Foreign Policy 2012 - Foreign Policy Initiative

Foreign Policy 2012 - Foreign Policy Initiative

Foreign Policy 2012
About Foreign Policy 2011
1
As we seek to educate leaders and policymakers about how to meet the global
challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI)
conducts briefings for candidates and members of Congress and their staff of both
political parties.
FPI briefings bring the experience and expertise of Washington‘s leading foreign policy
thinkers to members of Congress and federal candidates. The sessions, which can
range from an hour to a half-day, are personally tailored to the interests of those being
briefed. FPI will make available experts on the major foreign policy challenges facing
the United States, including topics such as the Arab Spring, the rise of China, and the
Iranian nuclear threat. We are prepared to brief candidates and members of Congress
on critical issues ranging from the War on Terror to transatlantic relations, and from the
defense budget to democracy promotion and human rights.
In conjunction with our briefings, we have developed Foreign Policy 2012, a briefing
book available on the FPI website at www.foreignpolicyi.org/foreignpolicy2012. This
document pulls together key points, notable facts and additional resources from
leading thinkers in each of the key foreign policy issue areas. FPI will update the briefing
book on a regular basis in 2012.
To schedule a briefing or suggest additional articles or content for the briefing book,
please contact [email protected] or (202) 296-3322.
About The Foreign Policy Initiative
In 2012 the United States and its democratic allies face many foreign policy challenges.
They come from rising and resurgent powers, including China and Russia. They come
from other autocracies that violate the rights of their citizens. They come from rogue
states that work with each other in ways inimical to America‘s values and interests, that
sponsor international terrorism, and that pursue weapons of mass destruction. They
come from al Qaeda and its affiliates who continue to plot attacks against the United
States and its allies. They come from failed states that serve as havens for terrorists and
criminals and spread instability to their neighbors.
The United States faces these challenges while engaged in military operations across
the globe. The sacrifice of American lives and significant economic expenditure in
these conflicts has led to warnings of U.S. strategic overreach, and calls for American
retrenchment. There are those who hope that we can just return to normalcy—to pre9/11 levels of defense spending and pre-9/11 strategies and tactics. They argue for a
retreat from America‘s global commitments and a renewed focus on problems at
home—a reflexive but mistaken response to these difficult economic times.
In fact, strategic overreach is not the problem, and retrenchment is not the solution.
The United States cannot afford to turn its back on its international commitments and
allies—the allies that helped us defeat fascism and communism in the 20th century, and
the alliances we have forged more recently, including with the newly liberated citizens
of Iraq and Afghanistan. America‘s economic difficulties will not be solved by retreat
from the international arena. They will be made worse.
In this new era, the consequences of failure and the risks of retreat would be even
greater than before. The challenges that we face require 21st century strategies and
tactics based on a renewed commitment to American leadership. The United States
remains the world‘s indispensable nation—indispensable to international peace,
security, and stability, and indispensable to safe-guarding and advancing the ideals
and principles we hold dear.
The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is a non-profit, non-partisan tax-exempt organization
under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code that promotes:





continued U.S. engagement—diplomatic, economic, and military—in the world
and rejection of policies that would lead us down the path to isolationism;
robust support for America‘s democratic allies and opposition to rogue regimes
that threaten American interests;
the human rights of those oppressed by their governments, and U.S. leadership in
working to spread political and economic freedom;
a strong military with the defense budget needed to ensure that America is
ready to confront the threats of the 21st century;
international economic engagement as a key element of U.S. foreign policy in
this time of great economic dislocation.
FPI looks forward to working with all who share these objectives, irrespective of political
party, so that the United States successfully confronts its challenges and make progress
toward a freer and more secure future.
Table of Contents
Afghanistan/Pakistan ………………………………………………………………………………… 1
America‘s Role in the World ………………………………………………………………………… 4
Arab Spring …..……………………………………………………………………………………….... 6
Asia Pacific ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
China …………………………………………………………………………………………………... 13
Democracy & Human Rights ……………………………………………………………………… 16
Defense Policy ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
Europe - NATO ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
Iran …………….……………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
Iraq …………….……………………………………………………………………………………….. 30
Israel/Peace Process ……………………………………………………………………….……….. 33
Latin America ……………….………………………………………………………………………... 36
Non-Military Foreign Aid …………………………………………………………………...……….. 39
North Korea …………………………………………………………………………………………… 41
Russia ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
Trade …………..……………………………………………………………………………………….. 46
War on Terror/Islamic Extremism ………………………………………………………………….. 48
September 2012 Edition
Afghanistan/Pakistan
President Obama made the right decision in December
2009, when he ordered the ―surge‖ of 33,000 additional
troops into Afghanistan. Since then, significant gains
have been made by using a strategy that combines
counterinsurgency (COIN) and counterterrorism (CT).
However, these gains remain fragile and reversible,
even after the May 2011 killing of al-Qaeda leader
Osama bin Laden in nearby Pakistan. Regrettably,
President Obama‘s June 2011 decision to withdraw the
troop surge by September 2012—two months before
the November presidential election—makes it more
difficult to secure our gains and expand our success.
The precipitous reduction of troops for political reasons
risks setting back efforts to ensure that Afghanistan is no
longer a sanctuary for America‘s enemies, and counter terrorists and insurgents operating inside
Pakistan. In May 2012, President Obama signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) that
will govern U.S. action in Afghanistan after Kabul takes control of the country‘s security by 2014,
and strictly limit America‘s mission to counterterrorism and training the Afghan military.
Key Points:

The United States has a vital interest in ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a
safe haven for terrorists like those who attacked us on September 11, 2001. International
disengagement from Afghanistan in the 1990s contributed to the country becoming a
―failed state‖—one that eventually became a Taliban-dominated safe haven for al-Qaeda.
Today, failure in Afghanistan will only increase the danger of terrorist attacks against
America‘s homeland and vital interests across the globe, and the likelihood that we will be
drawn back into the region. Brookings Institution expert Michael O‘Hanlon described the
consequences of failure in Afghanistan as a ―Taliban takeover of at least southern
Afghanistan; and associated sanctuaries for the world‘s worst terrorist groups, which still want
to strike American cities, gain control of Pakistan‘s nuclear arsenal, and provoke another
India-Pakistan war.‖

Boosted by President Obama‘s 2009 troop surge, U.S. and coalition forces have gained
operational control of larger swaths of territory from the Taliban—in particular, the southern
provinces bordering Pakistan. American and allied troops have also killed or captured many
senior al-Qaeda leaders, as well as other lower-level terrorists. However, the situation in
Afghanistan remains perilous, with entrenched insurgent groups in the east working actively
to undermine the security of Kabul.

Bolstered by the troop surge, U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan have been critical
to enabling our successful counterterrorism operations in the region—especially in Pakistan.
Some have argued that the threat from al-Qaeda and the Taliban can be best met, not by
a broad counterinsurgency and state-building effort in Afghanistan, but by the use of
actionable intelligence gathering and counterterrorism operations by U.S. Special Forces
similar to the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. However, a counterterrorism-based
strategy in Afghanistan cannot operate effectively without the strong counterinsurgency
campaign that is now in place. Counterinsurgency operations continue to squeeze our
enemies into a smaller area, build local security and civil institutions, and provide bases and
staging areas from which counterterrorism operations can be launched.

The President‘s accelerated surge drawdown endangers the recent gains we have made in
Afghanistan and should be reconsidered. Obama‘s decision undermines the U.S. military‘s
counterinsurgency campaign and hurts counterterrorism efforts. The precipitous drawdown
1
will likely prevent further coalition gains in the eastern provinces of Afghanistan, and could
lead to higher levels of violence and instability throughout the country. There have been
media reports that the Obama administration seeks even more drastic cuts to troop levels
beyond the planned 2012 troop reductions.

The United States must remain committed to long-term success in Afghanistan—militarily,
economically, and politically. Prevailing in Afghanistan will require maintaining as high a
level of troops in country as possible until the 2014 transition to Afghan control. In order to
effectively counter the Haqqani Network and other militant groups in eastern Afghanistan
and cement hard-won security gains from the 2010-2011 fighting season in the country‘s
south, the United States will need to keep the remaining 68,000 U.S. troops in country
throughout 2013.

The Strategic Partnership Agreement is a laudable guarantee of U.S. commitment to the
future of Afghanistan. Afghans fear that the United States and the international community
will abandon the country, as they did after the 1989 withdrawal of the Soviet Union‘s forces.
The Strategic Partnership Agreement commits the United States to helping to fund the
Afghan security forces until 2024, and lays the groundwork for America‘s continuing troop
presence and access to bases in-country.
Notable Facts:
1.
Since 2001, the United States has been a critical part of the NATO-led coalition of over 40
countries in Afghanistan.
2.
On May 1, 2011, U.S. forces succeeded in hunting down and killing al-Qaeda leader
Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.
3.
On June 22, 2011, President Obama made public his controversial decision to withdraw
by September 2012 the ―surge‖ of 33,000 U.S. troops that he had announced in December
2009.
4.
During the Lisbon Summit of November 2010, Afghanistan, the United States, and NATO
allies all agreed on the strategic goal of having the Afghan government and the Afghan
security forces fully in-the-lead by the end of 2014.
5.
By October 2012, the Afghan National Army (ANA) seeks to have 180,000 troops, and the
Afghan National Police (ANP), to have 157,000 personnel.
6.
In 2014, Afghanistan will take lead responsibility for providing for its own security. While
the United States will retain a reduced troop presence, its mission will be strictly limited to
counterterrorism and training the Afghan Security Forces.
FPI Resources:

―The War in Afghanistan is Far from Over,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly and Gary
Schmitt, FoxNews.com, May 29, 2012.

―FPI Analysis: Missed Opportunities at the 2012 NATO Summit,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative,
May 25, 2012.

―Remembering Why We are Fighting in Afghanistan,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly,
Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, April 19, 2012.

―Reclaiming the Moral Case for Afghanistan,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly,
Commentary, April 2012.

―The Dangers of an Accelerated Drawdown in Afghanistan: What America‘s Civilian
and Military Leaders Are Saying,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, March 23, 2012.
2

―FPI Analysis: Leveraging Pakistan to Prevail in Afghanistan,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative,
March 22, 2012.

―Retreat – But Whose?‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, National Review, December
7, 2011.

―FPI Fact Sheet: Success in Afghanistan Is Critical to Prevailing in The War On Terror,‖
Foreign Policy Initiative, June 23, 2011.

―Don‘t Come Home, America,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, The Weekly Standard, July 4,
2011.

―Why the Summer of 2012?‖ FPI Director William Kristol, The Weekly Standard Blog, June
23, 2011.
Suggested Reading:

―The AWOL Commander,‖ Thomas Donnelly, The Weekly Standard, June 16, 2012.

―Don't Forget Pakistan‘s Liberals,‖ Sadanand Dhume, The Wall Street Journal, July 12,
2012.

