate the merits of this exercise, I fear it misses as much as it captures. There is a misconception at the root of most transatlantic agenda-listing. It leads to a perennially inadequate transatlantic agenda, one with a hole in its very center.

The truth is, the transatlantic agenda should be topped, EVERY YEAR in this era, by the goal of deepening the transatlantic community. Deepening it on all levels, from the institutional rung of the ladder, to the identity-loyalty rung, to the membership rung.

Just as the top item, indeed the ONLY item, the U.S. Constitution required the U.S. President to report on each year was - the State of the UNION. Not the party-legislative battles of the year, but how the Union itself was holding together and could be kept together. Only when the Union was fully consolidated after 1865 was this no longer necessary, and it became sensible to substitute a party-program speech akin to the British Prime Minister's Speech from the Throne.

The Atlantic Community is very far from fully consolidated. Its consolidation should always be the top priority.

This means upgrading, wherever possible, all transaltantic institutions - NATO, OECD, G7, G8, US-EU summit and TEC, ANZUS and U.S.-Japan and U.S.-Korea alliances, IEA, suppliers clubs. It means seeking new transatlantic structures when feasible. It means drawing all these together into a well-named structure for a Concrete West or Atlantic Community, with an identity that transcends its specific elements and has some staying power and ability to sustain a joint loyalty. It means deepening NATO decision-making, akin to the deepening of EU decision-making, so the expansion of membership will not prove to have been an exercise in community-dilution and dis-integration. It means reducing the democratic deficit, by reducing the unit-veto power in the Council, and by increasing the role of the NPA. It means deepening OECD and G7 into a transatlantic economic community, with a program of movement toward a free trade area or customs union and a coordinated currency arrangement. It means using new issues to enhance Atlantic institutional competences and make sure the issues can be dealt with in sufficiently "communautaire" fashion, before giving them a visibly transatlantic status; it means not risking the cohesion of the Atlantic community on things it lacks the competence to handle very well. It means finding ways to reinforce and update the identity, which is still too much connected with the Cold War in people's minds. It means teaching the full 120-year history of trans-Atlantic institutional development, showing the genetic growth from the Atlantic diplomatic rapprochements after 1890 to the alliances of the world wars to the institutions formed after 1946 from the Marshall Plan to OEEC NATO ECSC ANZUS US-Japan EEC OECD G6-7-8. It means producing a convincing public and scholarly literature that upholds the Atlantic community, in its its historic and probable future roles in the world, as something meritorious, from which the world has benefitted greatly, not something to be ashamed of. It means developing popular Atlantic symbols. It means getting schools to use historical curricula that teach our children a transatlantic history of our intertwined development of the things we are proud of (something like this used to be called the Grand Narrative, and used to be taught fairly widely), not a national uniqueness history, nor just a continentally-integrated history, nor just a global history that ignores (or deprecates) the specificity and centrality of Atlantic development. It means deepening the links with Atlantic Asia -- Japan, S Korea, some other tigers, and (sotto voce) Taiwan; it means giving Atlantic Asia a full voice in the formation of Atlantic policy on the other East Asia, which is at best non-Atlantic and too often anti-Atlantic. It means answering the false consensus on the "decline of the West" and push back the pressures for phasing out Atlantic institutions (G8, OECD) in favor of an undifferentiated global ones (G20, an OECD widened into just another 1st-3rd world conference group), by making people aware of the fact that the economic weight of the concrete institutionalized West has grown not declined over the decades; and by updating the classic model of two complementary levels of international institutional development, Atlantic and global.

As you can see, it is a huge agenda. One that surely deserves priority, not at the expense of the more popular issues but as an under-layer that should have first place in the consciousness of those of us who tend to the Atlantic per se.

yours faithfully,
Ira Straus
Tags: | atlantic | OECD | G8 | G20 | NATO | Japan | China | decline |
 
Unregistered User

January 13, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Keep an eye on confrontations among Civilizations,not only religious and economic.This issue will arouse much interest in the coming years.
 