―Picking a Winner in Afghanistan,‖ Michael O‘Hanlon, Washington Post, June 9, 2012.

―What It Will Take to Secure Afghanistan,‖ Max Boot, Council on Foreign Relations, June
2012.

―What a Difference 11 Years Makes,‖ Shaida Abdali, Foreign Policy, May 1, 2012.

―Afghanistan Campaign Is Far From Finished,‖ Jeffrey Dressler, Roll Call, March 20, 2012.

―Five Disasters We‘ll Face If U.S. Retreats from Afghanistan,‖ Marc Thiessen, Washington
Post, March 19, 2012.

―More Afghan Cuts, More War,‖ Max Boot, Los Angeles Times, February 24, 2012.

―Courting Disaster in Afghanistan,‖ Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, The Weekly Standard
Blog, February 1, 2012.

―The Case for Continuing the Counterinsurgency Campaign in Afghanistan,‖ Frederick
and Kimberly Kagan, Foreign Affairs’ Snapshots, December 16, 2011.

―This War Can Still Be Won,‖ by Major Fernando M. Luján (USA), The New York Times,
September 27, 2011.
3
America‘s Role in the World
The United States remains the world‘s indispensable
nation─vital to international peace, security, and
stability, and crucial to safeguarding and advancing
the ideals and principles we hold dear. America
cannot afford to turn its back on its international
commitments and allies—the allies that helped us
defeat fascism and communism, and the alliances
we have forged with other nations, including those in
Iraq and Afghanistan, to advance freedom and
strengthen our security. At home, U.S. economic
difficulties will only deepen by pursuing a protectionist
retreat within our borders. Today, the challenges we
face require a vision and policies anchored, not in
the fatalism of America‘s inevitable decline as
espoused by some, but rather in a renewed commitment to strong and enduring American
global leadership.
Key Points:

Founded on the universal cause of freedom, the United States holds a special place in world
history. America‘s Founding Fathers and Presidents have frequently highlighted America‘s
unique role in the world. For example, Benjamin Franklin proclaimed, ―Our cause is the
cause of all mankind.‖ President Reagan called America ―the last best hope on earth.‖
And President Clinton said, ―America stands alone as the world‘s indispensable nation.‖

The United States must maintain robust engagement in the world─diplomatically, militarily,
and economically─to ensure more secure and prosperous future. From the misguided
isolationism of the 1930s to the counterproductive Smoot-Hawley Tariff at the onset of the
Great Depression, America has suffered when its leaders embraced the path of diminished
U.S. global leadership and protectionism. Such a course only serves to weaken our national
security and diminish economic opportunities for our citizens.

The United States should maintain vigorous support for democratic allies, and oppose
regimes that threaten American interests and subvert the cause of freedom. As such,
America should pursue policies that promote political freedom and stand against human
rights abuses across the globe—abuses that mock the universal principles we hold dear; that
work to strengthen ties with our allies through better trade relations to increase U.S. exports,
and achieve greater diplomatic and military coordination; and that encourage all nations—
particularly China and Russia—and international institutions to act responsibly in their
deliberations and activities.
Notable Facts:
1.
The U.S. budget of national defense, including war-funding, today consumes 4.3% of
America‘s gross domestic product (GDP). For that amount, the United States upholds a
system of international peace and prosperity. America‘s global system of alliances and
extended deterrence has helped to prevent the outbreak of major foreign aggression
and keeps open the flow of global trade and commerce.
2.
Funding for the State Department and affiliated agencies has increasingly been used to
support civilian missions in war zones and unstable states. Comprising less than 1.5% of
the federal budget, this funding helps to support the spread of democracy and human
rights abroad, the capacity-building of partner militaries, and the stabilization of nations—
and thus prevent rise of ungoverned territory that could foster militants and terrorists.
4
3.
After the Cold War, the United States emerged as the predominant political, economic,
and military power in the world. However, China‘s rise and Russia‘s resurgence pose a
long-term competitive challenge to America and the international order.
4.
The United States has repeatedly rejected calls for isolationism and non-interventionism,
and engaged in foreign missions abroad, particularly since 1898. These interventions
have been supported by U.S. Presidents of both parties.
FPI Resources:

―America Has Made the World Freer, Safer, and Wealthier,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan,
CNN.com, March 14, 2012.

―FPI Analysis: In Defense of America‘s International Affairs Budget,‖ Foreign Policy
Initiative, February 24, 2012.

―Why the World Needs America,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, The Wall Street Journal,
February 11, 2012.

―The Importance of U.S. Military Might Shouldn‘t be Underestimated,‖ FPI Director Robert
Kagan, Washington Post, February 2, 2012.

―Defending Defense: A Response to the Obama Administration‘s Preview of the Fiscal
Year 2013 Defense Budget Request,‖ Defending Defense Project (American Enterprise
Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, and The Heritage Foundation), January 27, 2012.

―Defending Defense: Defense Spending, the Super Committee, and the Price of
Greatness,‖ Defending Defense Project (American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy
Initiative, and The Heritage Foundation), November 16, 2011.

―Not Fade Away,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, The New Republic, January 11, 2012.

“Nation-Building, Our National Pastime,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, The New York Times,
October 14, 2011.

―Ron Paul Is Wrong About Defense Spending and the Deficit,‖ FPI Executive Director
Jamie M. Fly and FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate, The Daily Caller, September 29, 2011.

―The Price of Power,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, The Weekly Standard, January 15, 2011.
Suggested Reading:

―Leadership: America‘s Critical Foreign Policy Role,‖ Condoleezza Rice, Remarks at The
Heritage Foundation, June 20, 2012.

―Future of U.S. Foreign Policy,‖ Senator Marco Rubio, Remarks at the Brookings Institution,
April 25, 2012.

―Neither Isolationist Nor Noninterventionist: The Right Way to Think About Foreign Policy,‖
Marion Smith, The Heritage Foundation, July 5, 2011.

―U.S. Foreign Policy: in Praise of Nation-Building,‖ Max Boot, Los Angeles Times, July 5,
2011.

―Conservative Foreign Aid,‖ Elliott Abrams, National Review, November 28, 2011.
5
Arab Spring
After decades of authoritarian rule in the Middle East
and North Africa, the region‘s waves of mass protest
movements give hope to populations choked by
corruption, political repression, and economic
stagnation. The Arab Spring offers the region the
opportunity to establish more moderate, democratic
governments anchored in the rule of law and
respect for human rights, and to spur, in time,
dynamic, job-creating economies.
Reformers in
places like Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and those now
violently suppressed in Syria, deserve support from
America and its allies. Though there will be setbacks
and challenges as these nations evolve at different
paces and with varying leadership, the United States
should aid and empower the long-term democratization process as much as possible.
Key Points:

Decades of authoritarian rule in the Middle East and North Africa have produced a stagnant
political and economic culture characterized by rampant corruption, political oppression,
high unemployment, and anti-Americanism. Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups have
exploited this environment to gain support, particularly from the region‘s disaffected youth.

The long-term success of democratic and economic reform is a key antidote to Islamic
extremism. Indeed, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report noted the importance of
broader cultural change in the region in countering Islamic extremism: ―Tolerance, the rule
of law, political and economic openness, the extension of greater opportunities to women—
these cures must come from within Muslim societies themselves. The United States must
support such developments.‖

The United States has an enormous interest in the successful outcome of the broader reform
movements underway in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere. For example, while the
well-organized Muslim Brotherhood won 235 out of 508 seats in the 2011-2012 Egyptian
parliamentary elections, and Islamist parties did well in Tunisia‘s election, other competing
political parties are now being formed to participate in the democratic process. Should the
newly-elected government in Egypt fail to meet voter expectations on improving the
economy, it will likely face a competitive field of opposition parties in the next election.
Within this process, political space is being opened for citizens to discuss and debate issues,
for civic institutions to mature, and for the governing authority to be accountable to the will
of the people.

The United States and its allies should pursue polices specifically designed to advance the
promise of the Arab Spring, and side with the reformers against the autocrats. Even though
the pace and success of the reform movements in each nation will be uneven, the United
States should pursue the sorts of policies—including economic aid, diplomatic recognition, or
technical assistance—that have helped other nations to transition to democracy, and that
will advance the general reform effort significantly in the short and long term. At the same
time, such support should be reviewed and, if necessary, withdrawn in the event that the
democratic process has been subverted by the respective government.

It is unfortunate that President Obama has ―led from behind‖ and repeatedly failed to grasp
the opportunities presented by the Arab Spring. Reformers in the Middle East and North
Africa should always know that the United States stands with them in their struggle against
authoritarianism.
6
Notable Facts:
1.
The Arab Spring began in Tunisia on December 17, 2010, when Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26year-old street vendor, set himself on fire in a police station to protest harassment from
authorities and the unlawful seizure of his cart. After street protests throughout Tunisia
erupted in Bouazizi‘s name, dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled the country on January 14,
2011. Tunisia held the Arab Spring‘s first democratic elections on October 25, 2011. The
country‘s newly-elected civilian leaders are now working to write a national constitution.
2.
Shortly after Ben Ali‘s ouster in Tunisia, protests spread throughout the Middle East and
North Africa, including in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria. Much of the Arab
Spring has been characterized by street protests by reformers. Several of monarchies in
the region have responded with power-sharing constitutional reforms. However, some
dictators—seeking to perpetuate their hold on power—have steadily increased the use of
lethal force against peaceful mass protesters.
3.
Another element of the Arab Spring has been Saudi Arabia‘s support of regional Sunni
monarchies, namely Bahrain, against protesters from their Shia-majority populations,
which Saudi Arabia fears may be backed by Iran.
4.
After forty years in power, Libya dictator Muammar Gaddafi was killed by Libyan rebels
on October 20, 2011. The dictator‘s ouster was the culmination of the NATO-led
intervention that began in March 2011 to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi
regime‘s security forces.
5.
On July 7, 2012, Libya held its first post-Gaddafi election, in which former interim prime
minister Mahmoud Jibril won a plurality of seats in the country‘s interim National
Assembly, beating Libya‘s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist factions.
Roughly 1.8 million Libyans cast ballots, with an overall voter turnout of 65 percent.
6.
In Egypt‘s June 2012 presidential runoff, Mohammed Morsi, a member of the country‘s
Muslim Brotherhood and a former parliamentarian, narrowly beat Ahmed Shafiq, former
Prime Minister under President Hosni Mubarak. Morsi won 51.7% of the vote over Shafiq‘s
48.3%. While these results are disappointing for the liberal revolutionaries that overthrew
the Mubarak regime, observers are hopeful that the pressing need for the new Egyptian
government to fix its faltering economy will mitigate Morsi‘s Islamist agenda.
7.
Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad continues to wage war against the country‘s various antiregime opposition groups. President Obama demanded that Assad step down in August
2011, but has failed so far to rally a collective response by the international community,
and end the Assad regime‘s campaign of indiscriminate violence against its own people
8.
While 224 people were killed in Tunisia‘s revolution, 846 were killed in Egypt. As of
publication, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad‘s security forces have killed more than 19,000
civilians.
FPI Resources:

―Foreign Policy Experts Urge President Obama to Take Immediate Action to Establish Safe
Zones in Syria,‖ Open Letter Organized by the Foreign Policy Initiative and Foundation for
Defense of Democracies, July 24, 2012.

―How Will History Judge Obama on Syria?,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, Foreign
Policy’s Shadow Government, July 23, 2012.

―FPI Bulletin: Syria Needs Intervention—Not Another Annan Plan,‖ FPI Policy Director
Robert Zarate and Policy Analyst Evan Moore, Foreign Policy Initiative, July 3, 2012.
7

―What Obama Must Do in Syria After the Failed Annan Plan,‖ Joint Bulletin of the Foreign
Policy Initiative and Foundation for Defense of Democracies, April 10, 2012.

―FPI Fact Sheet: The Case for Intervention in Syria,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, March 15,
2012.

―Foreign Policy Experts Urge President Obama to Take Immediate Action in Syria,‖ Open
Letter Organized by the Foreign Policy Initiative and Foundation for Defense of
Democracies, February 17, 2012.

―Foreign Policy Experts Urge President Obama to Take Action Against Assad,‖ Open
Letter Organized by the Foreign Policy Initiative and Foundation for Defense of
Democracies, December 19, 2011.

―Towards a Post-Assad Syria: Options for the United States and Like-Minded Nations to
Further Assist the Anti-Regime Syrian Opposition,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative and Foundation
for Defense of Democracies, November 8, 2011.

―NATO in Libya,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly and Gary Schmitt, The Weekly
Standard, October 1, 2011.

―Foreign Policy Experts Urge House Republicans to Support U.S. Operations in Libya,‖
Open Letter, June 20, 2011.

―Foreign Policy Experts Urge President to Take Action to Halt Violence in Libya,‖ Open
Letter, March 15, 2011.

―Foreign Policy Experts Urge President to Take Action to Halt Violence in Libya,‖ Open
Letter, February 25, 2011.
Suggested Reading:

―What the U.S. Should do to Help Syria,‖ Charles Dunne, David J. Kramer, and William H.
Taft, IV, Washington Post, July 13, 2012.

―American Power and the Libya Naysayers,‖ Senator John McCain, The Wall Street
Journal, July 12, 2012.

―The Missing Piece,‖ Richard Wike and Bruce Stokes, Foreign Policy, July 12, 2012.

―A Triumph for Democracy in Libya,‖ Ann Marlowe, The Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2012.

―The United States‘ Chance for a Do-Over with Egypt,‖ Jackson Diehl, Washington Post,
July 8, 2012.

―Helping Libya Take its Next Steps,‖ Ali Suleiman Aujali, Washington Post, July 6, 2012.

―Disorganized Like a Fox: Why It's a Great Thing that the Syrian Opposition is
Fragmented,‖ Elizabeth O‘Bagy, Foreign Policy, June 29, 2012.

―Syria‘s Maturing Insurgency,‖ Joseph Holiday, Institute for the Study of War, June 21,
2012.

―Syria‘s Political Struggle: Spring 2012,‖ Elizabeth O‘Bagy, Institute for the Study of War,
June 7, 2012.
8

―What Does the Syrian Opposition Believe?‖ David Pollock, The Wall Street Journal, May
30, 2012.

―The Arab Spring and American Ideals,‖ Former President George W. Bush, The Wall
Street Journal, May 17, 2012.

―Turn the Tide Against Bashar al-Assad,‖ Senator Joe Lieberman, Washington Post, May
17, 2012.

―On the Situation in Syria,‖ Senator John McCain, Remarks on the Floor of the U.S. Senate,
March 5, 2012.

―The Case for Arming Syria‘s Opposition,‖ Stephen J. Hadley, Washington Post, March 8,
2012.

―Slamming the Door on Press Freedom in Bahrain,‖ Courtney Radsch, Freedom House‘s
Freedom at Issue, May 8, 2012.

―Prison Island,‖ Tom Malinowski, Foreign Policy, May 7, 2012.

―Where Democracy Is America‘s Second Choice,‖ Francisco Martin-Rayo, Foreign Policy,
May 2, 2012.

―U.S. Must Take Sides to Keep The Arab Spring From Islamist Takeover,‖ Ray Takeyh,
Washington Post, March 23, 2011.
9
Asia Pacific
China‘s increasingly provocative behavior is
challenging long-term security and stability
in the wider Asia-Pacific region. Australia
and Japan have announced changes to
their defense strategies in response to
China‘s growing military might. India—
which has border disputes with China—has
begun to modernize its military. Beijing‘s
expansive claims on the Spratly and Paracel
Islands in the South China Sea have pushed
even Vietnam closer to the West. Allowing
the balance of power in a region of the
world so vital to U.S. interests to shift in
China‗s favor is a recipe for instability,
diminished economic and political sway, and potential conflict—all of which comes with costs
likely to be greater than those required to keep the peace.
Key Points:

The Obama administration‘s so-called ―pivot‖ or ―rebalance‖ towards the Asia Pacific must
be accompanied by policies that reassure Asian allies about America‗s ability to maintain its
dominant security position in the region and deter China. Washington must now bolster
economic and diplomatic ties with longstanding regional allies, engage emerging partners,
and expand both security dialogues—such as December 2011‘s U.S.-Japan-India Trilateral—
and military exercises with likeminded partners. Progress on economic trade agreements,
such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, will complement America‘s security engagement in the
region.

Washington must reassure allies and partners that continuing uncertainty over the America‘s
long-term defense spending will not diminish American naval and air power in the AsiaPacific. Although the Obama administration‘s decision to station 2,500 Marines in Australia is
a positive signal, allies fear that deep ―sequestration‖ defense cuts mandated by the Budget
Control Act of 2011 will constrain America‘s regional military deployments. To further reassure
allies and improve the security situation in the region, America should avert sequestration
cuts to defense spending, pursue an expanded regional missile defense network to counter
China‘s ballistic missile threat, and increase arms sales to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea,
Australia, and India.

The United States should continue its long-standing policy of support for Taiwan. The Obama
administration‘s decision not to sell Taiwan new model F-16 C/Ds fighters to upgrade its Air
Force vis-à-vis China raised doubts about America‘s commitment to the longtime ally.
Because the Chinese air force is rapidly overshadowing Taiwanese capabilities, Washington
should immediately begin discussions regarding selling Taiwan the F-35—an advanced 5th
generation U.S.-built fighter recently ordered by Japan and potentially Australia—as well as
explore other means to bolster the island nation‘s defensive capabilities, such as through
missile defense or submarine sales.

The United States and India should reinvigorate their partnership on a wide range of strategic
issues. Both democracies are bound together by increasingly shared values, face major
terrorist threats, and stand to reap great benefits from deeper cooperation on economic,
diplomatic, and security fronts.
10
Notable Facts:
1.
Over the past two decades, China has procured more than 40 new submarines, including
attack subs and nuclear-armed ballistic missile subs. Its Navy has acquired 15 guided
missile destroyers; a similar number of frigates, including a new stealthy class; more than
four dozen, high-speed, cruise missile-armed patrol craft; and scores of new amphibious
ships.
2.
China also maintains the world‗s largest arsenal of mines to protect its littoral waters,
including those surrounding the major new naval base on Hainan Island. When built, it will
have underground facilities to safely port as many as 20 submarines. Finally, China is now
moving forward with an aircraft carrier program.
3.
Since the early 1990s, China‘s air forces have bought or built hundreds of new 4th
generation fighters—which are comparable to the American-made F-16s and F-15s.
4.
Since 2000, the United States and India have inked a landmark civil nuclear cooperation
agreement, broadened bilateral relations, and expanded security cooperation and
defense trade. Most notably, free flows of trade and investment reached unprecedented
levels. By 2008, total bilateral trade surpassed $43.4 billion, up from just $14 billion in 2000.
5.
In 2011, India signed its biggest defense deal with the United States so far—a $4.1 billion
contract to procure ten C-17 airlift aircraft.
6.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced at the 2012 Shangri-La Dialogue that the
United States will shift 60% of its naval assets to the Asia-Pacific region by 2020, rather than
the present 50-50 split between the Atlantic and Pacific.
FPI Resources:

―FPI Analysis: Overcoming Obstacles to Accelerate the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership,‖
Foreign Policy Initiative, June 11, 2012.

―FPI Bulletin: An Off-Balance Pivot to Asia?‖ FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate and Policy
Analyst Patrick Christy, Foreign Policy Initiative, June 4, 2012.

―Obama Drops the Ball on India,‖ FPI Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, The Diplomat, March
27, 2012.

―FPI Analysis: Assessing U.S. Policy Towards China,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, February 15,
2012.

―FPI Bulletin: Obama Can Cut Defense or Pivot to Asia—But Not Both,‖ FPI Policy Analysts
Patrick Christy and Evan Moore, Foreign Policy Initiative, February 13, 2012.

―Avoiding U.S.-India Drift,‖ FPI Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, The Diplomat’s Flashpoints
Blog, December 2, 2011.

―FPI Bulletin: President Obama‘s Trip to Australia,‖ FPI Policy Analyst Patrick Christy,
Foreign Policy Initiative, November 16, 2011.

―Defending Defense: China's Military Build-Up—Implications for U.S. Defense Spending,‖
Defending Defense Project (American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, and
The Heritage Foundation), March 7, 2011.
11
Suggested Reading:

―U.S.–Vietnam Defense Relations: Investing in Strategic Alignment, Colonel William Jordan
(USA, Ret.), Lewis Stern, and Walter Lohman, The Heritage Foundation, July 18, 2012.

―Pivoting and Rebalancing: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,‖ Daniel Blumenthal,
Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, July 3, 2012.

―America's 'Pacific Pivot' Craze,‖ Max Boot, Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2012.

―Asia in the Balance: Transforming U.S. Military Strategy in Asia,‖ Thomas Mahnken, et al.,
American Enterprise Institute, June 4, 2012.

―Why Asia Wants America,‖ Senator John McCain, The Diplomat, May 22, 2012.

―Don't Forget About the East China Sea,‖ Michael Auslin, Center for New American
Security, May 3, 2012.

―Failure 2.0,‖ Sadanand Dhume, Foreign Policy, March 16, 2012.

―Defense Budget Cuts Will Devastate America‘s Commitment to the Asia–Pacific,‖ Dean
Cheng and Bruce Klingner, The Heritage Foundation, December 6, 2011.

―Debating the Pacific Century,‖ Multiple Authors, Foreign Policy, October 14, 2011.