Unregistered User

January 13, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Germany has shown increasing interest in developing relations with South Asian countries. The recent example is German Foreign Minister's visit to Pakistan expressing desire to establish strategic dialogue with Islamabad. It would be useful if we concentrate on how Germany looks at South Asia and the areas where the interests of the two sides converge.
Tags: | Germany | south asia |
 
Unregistered User

January 13, 2011

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear all,
happy new year from Georgia! Two remarks:

Maybe you could think about to extend the topic "Nato & Russia" to "Russia & the West", because the triangle USA-EUrope-Russia includes much more aspects than only the "military" view.

And: I would really appreciate if you could add the Caucasus to your "strategig regions", because a lot of strategic transatlantic issues are focussed in this region.

Tags: | Russia | Caucasus |
 
Unregistered User

January 13, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Joerg,

I think in 2011 we should put "Save the world" issue as priority. All resources and energies (politics, economies, sciences, security and defence etc) should put attention and focus on how to save the world as a whole. Disasters that happen almost everywhere in the world in one part, and growth of population in the other side should be considered as an "emergency warning" for mankind.

Happy New Year and best regards.
 
Joerg  Wolf

January 13, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@ Fadjar,

I like your sentiment, but could you please be a bit more specific? That would help us organize relevant debates and solicit constructive articles. Thanks.
 
Unregistered User

January 13, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Fadjar,
Please let me add to your comment that future global wars will be over water, not nuclear issues, oil, etc.


Kind regards
 
Unregistered User

January 13, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@Lucy:

I agree with you generally that in order to come up with a solution you need to dig deep and indentify root causes. However, for that you need a common standpoint and agreement about the problem itself. You need to engage in constructive debates about these "one-sided" problems, from "the mainstream media" as you say, and arrive at a common denominator before you can take cooperative action and eliminate the root causes, don`t you? Would you say that climate change for example is considered equally bad and dangerous everywhere in the world? Is your argument really that climate change is not perceived as imminent in China because of some lobbying laws of China?

I was fortunate to study at Fudan in Shanghai and having debated this issue with some of the elite of Chinese political science students, who will probably get to leading positions in the future, I got the impression that this problem has a somewhat different priority there -understandably. A stable economic growth is not only more important because of annual per capita income but also because of basic political stabilty and trust in the communist regime. They rightfully argue that Western countries have reached a certain economic level and so they can afford being worried about the environment, whereas some parts of China (obviously not the Eastern coast) cleraly have not. Why should they give up the prospects of economic development if the problem of poverty affects most people more imminently than the increase of temperature?

I beleive in Constructivism and the power of words and arguments: Only through debate and arguments about problems we all are confronted with can we create the same reality in the mindsets of different peoples!
 
Zoltán Miklós Ferenczi

January 13, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Sorry, the last comment was from me, I just forgot to log in...
Responses to Zoltán, please.
 
Mustafa Y. CELIK

January 13, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear All,

First of all, we need to discuss how mankind to have a successful 21st century.

Some philosophers have made attempts in the past to define a “Universal Criterion of Success”: Their efforts seemingly led them to believe that if such a criterion existed at all, it must be “Healthy & happy survival leading to pro-creation” above all else.

They claimed that because of the universal nature of such a criterion it would have to encompass all life forms like human beings plus animal & plant life existing both on the land or under water including micro-organisms.

Obviously they disrespected –if not scorned at it altogether- “Jones’s Law” types of success creteria & definitions as they were limited in scope just to Jones’s neighbourhood…

Therefore, I earnestly think,we need first to discuss this topic at the Atlantic Community in order to hopefully develope a concensus upon which the members of AC may or may not opt to base their analyses as well as judgements on global matter and conflicts.

On the other hand some misunderstandings by human beings in this respect must have amplified immensely the inevitable conflict generation as a consequence of strife for success.

It follows therefrom that in order to have a more peaceful world to live in and to get through the 21st Century, it is of utmost importance that all members of humanity re-examine their concepts of success to begin with.

…………

With my kind regards,

Mustafa CELIK
Tags: | world peace |
 
Joerg  Wolf

January 13, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@ Mustafa

I appreciate your comment, but I find your statements rather estoric to be honest. And I am not sure I fully understand them. Are you saying we should focus more on climate change? Okay, that's one of the options in the poll anyway.

It would be great, if you could phrase a specific question you would like to see discussed here and suggest experts that we should ask for articles. Moreover, please bear in mind that atlantic-community.org deals with international politics.

 
Unregistered User

January 13, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The issue-list is too short-sighted and plainly boring. Cold War style geo-strategic thinking still does permeate many transatlantic discussions - primarily because they are still dominated by semi-retired Cold Warriors -, but it is not what should matter today. The transatlantic relationship is foremost an economic one. Thus issues pertaining to regulation, market access, and the like need to be on that list. New forms of governance ought to be on that list, too; check out Parag Khanna's new book.

Best,
Marcus Schaper
 
Mustafa Y. CELIK

January 13, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@Mr. Joerg Wolf

Thanks for your responding comment.

I would rather avoid saying that “Our first priority for discussion needs to be: ‘The Climate Change’ because some related material published in the Media seem to imply that this is a rather c o n t r o v e r s i a l matter not clearly understood even by the eminent scientists specializing on this subject worldwide.

Neverthelessly the most critical concern -as well as the ultimate goal- of the Atlantic Community needs to be assisting mankind to live in a better natural environment both at present and in the near future as well as in the long term. Obviously we are all in the same boat named EARTH; the moment this boat is used up & finished, we are all at a dead end without exception.

The question of betterment & conservation of our natural environment with a long term perspective is extremely complex and what AC can do in this respect, I suppose, may be limited to initiating a series of International Symphosiums, etc. Even then this may shed ample light on policy makers in the World such that the mankind may be re-directed towards a much better future.

Yes. You are absolutely right in that this is “Political Think Tank” but I believe personally in that any political discussion not founded on sound philosophical grounds and if the participants are in a dismay in this respect, it is unlikely to generate some practically valuable & just contributions to ongoing or future international conflicts.

I thank you in advance for your kind attention to my personal views.

With my kind regards.

Mustafa CELIK
 
Unregistered User

January 14, 2011

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
In addition to the alternatives presented for the vote:


Civil liberties cause a lot of friction between the US and Europe. Many Europeans feel that the US administration is still obsessed by the "war on terror", at the expense of freedoms and privacy (on the web).

Although most European governments have been accommodating to US demands, they cause much resentment.

There are certain similarities in US pressure to promote the interests of intellectual property rights holders.
 
Jerzy S Deren

January 14, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Among others crutial topics NATO - Russia relations in predictable future will have strong implact on International security envinroment - therefore such "relations" can not be neglected. In addition we should bear in mind that it is the issue of common policy of alies developed on rules that NATO must always reach consensus of its members before the final results of decision making process will see daylights
 
Unregistered User

January 14, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Afghanistan and the related issues of terrorism, extrememism and export of terrorism are going to be the issues which are going to effect the policies of the all the countries of the region and even of the whole world over the course of next couple of years. So this issue deserves to be on the top of the agenda.
 
Unregistered User

January 14, 2011

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Although there are many issues which take priority in 2011, in an increasingly globalised community seemingly disparate concerns such as the debt crisis, climate change, energy security and terrorism can only be consolidated through a focus on boosting trade and investment between countries. The first step would be to make sure that economic superpowers such as China, America and the EU are reading from the same page. Good foreign relations begin and often end with trade and investment since healthy societies tend to be built from a relative and sustainable abundance of material resources. As such, trade and investment needs to be opened up between countries because it is only through such means that a balance can be achieved. Adopting an excessively protectionist line to trade and investment is not the way forward; it tends to stem economic growth and sour relations between countries. A relative free flow of trade and investment, on the other hand, provides a foundation for a common language through which economies can communicate. International relations should improve and with a common language grounded, superpowers can begin to consolidate and address the aforementioned concerns off the back of the swelling wave that is trade and investment.