―Asian Alliances in the 21st Century,‖ Dan Blumenthal with Randal Schriver, Mark Stokes,
L.C. Russell Hsiao, and Michael Mazza, Project 2049 Institute, August 30, 2011.

―Build, Hold, And Clear: An American Strategy for Asia,‖ Michael Auslin, National Review,
August 15, 2011.
12
China
China‘s growing economy and global trade ties have not
led Beijing to fully embrace market-based economic
principles and transparent business practices, let alone to
demonstrate respect for the human rights of its people, or
pursue substantive political reforms. China‘s continued
military build-up, fueled by years of strong defense
spending and an increasingly assertive foreign policy, has
raised concerns throughout the Asia-Pacific region and
the world. It is clear that the United States and China
differ deeply on a wide range of economic, diplomatic,
security, and human rights issues. A strategy of
engagement, by itself, cannot completely bridge these
differences. Instead, there is a need for Washington to
articulate, clearly and publicly, an integrated long-term strategy towards China that advances
America‘s core values and interests—one that not only emphasizes U.S. commitment to its allies
and partners in the Asia-Pacific, but also supports Chinese dissidents, Tibetans, and Uighurs in
their continuing struggle for human rights and dignity.
Key Points:

China‘s increasingly assertive foreign policy has raised concerns throughout the region and
the world. Beijing has blocked more effective U.N. Security Council action against Iran‘s
rogue nuclear activities, and Syria‘s atrocities against civilian protestors. It has shown an
unwillingness to exert significant pressure on North Korea, even when Pyongyang takes
provocative actions with regard to its nuclear weapons and missile programs. Beijing targets
Taiwan with missiles, and is embroiled with neighbors in territorial disputes in the Western
Pacific and South China Sea.

The Obama administration‘s so-called ―pivot‖ or ―rebalance‖ towards the Asia Pacific must
be accompanied by policies that reassure Asian allies about America‗s ability to maintain its
dominant security position in the region and deter China. Washington must now bolster
economic and diplomatic ties with longstanding regional allies, engage emerging partners,
and expand both security dialogues—such as December 2011‘s U.S.-Japan-India Trilateral—
and military exercises with likeminded partners.

U.S. policy also should seek to help Asian allies to balance against China‘s increasingly
assertive foreign policy and growing military might. Specifically, the United States should
pursue increased arms sales to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, and India, and an
expanded regional missile defense network to counter China‘s ballistic missile threat.

The United States should elevate its call for Chinese leaders to respect the human rights of all
of its citizens and embrace democratic values anchored in the rule of law. In China today,
open political discussion is repressed, freedom of religion banned, and Tibetans and other
groups face a government-enforced crackdown. In response, the U.S. should: 1) speak out
against Chinese human rights abuses in every available forum and at every available
opportunity; 2) establish linkage between American policy towards China and China‘s
human rights behavior; and 3) recognize that the best long-term solution for American
concerns about Chinese behavior is China‘s eventual democratization and expose the
connection between the nature of China‘s communist regime and its behavior at home and
abroad.

As appropriate, the United States should also seek solutions to major international issues
without China. For example, although multiparty talks that included China (and Russia)
were, conceptually, a promising method to deal with Iran, North Korea, and Syria; in
practice, they have served as another mechanism by which China (and Russia) continue to
13
resist efforts to compel their client states. Instead, the United States, working with democratic
allies, should seek other avenues to impair these rogue regimes‘ capabilities.

The fact that the United States and China are tied together economically should not hinder
efforts to ensure that American businesses are treated fairly. China‘s economic growth and
huge population offer tremendous opportunity for U.S. companies and benefits for American
consumers. At the same time, China‘s businesses should operate in a transparent fashion, its
currency allowed to float to reflect its market value, and Beijing should respect and enforce
vigorously the intellectual property rights of Americans firms. However, in working with China
to end such practices, it would be a mistake to impose U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports. The
Obama administration has rightly refused to support such efforts, given the likelihood that
they could lead to a trade war with China, hurting U.S. companies and raising the cost of
goods for American consumers.
Notable Facts:
1.
The Pentagon officially estimates that China‘s military-related spending for 2011
amounted between $120 billion to $180 billion. But the cost of raising, training, and
equipping a military in China is substantially less than what it costs to field an equivalent
American force. Moreover, China‘s military spending currently focuses on the AsiaPacific region, in contrast to U.S. military spending, which covers the globe.
2.
China‘s officially disclosed military budget for 2012 is set to increase 11.2 percent over
2011. From 2000 to 2011, China‘s defense budget grew at an average of 11.8 percent per
year. Using the purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rate, which accounts for cost
differences between China and the West, the Chinese core military budget may well
approach $300 billion, making it the second largest in the world.
3.
In an annual report to Congress in 2012, the Pentagon assessed that China possesses over
1000 conventional short-range ballistic missiles, with ranges capable of hitting Taiwan,
and is in the process of increasing their range, payload, and accuracy.
4.
The Chinese military is also developing a conventional medium-range ballistic missile
capability to threaten U.S. carrier groups throughout the region.
5.
Since the end of the Cold War, China has dramatically expanded its navy, especially its
submarine fleet which includes modern attack submarines. During this same time period,
the number of submarines in the U.S. fleet has decreased. At its current rate of purchase
and production, China may be able eventually to sustain a force of nearly 80 submarines.
The U.S. submarine fleet is currently at 53.
6.
Since the early 1990s, the Chinese air forces, traditional and naval, have bought or built
hundreds of new 4th generation fighters — fighters generally comparable to the
American-made F-16s and F-15s. China is also developing the J-20, a fifth-generation,
stealth, twin-engine fighter aircraft.
FPI Resources:

―FPI Bulletin: An Off-Balance Pivot to Asia?‖ FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate and Policy
Analyst Patrick Christy, Foreign Policy Initiative, June 5, 2012.

―FPI Bulletin: U.S. Must Hold China to its Promises in Chen Guangcheng Case,‖ FPI Director
of Democracy and Human Rights Ellen Bork, Foreign Policy Initiative, May 2, 2012.

―Xi Whiz!‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly and Director of Democracy and Human
Rights Ellen Bork, The Weekly Standard, February 18, 2012

―FPI Analysis: Assessing U.S. Policy Towards China,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, February 15,
2012.
14

―Defending Defense: China's Military Build-Up: Implications for U.S. Defense Spending,‖
Defending Defense Project (American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, and
The Heritage Foundation), March 7, 2011.

―FPI Bulletin: Mr. President, Meet With the Dalai Lama,‖ FPI Director of Democracy and
Human Rights Ellen Bork, Foreign Policy Initiative, July 15, 2011.

―FPI Analysis: Time for a Strategic Reassessment of U.S. Policy Toward China,‖ Foreign
Policy Initiative, January 17, 2011.

―FPI Bulletin: Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo Puts Pressure on China and President
Obama,‖ FPI Director of Democracy and Human Rights Ellen Bork, Foreign Policy
Initiative, October 8, 2010.
Suggested Reading:

―U.S. Lawmakers Must Fix Pentagon‘s China Report,‖ Bill French and Daniel Katz, Defense
News, July 8, 2012.

―For China, It‘s All About America,‖ Michael Auslin, The Diplomat, July 6, 2012.

―Making Sense of Six Chinas,‖ Will Inboden, Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, June
26, 2012.

―5 Things the Pentagon Isn't Telling Us About the Chinese Military,‖ Trefor Moss, Foreign
Policy, May 23, 2012.

―Stop Ignoring Taiwan,‖ Karl Eikenberry, Foreign Policy, May 17, 2012.

―Friends Like These,‖ Dan Blumenthal and Lara Crouch, Foreign Policy, May 4, 2012.

―State of Injustice,‖ Sophie Richardson, Foreign Policy, April 30, 2012.

―Indigenous Weapons Development in China‘s Military Modernization,‖ Amy Chang, Staff
Research Report for the U.S.‐China Economic and Security Review Commission, April 3,
2012.

―American Crisis, Chinese Opportunity,‖ Michael Auslin, The Wall Street Journal Asia,
March 9, 2012.

―The Growing Threat from China's Air Force,‖ Michael Auslin, The Wall Street Journal,
August 24, 2011.

―The Implications of China's South China Sea Activities,‖ Dan Blumenthal, Staff Briefing for
the Congressional China Caucus, July 29, 2011.

―Don‘t Discount Chinese Liberty,‖ Liu Junning, The Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2011.

―Hegemony with Chinese Characteristics,‖ Aaron Friedberg, The National Interest, June
21, 2011.

―Countering Beijing in the South China Sea,‖ Dana Dillon, The Hoover Institution, June 1,
2011.

―Tipping Point in the Indo-Pacific,‖ Michael Auslin, The American Interest, March/April
2011.
15
Democracy & Human Rights
Founded on the universal cause of freedom,
America holds a special place in the world. As
Benjamin Franklin observed, ―Our cause is the
cause of all mankind.‖ Today, America remains
the world‘s indispensable nation—indispensable to
international peace, security, and stability, and
indispensable to safe-guarding and advancing
the ideals and principles we hold dear. As such,
America must provide global leadership in
working to spread political freedom and defend
the human rights of those oppressed by their
governments.
Key Points:

The United States should pursue policies that promote political freedom and stand against
human rights abuses across the globe—abuses which mock the universal principles we hold
dear. To that end, Washington should work with our democratic allies to promote
democracy and respect for human rights, challenge regimes that subvert the cause of
freedom, and leverage the visibility of international institutions to aim a brighter spotlight on
crimes against humanity. Those fighting for their freedom should never have cause to
question whether America is on their side.

The United States should elevate its call for Chinese leaders to respect the human rights of all
of its citizens and embrace democratic values anchored in the rule of law. In China today,
open political discussion is repressed, freedom of religion banned, and Tibetans and other
groups face a government crackdown. In response, the United States should: 1) speak out
against Chinese human rights abuses in every available forum at every available
opportunity; 2) establish linkage between U.S. policy towards China and Chinese human
rights behavior; and 3) recognize that the best long-term solution for American concerns
about Chinese behavior is its eventual democratization and expose the connection
between the nature of China‘s communist regime and its behavior at home and abroad.

Ultimately, China is still a country of, by, and for the Communist Party, not the Chinese
people. Dissidents and activists like Chen Guangcheng view the United States as a crucial
ally in their fight for democracy and human decency. America cannot and must not be
indifferent to their struggle.

The United States should respond swiftly to activities undertaken by the Kremlin to thwart the
democratic process or violate basic human rights inside Russia. In recent years, the Russian
government has accelerated a systematic rollback of democratic reforms enacted in the
wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, curtailed press freedom and political expression,
and used the power of the state to harass political opponents and media outlets. Russia has
also ignored its international obligation to establish and ensure a free and open political
process inside its borders. The 2012 presidential election, in which Vladimir Putin returned to
the Presidency for a third term, is a prominent example of the Kremlin‘s complete control of
Russian politics. The United States should speak out much more forcefully against these
actions, and give greater support to the burgeoning protest movement against Putin‘s
domination of the Russian state. Turning a blind eye to such undemocratic behavior further
weakens democratic forces in Russia and harms American interests.