This isn’t to endorse an entirely liberal agenda. A complete free flow of trade and investment, near enough uniformly unregulated, would clearly lead to a form of economic Darwinism. Global progress cannot be understood in pure economic terms, since these tend to neglect outstanding social issues which cannot be ignored. China, for example, is able to sell its exports for such low prices because of its lack of market standards. The concrete minimum wage and health and safety regulations simply don’t exist. Developing countries such as Cambodia are seeing their economies sacrificed to facilitate for technological expansion within China. In order to level the playing field that is trade and investment, the West will somehow have to apply pressure on superpowers such as China to incorporate social concerns into their economic agenda, and will likewise have to follow suit. Pursuing a policy of appeasement or inaction as regards China could potentially have very negative long-term consequences. Nonetheless, trade liberalisation should form a sound foundation through which other pressing issues can be pursued without excessive obstructionism between superpowers.
 
Kent Albert Jones

January 14, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Here's the 2011 agenda as I see it: trans-Atlantic leadership on current global issues, particularly those involving international trade and finance.

Who will fill the leadership gap on these issues? US and EU political leaders appear to be waylaid by the recession, but apparently refuse to consider the problems of the global economy in getting out of recession.

Calls for concluding the moribund Doha Round receive perodic lip service from the G-20, but nothing happens. No one is willing to take the first step, to propose something new, to take the lead in getting back to the negotiating table. The recent US mid-term elections may provide President Obama with an opening to conclude both bilateral and multilateral trade deals. But the US alone cannot revive the WTO negotiations. Perhaps even the US and EU combined cannot do it, but without a strong push by these two leading traders, no progress will be possible.

The global financial system is in disarray, with a major crisis in the Eurozone and continuing tensions over the Chinese yuan. A new institutional arrangement is needed to defuse these crises, which again will require US and EU leadership.
Tags: | global economy |
 
Unregistered User

January 15, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
none of the above issues is outsatnding enough to be on the top of your agenda. i agree with mayn of the comments made, that the possibility of peace needs to be given more space and that the atlantic community as such has an ideal starting point to become a mayor player in bringing this peace forward into the trouble zones of the world which are being played with.
Tags: | Peace |
 
Niklas  Anzinger

January 15, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
With the recent uprising in Tunesia, I would suggest, AC should pay attention to political developments in the Arab world. The "Jasmine Revolution" could be seen as a very influential event in history. DEBKA suggests it is the "first authentic popular riots they have seen in the region in decades."

http://www.debka.com/article/20549/

Opposition officials claimed that Tunesia should become the first Arab democracy.

AC should make a quick move and encourage the political thinkers here to deal with the Tunesian revolution and its impacts on the whole region.

After all suggestions here, speaking in general terms, freedom and democracy should be on the agenda, not only for AC but for all people in the world.

 
Marco  Funk

January 15, 2011

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I have just now voted and am somewhat surprised that China is the most popular topic selection. While certainly important, I think that it is more of a secondary, long-term issue rather than a front-and-center agenda item for this year. I personally think that Afghanistan should be at the top of the list because several NATO countries are talking about pulling out soon or have already set a timetable for withdrawal, including the United States. The consequences of a large-scale pullout are serious, and thus requires careful planning and consideration - if not reconsideration.
 
Kelli Elizabeth Wilbert

January 18, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
In response to Mr. Gomez' comment about civilization conflict, this is an interesting debate, and begs the question of is there such a thing as the culture war? I wrote my MA dissertation about the late scholar Samuel Huntington's 1993 "Clash of Civilizations" thesis and the current culture war being advanced of Islam vs. the West, comparing the US and Europe.

I think a culture war is brewing, but I am also aware that by politicians and the media using such rhetoric of cultural conflict suggests that the current issues erupting between Muslims and non-Muslims cannot be so readily resolved, as opposed to say economic plight of immigrant and minority groups, which then leads to cultural tension. You can change people's access to jobs and education, but you cannot change their culture or religion.

I am curious if others think it is correct/incorrect to portray this conflict as a clash of civilizations or culture clash, and if this allows other issues like socioeconomic inequalities to be under-reported?
 
Mustafa Y. CELIK

January 19, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Ms. Kelli Elizabeth Wilbert,

I think the best antidote for the terrifying mistakes inherent in the assumption of “Clash of Civilizations” has been the ongoing counter movement of in the direction of “Alliance of Civilizations” so far.

Such developments, I hope, may eventually culminate in a much more peaceful World Order in general along with re-structuring of the related International Organizations in the next decade.

In such a case mankind is likely to have much better future prospects as all future generations deserve it without any doubt at all.

Thanks for pinpointing a real sore spot.

Kind regards,

Mustafa CELIK
 
Unregistered User

January 29, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The concept of security with only state-actors is slowly shifting towards regional bodies (EU, NATO). That does not do away with states as the principal actors but does indicate a shift in cognition of what security means and for whom, with NATO being an example.
The reasons for NATO's existence strongly indicated a commonality of shared values & principles. While the nature of particular actors may have changed (from Soviet Union to an evolving Russia) with the addition of newer actors as focus areas (China, for example) - the notion of security by itself is undergoing a change {from purely sovereignty-dictated state security (external) that determined much of the 'realist' theories - including the systemic ones of Waltz - to the notion of security (both internal & external) as hinged on to particular values & principles & the attendant notions of socialization - as indicators as well as the reasons for those shared values & principles that determined NATO's coming into existence as well as propels many discussions over Turkey's membership of the EU. The line between those shared values & principles and culture as a factor sometimes does get blurred with arguments over clash of civilizations (Huntington) which is not imperative (I would still go by much in 'constructivist' arguments - Wendt - as well as the role of identity politics mediated by many factors - here I do hold Brass useful as well as Smith amongst others).
The concerns over shared values & principles in a changing world does not change those shared values & principles while it does change/shift in the focus one should have towards newer actors who are not necessarily state actors (even if pseudo-state actors via state-sponsored/mediated international terrorism). The focus over the engagement of China is imperative given China's emerging role, without losing focus over the threats - both tactical & strategic - from other actors (even if disparate disintegral tribal forces that new age terrorism presents - Walter). The commonality of shared values & principles remain the core focal areas of what should be secured, and thus against whom.
 
Unregistered User

March 1, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
ATLANTIC UNBUNDLING

Fair atlantic competition is the key issue to rebuild the moral confidence that was devastated by sophisticated greed-technology based on the cheap-oil paradigm of easy money and charcterless behavior.

The Euro needs to be decoupled from petrodollar warfare.
The American way of life should not be subsidised with Dutch natural gas.
The Gasunie contract (Exxon+Shell+Gov.nl) should be renegotiated.
This world's largest public-private partnership should no longer determine policies.

Stephan Tychon
World Stability Council - 2002
http://pollutico.com
 
Unregistered User

March 1, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Not Merkel's Competition plan but Direct Fiscal Harmonization in the EU is the only way to counter American economic extremism that caused the moral bankruptcy.

ALL/ONLY tax on fossil fuel from day one - the start of a new era.
Suggested by the International Monetary-Fiscality Foundation.
END THE DIRTY ENERGY CRISIS!

http://IMF2.org
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Jean-Paul  Gagnon
Jean-Paul Gagnon
Member since
May 16, 2011

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?