As Burma opens itself to incremental reforms, the United States should proportionally ease
international pressure only in close and continuing coordination with the country‘s
democratic opposition. Despite initial political reforms, the Burmese government is still
effectively ruled by military officials in civilian garb, who strongly control the country‘s politics
16
and economy, and are still warring against the country‘s ethnic minorities. After the Obama
administration lifted a long-standing investment on Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi—the Nobel
Prize-winner whose opposition party won over 95 percent of open seats in the country‘s April
2012 parliamentary elections—emphatically urged Washington and the international
community to resist ―reckless optimism.‖ She instead called for them to retain and use their
leverage to encourage further democratic reforms in a nation that still remains largely
shackled by dictatorial strongmen.

The United States should embrace and champion the democratic revolutions that are
remaking the Middle East. For decades, the United States sought to establish regional
stability at the expense of freedom. This resulted in enshrined authoritarian governments that
were unresponsive to the needs and aspirations of their people, stifled economies, and
burgeoning radical Islamist movements. As post-revolutionary states like Egypt, Tunisia, and
Libya begin to organize themselves, the United States should insist on free and fair elections,
as well make clear that the new governments must respect the rights of all their citizens.
However, while the United States may not agree with or condone the decisions of these new
governments, policy makers should recognize that a democratic state forces leaders to be
held accountable to their people.

A policy that advances freedom and democracy in the Middle East is entirely consistent with
American interests and values. In 2009, the Obama administration sought to diplomatically
engage the Iranian regime on the country‘s controversial nuclear program. Following the
June 12 presidential elections of that year, Iranians stormed into the streets in the hundreds of
thousands to protest the fraudulent re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In their
demonstrations, the protesters explicitly asked for American support. However, even
President Obama‘s moral support during the summer of 2009 was, at best, tepid. If the
administration had given the Iranian people more robust aid and support during this critical
juncture, then the strategic situation in the Middle East might have been dramatically
improved.
Notable Facts:
1.
The 2010 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. Liu, a signatory
of Charter 08—a manifesto calling for democratic reform—was and is imprisoned by the
Chinese government, and was prevented from attending his award ceremony. Beijing
also successfully pressured 19 countries to boycott ceremony.
2.
The U.S State Department stated that the 1990 Burmese election results ―were an
overwhelming victory for Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy party, which
won nearly 60% of the vote and 392 of the 485 seats, even though she was under house
arrest at the time of the elections.‖ Burma‘s ruling military regime refused to honor that
election‘s results.
3.
The Iranian regime has used brutal tactics of repression to prevent another series of widescale demonstrations against the regime. Journalists, activists, and human rights
defenders have been imprisoned and executed.
4.
The Arab Spring began in Tunisia on December 17, 2010, when Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26year-old street vendor, set himself on fire in a police station to protest harassment from
authorities and the unlawful seizure of his cart. After street protests throughout Tunisia
erupted in Bouazizi‘s name, dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled the country on January 14,
2011. Tunisia held the Arab Spring‘s first democratic elections on October 25, 2011. The
country‘s newly-elected civilian leaders are now working to write a national constitution.
5.
On July 7, 2012, Libya held its first post-Gaddafi election, in which former interim prime
minister Mahmoud Jibril won a plurality of seats in the country‘s interim National
Assembly, beating Libya‘s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist factions.
Roughly 1.8 million Libyans cast ballots, with an overall voter turnout of 65 percent.
17
FPI Resources:

―Foreign Policy Experts Urge President Obama to Take Immediate Action to Establish Safe
Zones in Syria,‖ Open Letter Organized by the Foreign Policy Initiative and Foundation for
Defense of Democracies, July 24, 2012.

―Democracy and the Asia Pivot,‖ FPI Director of Democracy and Human Rights Ellen
Bork, The Weekly Standard, July 21, 2012.

―FPI Bulletin: U.S. Must Hold China to its Promises in Chen Guangcheng Case,‖ FPI
Director of Democracy and Human Rights Ellen Bork, Foreign Policy Initiative, May 2, 2012.

―Time for Obama to Stand Up for Human Rights,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly,
National Review Online’s The Corner, April 30, 2012.

“Why is Obama Giving Up His Human Rights Leverage Against Russia?‖ FPI Director of
Democracy and Human Rights Ellen Bork, The New Republic, March 30, 2012.

―Foreign Policy Experts Urge President Obama to Take Immediate Action in Syria,‖ Open
Letter Organized by the Foreign Policy Initiative and Foundation for Defense of
Democracies, February 17, 2012.

―FPI Analysis: Assessing U.S. Policy Towards China,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, February 15,
2012.

―Foreign Policy Experts Urge President Obama to Take Action Against Assad,‖ Open
Letter Organized by the Foreign Policy Initiative and Foundation for Defense of
Democracies, December 19, 2011.

―Towards a Post-Assad Syria: Options for the United States and Like-Minded Nations to
Further Assist the Anti-Regime Syrian Opposition,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative and Foundation
for Defense of Democracies, November 8, 2011.

―Mr. President, Meet with the Dalai Lama,‖ FPI Director of Democracy and Human Rights
Ellen Bork, Foreign Policy Initiative, July 15, 2011.

―How The Obama Administration Should Follow Up on Its Rhetoric on Rights in China,‖ FPI
Director of Democracy and Human Rights Ellen Bork, Foreign Policy Initiative, May 11,
2011.
Suggested Reading:

―Turning Burma‘s Small Steps into Bigger Ones,‖ Karel Schwarzenberg, Washington Post,
July 27, 2012.

―In Zimbabwe, Democracy Must Be Driven from Below,‖ Vukasin Petrovic, Freedom
House‘s Freedom at Issue, July 26, 2012.

―How Solidarity Spoke to a Nation: Lessons for Today‘s Democratic Insurgents,‖ Arch
Puddington, Freedom House‘s Freedom at Issue, July 17, 2012.

―U.S. is Moving too Fast on Burma,‖ Michael Green and Daniel Twining, Washington Post,
July 15, 2012.

―For Tibetans, No Other Way to Protest,‖ Lobsang Sangay, Washington Post, July 13, 2012.
18
Defense Policy
In the dangerous post-9/11 world, the United States
must ensure that the men and women of the U.S.
military have the weapons, equipment, and other
resources needed to carry out any mission and come
home safely. However, unless the President and
Congress change current law, the U.S. Armed Forces
soon will face an indiscriminate, across-the-board cut
of more than $500 billion over the next decade.
Known as ―sequestration,‖ this massive reduction in
defense spending comes on top of the $487 billion in
long-term military cuts already proposed by President
Obama in February 2012. If sequestration cuts to
defense spending are fully implemented, then the
United States will not have the capacity to meet its stated military commitments, and American
national security would be significantly weakened.
Key Points:
Spending

Under the debt-limit deal, the defense budget will face catastrophic cuts. First, spending
caps are placed on the Pentagon for fiscal years (FY) 2012 and 2013. Continuing these
spending caps over ten years will result in $487 billion in cuts to the regular defense budget.
On top of this, current law now mandates additional ―sequestration‖ cuts in the $500-600
billion range due to the failure of the select bipartisan deficit committee to reach
agreement on any further deficit reduction. In total, the Pentagon now faces cuts of more
than $1 trillion over the next decade.

Pro-defense policymakers should vigorously oppose such devastating defense cuts. In the
1990s, drastic cuts to defense spending resulted in the ―hollowing out‖ of the military, with
units lacking sufficient personnel, supplies, and equipment. If the current debt deal governs
defense policy for the next ten years, then the percentage of GDP America spends on
defense would fall under 3%─the lowest total in the entire post-World War II era─and the
defense budget would not be remotely adequate to secure America‘s interests and
preserving the international leadership role that rests upon military preeminence. This would
endanger U.S. national security.
Modernization Needs

Policymakers who support massive cuts in defense spending ignore the findings of a
bipartisan panel on U.S. military readiness. Co-chaired by Bush National Security Advisor
Stephen Hadley and Clinton-era Secretary of Defense William Perry, the Quadrennial
Defense Review Independent Panel‘s assessment of U.S. military capabilities issued an
―explicit warning‖ on military readiness: ―The aging of the inventories and equipment used
by the services, the decline in the size of the Navy, escalating personnel entitlements,
overhead and procurement costs, and the growing stress on the force means that a train
wreck is coming in the areas of personnel, acquisition, and force structure.‖

The American military faces a large and growing gap between the forces it requires and the
forces it has. America‘s military is presently equipped for maintaining and preserving global
peace rather than protecting the United States against 21st century global threats. For
example, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz has stated that the present
number of F-22 fighters creates a high risk for the U.S. military in meeting its operational
demands. The fact that F-22 procurement was capped at 187 aircraft is especially
worrisome as China develops increasingly capable stealth aircraft and as Russia develops
and sells resilient air defense systems. The Navy has 285 ships, the fewest number since
19
America‘s entrance into World War I. This is well below the 313-ship level that the Chief of
Naval Operations has called a ―floor.‖ In addition to other critical investments, the United
States should restore production of the F-22, and maintain funding for the Navy‘s 313-ship
plan, including 12 aircraft carriers.
Missile Defense

The United States should support robust missile defenses to protect the homeland, America‘s
friends and allies, and our forces when they are deployed. With rogue nations like North
Korea and Iran acquiring more sophisticated, longer-range missile systems, U.S. missile
defense has taken on much greater importance. The Bush administration deployed a limited
missile defense system in Alaska and California to protect the U.S. homeland from such
threats. The Obama administration should continue robust support for missile defense,
including the planned deployment of a new missile defense network in Europe and
proposed deployment on the East Coast, to defend America and our allies against the
emerging threat of Iran‘s long-range and intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities.
Notable Facts:
1.
Former Secretary of Defense Gates strongly cautioned against massive defense budget
cuts: ―If you cut the defense budget by 10%, which would be catastrophic in terms of
force structure, that‘s $55 billion out of a $1.4 trillion deficit... [The men and women of the
U.S. military] are not the problem.‖
2.
The United States spends more money on personnel costs ($157 billion in 2011) than on
weapons procurement ($151 billion) and the imbalance is likely to grow in future years,
thereby making it even harder to increase our power-projection capabilities.
3.
Today, the U.S. military flies the same basic planes (e.g., F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fighters; B52, B-1 and B-2 bombers and a variety of support aircraft), sails the same basic ships (e.g.,
Trident ballistic missile and Los Angeles-class attack submarines, Aegis-equipped
destroyers and cruisers, Nimitz-class aircraft carriers), and employs the same basic
ground systems (e.g., Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Black Hawk and Apache
helicopters) that it did at the end of the Cold War.
4.
Congress has mandated that the Navy have no less than 12 aircraft carriers. Although the
Navy currently has 11 carriers, the U.S.S. Enterprise will be decommissioned in 2013, and
the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford is not expected to be commissioned until 2015, leaving the fleet
with only ten carriers in the intermediate two-year period.
5.
Since the end of the Cold War, America‘s military has operated at a far higher operational
tempo than it did during the Cold War. However, while the military has been busier than
ever, its size and strength have declined. The Air Force is smaller and its inventory is older
than at any time since its inception in 1947. The Navy has fewer ships than at any time
since 1916. The Air Force, Navy and Army are 30% to 40% smaller than they were during
Desert Storm.
6.
In January 2012, President Obama unveiled a controversial strategic guidance document
to reorient America‘s long-term defense planning. On the one hand, it stresses the
enduring importance of the Asia-Pacific region to U.S. national security interests. On the
other hand, it articulates a vision for the Pentagon‘s future that only accounts for the first of
two rounds of deep cuts mandated by the debt-limit deal.
7.
President Obama‘s Fiscal Year 2013 defense budget proposal to Congress ignored the
reality of sequestration, completely punting the responsibility of undoing the trillion-dollar
cut—or implementing it—to Congress. The alternative budget submitted by House
Republicans attempts to block the first year of sequestration cuts by replacing them with
alternative spending reductions. Senate Democrats have also not attempted to offset or
stop sequestration‘s impact. Congressional observers believe that if this deadlock is to be
resolved, it will be during the ―lame-duck‖ session of Congress following the November
elections, but before sequestration takes legal effect on January 2, 2013.
20
FPI Resources:

―Real Leadership on Defense,‖ by FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly and Policy Analyst
Evan Moore, National Review Online’s The Corner, July 24, 2012.

―Obama‘s Defense ‗Pivot‘ Masks Shrinkage,‖ FPI Director Eric Edelman and Dov Zakheim,
POLITICO, July 22, 2012.

―Defending Defense: Sequestration‘s Shadow on the Defense Industrial Base,‖ Defending
Defense Project (American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, The Heritage
Foundation), July 12, 2012.

―Defending Defense: The Dangers of Deep Defense Cuts: What America‘s Civilian and
Military Leaders are Saying,‖ Defending Defense Project (American Enterprise Institute,
Foreign Policy Initiative, The Heritage Foundation), May 23, 2012.

―Saying No to Sequestration,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, National Review
Online, May 17, 2012.

―Why Conservatives Should Fund and Support a Strong National Defense,‖ Senator Jon
Kyl, The Heritage Foundation, May 15, 2012.

―Defending Defense: Sequestration Must Be Stopped,‖ Defending Defense Project
(American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, The Heritage Foundation), May 7,
2012.

―Ryan‘s Budget Protects Defense,‖ Arthur Brooks, Edwin Feulner, and William Kristol, The
Wall Street Journal, March 27, 2012.

―Defending Defense: A Response to the Obama Administration‘s Preview of the Fiscal
Year 2013 Defense Budget Request,‖ Defending Defense Project (American Enterprise
Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, The Heritage Foundation), January 27, 2012.

―Defending Defense: Defense Spending, the Super Committee, and the Price of
Greatness,‖ Defending Defense Project (American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy
Initiative, The Heritage Foundation), November 16, 2011.

―Defending Defense: Warning—Hollow Force Ahead!‖ Defending Defense Project
(American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, The Heritage Foundation), July 21,
2011.

―Defending Defense: China's Military Build-Up: Implications For U.S. Defense Spending,‖
Defending Defense Project (American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, The
Heritage Foundation), March 7, 2011.

―The Price of Power,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, The Weekly Standard, January 15, 2011.
Suggested Reading:

―Sequestration Resource Kit,‖ House Armed Services Committee, updated periodically.

―The Danger of Obama‘s Inaction on Sequestration,‖ Congressman Howard P. ―Buck‖
McKeon, Washington Post, July 30, 2012.

―Syria and Obama's Strategic Box,‖ Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly, The Weekly
Standard Blog, July 27, 2012.
21

―Fix Defense Sequestration—Without Tax Increases,‖ Steven Bucci and Alison Acosta
Frazer, The Heritage Foundation, July 19, 2012.

―Sequestration Hurts Small Business More than Big Business,‖ Mackenzie Eaglen, Roll Call,
July 18, 2012.

―CNO Article Raises Doubts About Joint Strike Fighter,‖ Mackenzie Eaglen, AOL Defense,
July 9, 2012.

―Indefensible: The Sequester‘s Mechanics and Adverse Effects on National and
Economic Security,‖ Bipartisan Policy Center, June 7, 2012.

―Panetta Plays Chicken,‖ Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly, The Weekly Standard, May
12, 2012.

―The U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Plan: Assumptions and Associated Risks to National Security,‖
Mackenzie Eaglen, Testimony before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, April 18, 2012.

―A Path to Security,‖ Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly, The Weekly Standard, March
24, 2012.

―Nearing Coffin Corner: U.S. Air Power on the Edge,‖ Mackenzie Eaglen and Douglas
Birkey, American Enterprise Institute, March 21, 2012.

―Obama's Shift-to-Asia Budget Is a Hollow Shell Game,‖ Mackenzie Eaglen, AOL Defense,
March 15, 2012.

―The Past Decade of Military Spending: What we Spent, What We Wasted, and What We
Need,‖ Mackenzie Eaglen, American Enterprise Institute, January 24, 2012.

―The Obama Way of War,‖ Thomas Donnelly, The Weekly Standard, January 21, 2012.

―A Budget Strategy that Courts Disaster,‖ Dov Zakheim, Foreign Policy’s Shadow
Government, January 5, 2012.

―Slashing America's Defense: A Suicidal Trajectory,‖ Max Boot, Commentary, January
2012.
22
Europe - NATO
As rogue states continue to pursue dangerous
weapons, terrorists seek to disrupt our way of
life, and America is confronted by new and
resurgent powers, it remains vital that the
United States and our European allies work
together closely to meet these threats. Since
1949, NATO—a transatlantic military alliance
composed of democratic nations with shared
values—has defended the Free World and its
values in locales as varied as Libya and
Afghanistan. However, continued defense
budget cuts by NATO members risk crippling
the alliance‘s ability to confront the threats of tomorrow and are already hampering current
operations.
Key Points:

A strong NATO alliance strengthens U.S. security. A unified and highly capable NATO is more
likely to deter aggressors and deal successfully with future security challenges than a NATO
that is politically divided and militarily weak. Terrorism, nuclear and missile proliferation,
instability in Africa and the Middle East, disruption of sea lanes critical to global commerce, a
resurgent Russia, and a more assertive China are just a few examples of the wide range of
challenges the United States and our democratic allies will face in the next decade. Each
has the potential to impact transatlantic economic and military security.

The United States and NATO members in Europe should restore appropriate funding levels to
their respective defense budgets. The threat of tyranny did not disappear after the Cold War
but rather fragmented into new dangers and challenges. Thus, strategic thinking and
budgetary decisions should focus on rebuilding air, land, and sea forces to meet current and
future threats. Unfortunately, while NATO has been an indispensible partner in Afghanistan,
its deployment has exposed major deficiencies in military readiness. As former Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates noted: ―NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a
deployment of 25,000 to 40,000 troops.‖

President Obama‘s attempt to ―reset‖ relations with Russia alienated America‘s allies in
Central and Eastern Europe. By moving strategically closer to Russia, Obama undermined
Washington‘s relations with the democratic states of ―New Europe.‖ Many of these
countries—including Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Georgia—had contributed
significantly to the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush‘s ―Third Site‖ plans for
missile defense in Europe became a symbol of reciprocal U.S. commitment to the security of
Central and Eastern Europe. President Obama‘s decision to embrace closer relations with
Moscow, coupled with his abandonment of the ―Third Site‖ in favor of the ―Phased-Adaptive
Approach‖ system, left our allies feeling betrayed.

America must voice support for European democrats as they continue to fight against
authoritarianism. Alexander Lukashenko‘s regime in Belarus—Europe‘s last dictatorship—is in
the midst of a full-fledged crackdown against civilian demonstrators following his
controversial victory in presidential ―elections‖ in 2010. Under the leadership of the proRussian President Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine is back-sliding on many of the democratic
gains won by the 2005 Orange Revolution. The trial and conviction of former Prime Minister—
and opponent of Yanukovych in the 2010 presidential election—Yuliya Tymoshenko is one
such example. The United States and European Union must continue to embrace a vision of
a Europe whole and free, and pursue policies that draw Minsk and Kiev further into the West.
23
Notable Facts:
1.
In two decades, the size of British armed forces has shrunk by nearly 40%, with the Royal
Navy bearing the largest burden of downsizing.
Further, the British government
announced in 2010 that the defense budget will be cut by another 8% over the next four
years, with military manpower reduced by approximately 10%.
2.
Defense budgets across Europe will continue to decrease as a result of the world financial
crisis and ongoing debt crisis. This year, only five of NATO‘s 28 members will meet NATO‘s
budgetary requirement of 2% GDP on defense. Whereas the U.S. accounted for 50% of
NATO members‘ defense spending a mere decade ago, that number has risen to more
than 75% today.
3.
NATO‘s Libya operation showed the limitations of Europe‘s military capabilities. Of the 28
NATO nations, only 16 participated in the Libya intervention. As NATO Secretary-General
Anders Fogh Rasmussen conceded, ―The fact is that Europe couldn‘t have done this on its
own.‖
FPI Resources:

―FPI Analysis: Missed Opportunities at the 2012 NATO Summit,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative,
May 25, 2012.

―Europe‘s Looming Defense Crisis is a Threat to NATO,‖ FPI Policy Analyst Patrick Christy,
The Commentator, January 5, 2012.

―NATO in Libya,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly and Gary Schmitt, The Weekly
Standard, October 1, 2011.

―Joint Bulletin: Maintaining Defense Spending Critical to U.S.-U.K. Special Relationship,‖
FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly and Henry Jackson Society Executive Director Alan
Mendoza, October 22, 2010.

―A Special Relationship in Jeopardy,‖ FPI Director Eric Edelman, The American Interest,
July/August 2010.

―Open Letter to President Obama on Central Europe,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, October
2, 2009.

―A Stab in the Back,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, The Weekly Standard,
September 19, 2009.

―Why Europe Needs Star Wars,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly and Wess Mitchell,
Foreign Policy, September 9, 2009.
Suggested Reading:

"The Abandoned Alliance," Michael Kuz, National Review Online, August 8, 2012.

―How Obama Lost Poland,‖ Benjamin Weinthal, Foreign Policy, July 30, 2012.

―The End of the Affair,‖ Mark Leonard, Foreign Policy, July 24, 2012.

―Keeping America Safe: Why U.S. Bases in Europe Remain Vital,‖ Luke Coffey, The
Heritage Foundation, July 11, 2012.

―Beyond Afghanistan, a Weakened NATO Can Still Write Its Own Future,‖ Kurt Volker,
Christian Science Monitor, May 21, 2012.
24

―Continental Drift and NATO‘s Future,‖ Editorial, Financial Times, May 20, 2012.

―The NATO Meeting in Chicago Should be More Than an 'Implementation Summit,‘‖ Ian
Brzezinski, Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government, May 18, 2012.

―Retooling NATO in Chicago,‖ Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, The Hill, May 17,
2012.

―Revitalizing the Atlantic Alliance,‖ Patrick Keller and Gary Schmitt, The Wall Street
Journal, May 17, 2012.

―The 2012 NATO Summit in Chicago: NATO in Need of American Leadership,‖ Luke
Coffey, The Heritage Foundation, May 16, 2012.

―Democratic Change in Belarus: A Framework for Action,‖ Center for European Policy
Analysis and Freedom House, September 2011.

―Promise And Reversal: The Post-Soviet Landscape Twenty Years On,‖ Arch Puddington,
Freedom House, August 19, 2011.

―Keeping New Allies: An Assessment of U.S. Policy in Central Europe,‖ Center for
European Policy Analysis, July 15, 2011.

―The Security and Defense Agenda (Future of NATO),‖ Address by Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates, June 10, 2011.

―Sounding the Alarm: Protecting Democracy in Ukraine,‖ David Kramer, Robert Nurick,
Damon Wilson, with Evan Alterman, Freedom House, April 2011.
25
Iran
The Islamic Republic of Iran poses a grave
threat to the United States and its allies and
partners in the Middle East. A state sponsor of
terrorism, Iran is continuing to violate its
international obligations as it develops the
capability to make nuclear weapons on short
notice.
Iran has falsely claimed that
organized internal dissent has disappeared,
and that its rule is unquestioned, in an
attempt to demonstrate to the world that
they have no choice but to accept the
revolutionary regime‘s domestic, regional and
nuclear ambitions. Contrary to the assertions
of many skeptics, the pro-democracy ―Green
Movement‖ is still very much alive.
Key Points:

The United States and its allies should support Iran‘s democratic opposition and hold the
regime in Tehran accountable for ongoing violations of human rights. To this end, the United
States should: 1) repeatedly raise Iranian human rights violations, whether in bilateral
diplomacy or in international forums; 2) press for the release of political prisoners and ask that
Iran hold the perpetrators of human rights abuses to account; and 3) support further
sanctions against individual regime human rights abusers.

Democratic change in Iran is in the long-term strategic interest of the United States. Though
a democratic Iran would not automatically resolve all major political issues, it would likely go
a long way towards addressing international concerns about Iran‘s nuclear and regional
ambitions. An Iran that abides by basic norms of human rights and representative
government is more likely to pursue its national interests lawfully and rationally, and is less
likely to divert its national resources toward exporting violence and nuclear weapons.

The United States and the international community must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency continues to report that Iran is
developing sensitive technology that could be used in a nuclear weapons program. A
nuclear-armed Iran would likely have grave consequences: neighboring states have
already indicated they would begin their own nuclear programs; Iran‘s terrorist proxies such
as Hezbollah would be emboldened, and Israel‘s security would be threatened.

Iran‘s continued defiance of its international obligations over its enrichment activities must be
met with greater urgency by the United States and other nations. Without stronger action, it is
only a matter of time before Iran acquires nuclear weapons. U.S. and international
economic and political pressure on Tehran should be increased. In addition to strong
support for Iran‘s reform movement, the United States should lead the international
community in further tightening economic sanctions, especially on Iran‘s energy, shipping
and financial industries. It is critical that all options—including the use of military force
against Iran‘s contested nuclear program—remain on the table.

Failure to confront Iran over its nuclear program could force Israel to act alone. Tehran has
repeatedly threatened Israel‘s national security and supported terrorism against Israeli
citizens. If the United States fails to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel
will likely take preemptive action against Iran‘s nuclear facilities. Iranian-backed Hezbollah
could retaliate with terrorism and rocket attacks against Israeli cities.
26

Iranian government forces continue to plan and orchestrate international acts of terrorism. In
July 2012, Israel accused Iran and terrorist proxy Hezbollah for orchestrating an attack
against Israeli tourists in Bulgaria that killed five and wounded dozens. In October 2011, U.S.
officials uncovered an Iranian terror plot to kill the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United
States, in which plotters—backed by Iran‘s Qods Force, an elite unit of the Islamic
Revolutionary Guards Corps—planned to detonate an explosive device in Washington, D.C.
In May 2012, Azerbaijan officials disrupted an alleged Iranian plot to attack U.S. and Israeli
officials on their soil. Iran and Hezbollah have been blamed for ties to similar attacks against
Israeli nationals in Cyprus, India, Kenya, Thailand, and Turkey.
Notable Facts:
1.
The number of imprisoned journalists, human rights defenders, and political activists in
Iran rapidly increased since 2009.
2.
A report by Human Rights Watch in January 2012 stated that ―Iranian authorities in 2011
carried out more than 600 executions and imprisoned more journalists and bloggers than
any other country.‖ In 2011, Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi said at least 42 lawyers
had faced government persecution since June 2009.
3.
In December 2011, the Committee to Protect Journalists reported ―Iran was holding 42
journalists in custody, the most in the world.‖
4.
Though the regime denies having political prisoners, human rights activists—as noted by
the Department of State—have been able to identify at least 900 languishing in Iranian
prisons.
5.
Iranian government forces have supplied explosive devices, training, and weapons to
militias in Afghanistan and Iraq to target U.S. forces. In July 2011, Iranian militia groups
were responsible for the deaths of thirteen U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Testifying before Congress,
then Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen stated: ―Iran is very directly supporting
extremist Shia groups [in Iraq], which are killing our troops.‖
6.
Iran uses terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas as proxies for terrorism and
instability against Israel, Lebanon, and nations across the Middle East. Iran—the chief ally
and supporter of the Assad regime—continues to provide Syria with arms, financial
support, and training.
7.
Iran‘s nuclear program was never materially halted by the 2010 Stuxnet cyberattack. With
the secondary facility at Fordow functional, the Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that
Iran could produce sufficient amounts of highly enriched uranium for a weapon in
between 26 and 103 days…That window could fall to just 8 days by November 2012.
8.
In 2012, the American Enterprise Institute assessed,, ―Any outcome that does not include
the verifiable dismantling of Iran‘s nuclear program and the removal of all nuclear
material—at any level—will allow Iran to retain the ability to acquire nuclear weapons fuel
in short order.‖ However, the Spring 2012 negotiations in Istanbul and Baghdad did not
give any indications that Iran would be willing to take these steps. While satellite imagery
shows Iran is attempting to cover-up evidence of testing systems related to triggering a
nuclear explosion, there is ample reason to believe that Iran is continuing to delay and
deceive the international community about the true nature of its nuclear program.
FPI Resources:

―The Obama Retreat,‖ FPI Director William Kristol and Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, The
Weekly Standard, June 23, 2012.

―No Iranian Nukes,‖ FPI Director William Kristol and Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, The
Weekly Standard, June 16, 2012.
27

―On Iran, It‘s Time for Obama to Set Clear Lines for Military Action,‖ FPI Executive Director
Jamie M. Fly and Matthew Kroenig, Washington Post, May 18, 2012.

―FPI Fact Sheet: The False Promise of Negotiations over Iran‘s Nuclear Program,‖ Foreign
Policy Initiative, April 12, 2012.

―The Case For Regime Change in Iran: Go Big—Then Go Home,‖ FPI Executive Director
Jamie M. Fly and Gary Schmitt, Foreign Affairs, January 17, 2012.

―Foreign Policy Initiative/Freedom House Analysis: The Green Movement Returns,‖ Foreign
Policy Initiative and Freedom House, March 30, 2011.
Suggested Reading:

"The Most Dangerous Man in the World," Reuel M. Gerecht, The Weekly Standard, August
20, 2012.

―Toppling Iran's Unsteady Regime,‖ Emanuele Ottolenghi, The Wall Street Journal Europe,
July 23, 2012.

―The Sources of Iranian Conduct,‖ Sohrab Ahmari, The American Interest, July 13, 2012.

―How Iran Steams Past International Sanctions,‖ Claudia Rosett, The Wall Street Journal,
July 12, 2012.

―Oil Sanctions Against Iran Will Not Be Enough,‖ Michael Singh, Washington Post, July 9,
2012.

―Iran Has No 'Right' To Enrich Uranium,‖ Michael Makovsky and Blaise Misztal, The Wall
Street Journal, July 8, 2012.

―Inflation and Iran's Regime,‖ Yassamin Issapour, The Wall Street Journal Europe, July 4,
2012.

―Obama's Iran Loopholes,‖ Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2012.

―Time to Tighten the Noose on Iran,‖ Robert McNally, Financial Times, June 27, 2012.

―Update on Iran‘s Nuclear Program,‖ Blaise Misztal, Bipartisan Policy Center, May 29,
2012.

―Iranian influence in the Levant, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan,‖ American Enterprise
Institute and Institute for the Study of War, May 23, 2012.

―Iranians Have Democratic Values,‖ Yuval Porat, The Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2012.

―Don't Throw Iran's Democrats Under the Bus,‖ Patrick Clawson, Foreign Policy, April 13,
2012.

―The Iranian Nuclear Program: Timelines, Data, and Estimates,‖ Maseh Zarif, American
Enterprise Institute, April 9, 2012.

―How Washington Encourages Israel to Bomb Iran,‖ Reuel Marc Gerecht, The Wall Street
Journal, March 25, 2012.
28

―Iran Can't Be Allowed Nuclear 'Capability'‖ Senators Robert Casey, Lindsey Graham,
and Joe Lieberman, The Wall Street Journal, March 8, 2012.

―Closing Tehran's Sanctions Loopholes,‖ Mark Dubowitz and Jonathan Schanzer, The
Wall Street Journal Europe, March 8, 2012.

―Resigning to Iran,‖ Robert Joseph, National Review Online, March 1, 2012.

―Time to Attack Iran,‖ Matthew Kroenig, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2012.

―America's Iranian Self-Deception,‖ Frederick Kagan and Maseh Zarif, The Wall Street
Journal, February 27, 2012.

―Meeting the Challenge: Stopping the Clock,‖ Bipartisan Policy Center, February 1, 2012.
29
Iraq
With the critical assistance of the United States, Iraq
has made progress towards establishing a more
stable democratic state in the heart of a region
experiencing transformative revolutions. Even so,
Iraq still faces difficult challenges as it emerges from
decades of dictatorship. Sectarian tensions remain,
and the political process is at times sclerotic. The
Obama administration‘s decision to withdraw all U.S.
military forces from Iraq at the end of 2011 risks
endangering the hard-won security gains of the
2007-2008 surge of U.S. troops into the country, and
leaving Iraq vulnerable to internal destabilization,
and external threats and influence. A residual force
of as many as 20,000 U.S. troops could have helped to secure Baghdad‘s political and strategic
orientation towards the West, and to defend the country from external threats until the Iraqi
military was trained and equipped to fully perform this mission. While the State Department will
have thousands of personnel—many of them contractors—in Iraq after 2012, their numbers will
be insufficient to this task.
Key Points:

Substantial progress has been made in Iraq. Although Iraqis today still face political,
economic and security challenges, it is worth recalling how Iraq looked just a few years ago:
widespread sectarian violence, frequent high-profile bombings staged by al-Qaeda, poorly
trained and ill-equipped Iraqi security forces, an always grid-locked parliament, and low oil
production.

The decision not to secure a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) beyond 2011 is a dramatic
failure of the Obama administration. There was wide-spread understanding among U.S.
military and administration officials, as well as with their Iraqi counterparts, that an American
military presence in Iraq beyond 2011 would be required to maintain the security
achievements resulting from the surge.

A stable, democratic, prosperous Iraq can play a larger beneficial role in the region. The
broadcast of open political debate and the sight of repeated elections in former totalitarian
Iraq will likely add fuel to the reform movement active in neighboring nations Syria and Iran.
Moreover, an Iraq allied with the United States boosts broader U.S. and allied efforts for an
historic transformation of the region—a change that leads to governments that respect
individual freedom and human rights, to an atmosphere that sparks profound economic
reform and opportunity, and to the further repudiation of terrorism and Islamic radicals.

President Obama‘s decision to withdraw from Iraq empowers Iran. Iran has spent much of
the post-2003 reconstruction period attempting to influence or intimidate Baghdad by
arming and aiding Shia sectarian militias. Those militias still pose a serious security threat to
Iraq. Because the United States has left before the Iraqi military could be properly trained
and equipped, Iraqi government officials have been forced to make accommodations with
Tehran in order to preserve Iraq‘s internal stability. Maintaining a strong U.S. presence incountry would have kept Baghdad strategically oriented towards the West.
Notable Facts:
1.
In the fall of 2008, the United States and Iraq concluded a Status of Forces Agreement that
allowed U.S. forces to remain in Iraq until the end of 2011.
30
2.
On October 21, 2011, President Obama formally announced that all U.S. forces would
withdraw by the end of that year. Although Iraqi leaders had signaled their desire to
negotiate for a U.S. military presence after 2011, the Obama administration did not
recognize or reciprocate those advances until many months later. Negotiations became
mired in Iraqi domestic politics, and ultimately collapsed after the administration
proposed keeping only a token force of less than 5,000 troops in-country.
3.
For the immediate future, Iraq will continue to need support from the United States as it
builds a military capable of defending its sovereignty and stability from outside states and
internal threats.
4.
The Iraqi Council of Representatives elected in 2005 was dominated by religious and
sectarian Shia parties. While that coalition still exists in the Iraqi government, Nouri alMaliki‘s security-focused party dominates his Islamist coalition partners, and the secular
al-Iraqiya list led by former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi actually won the most seats of
any party in the parliament.
5. Iran has used a wide variety of means—including proxy militant groups—to sway or
pressure Baghdad. American efforts in response have so far been weak or non-existent.
FPI Resources:

―Iraq Stands at the Brink of Disaster,‖ FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate, U.S. News & World
Report, January 23, 2012.

―FPI Bulletin: Bringing the Iraq War to an Irresponsible End?‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie
M. Fly and Policy Director Robert Zarate, Foreign Policy Initiative, December 14, 2011.

―FPI Fact Sheet: The Case for A Continued U.S. Military Presence in Iraq After 2011,‖
Foreign Policy Initiative, September 15, 2011.

―Foreign Policy Experts Urge President Obama to Reconsider Troop Drawdown in Iraq,‖
Open Letter, Foreign Policy Initiative, September 15, 2011.

―Was Iraq Worth It?‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, Henry Jackson Society, Summer
2010.
Suggested Reading:

―Iraqi Distress Signals,‖ Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, July 26, 2012.

―Political Islam and the Battle for Najaf,‖ Ayad Jamaluddin, The Wall Street Journal, July
16, 2012.

―Blind in Baghdad,‖ Michael Knights, Foreign Policy, July 5, 2012.

―Why the U.S. Should Reverse Course on Iraq,‖ Danielle Pletka and Gary Schmitt,
Washington Post, February 24, 2012.

―Iraq‘s Recurring Political Crisis,‖ Ramzi Mardini, Institute for the Study of War, February 16,
2012.

―Is Iraq Lost?‖ Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, The Weekly Standard, December 24, 2011.

―John McCain on Iraq: Losing the Peace,‖ Interview, American Enterprise Institute,
December 16, 2011.

―Defeat in Iraq,‖ Frederick Kagan, Kimberly Kagan, and Marisa Cochrane Sullivan, The
Weekly Standard, November 7, 2011.
31

―Retreating With Our Heads Held High,‖ Frederick Kagan and Kimberly Kagan, The
Weekly Standard Blog, October 21, 2011.

―Losing Iraq?‖ Max Boot, The Weekly Standard, September 19, 2011.

―Iraq Threat Assessment: The Dangers to the United States, Iraq, and Mideast Stability of
Abandoning Iraq at the End of 2011,‖ Frederick Kagan, Critical Threats Project, American
Enterprise Institute, May 2011.
32
Israel/Peace Process
Israel faces continuing threats not only from Hamas and
Hezbollah, but also from Iran and Syria. In particular, Iran is
continuing to sponsor terrorism, and to march towards nuclear
weapons-making capability in violation of its international
obligations. It is in America‘s interest to help ensure that Israel
remains safe, strong, and secure.
Successive American
presidential administrations have understood the U.S.-Israel
relationship to be mutually beneficial, and vital to the preservation
of a democratic ally facing extraordinary security challenges.
Key Points:

The United State should not seek to impose preconditions for
the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
President Obama‘s call in 2011 for Israel to renew negotiations
with the Palestinians based on its 1967 borders is unhelpful to
concluding a viable peace agreement. Even Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid acknowledged that such preconditions are
counterproductive to securing peace: ―The place where
negotiating will happen must be at the negotiating table—
and nowhere else,‖ noting that those negotiations ―will not
happen—and their terms will not be set—through speeches, or
in the streets, or in the media.‖ Reid added: ―No one should
set premature parameters about borders, about building, or
about anything else.‖

Israel needs a Palestinian partner that is not only willing to negotiate sincerely, but also has
the capacity to enforce an agreement that would provide both the Palestinian people with a
demilitarized, independent state, and Israel with secure and defensible borders. While Israel
remains in contact with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, the United States
should make it clear that the prospects for long-term peace remain remote so long as
groups like Hamas refuse to recognize the existence of Israel, renounce violence, and abide
by previous peace agreements.

To advance an enduring peace, the United States should also seek to strengthen moderate
forces in Lebanon and work vigorously to ensure the success of the reform movement in
Syria. In the long term, a democratic and moderate Syria is in America‘s interest and would
benefit regional peace. To hasten the exit of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Washington
should: (1) continue to demand that the Syrian president immediately step down; (2) work
to impose further unilateral and multilateral sanctions on the Assad regime for its ongoing
human rights abuses; (3) provide the full range of assistance to vetted Syrian opposition
groups; (4) impose safe zones in Syria to protect embattled civilians; and (5) examine limited
retaliatory airstrikes against Syrian military targets.

The United States should demand the conclusion of a comprehensive peace agreement
prior to granting the Palestinian Authority statehood at the United Nations. In September
2011, the Palestinian Authority submitted a request to the United Nations to become a formal
state. Although the United States said it will veto the request, the Obama administration has
publicly supported the idea of a Palestinian state within two years. However, in the absence
of a comprehensive peace agreement, statehood risks dissuading the Palestinians from
peace negotiations, and possibly forcing Israel to surrender important territory.

Israeli leadership has a strong consensus on the need to defend the country against the
existential threat posed by Iran‘s quest for nuclear weapons-making capability. The
consensus between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak
33
testifies to this shared belief. President Obama attempted to persuade the Prime Minister
that the United States would take military action against Iran if necessary when Netanyahu
visited Washington in March 2012. However, there is a distinct difference between Israel‘s
and the Obama administration‘s ―red lines‖ for action. While the Obama administration
tends to focus on the near-acquisition of a nuclear weapon as grounds for military force, the
Israeli leadership considers the capability to produce nuclear weapons as the threshold for a
strike—a point that Iran is rapidly approaching.
Notable Facts:
1.
The Palestinian Authority‘s legislative council and president have well exceeded the
democratic mandate of their terms. Although President Mahmoud Abbas was elected in
January 2005 for a term that ended in January 2009, it was extended for one year. The
parliament was elected in February 2006 and its term should have ended in January
2010. However, no elections were held in January 2010, and neither parliamentary nor
presidential elections are now scheduled.
2.
Following the 2006 parliamentary election, control of the Palestinian territories was split
between Abbas‘s Fatah party controlling the West Bank and Hamas controlling the Gaza
Strip. Although Fatah and Hamas are negotiating terms for power sharing and a timetable
for an interim government followed by elections, significant progress still remains elusive.
3.
The economies of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip are reliant on foreign aid, but there
has been large economic growth in the West Bank over the past five years as Israeli
security measures have eased.
4.
Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has attempted to build the institutions of a
functioning state—including strong security forces, separation of powers, government
offices, infrastructure, and a stock market. Rather than focus his attention on demonizing
Israel, he has embarked on positive internal developments within the Palestinian state.
5.
In the West Bank, Palestinian security forces have worked closely with Israel to quell
supporters of Hamas.
6.
From 2009 to 2010, the Obama administration insisted on a complete freeze of Israeli
settlement activity as a prerequisite to peace negotiations. The Bush administration
recognized that natural growth in these settlements would require new construction, but
asked that these new buildings not create a de facto expansion of Israeli territory–that is,
an expansion ―upward,‖ but not ―outward.‖
FPI Resources:

―Why Israel Has Doubts About Obama,‖ FPI Director Dan Senor, The Wall Street Journal,
March 5, 2012.
Suggested Reading:

―Correcting Obama‘s Middle East Failure,‖ Senator John Barasso, Washington Times, July
26, 2012

―After 20 Years, Moving Beyond Oslo,‖ Rabbi Benny Elon and Yossi Beilin, National Review
Online, July 19, 2012.

―What Happened to Israel's Reputation?‖ Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren,
The Wall Street Journal, May 14, 2012.

―Echoes of ‗67: Israel Unites,‖ Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, May 10, 2012.
34

―PM Netanyahu's Speech at AIPAC Policy Conference 2012,‖ Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister‘s Office, March 5, 2012.

―Israel: A True Ally in The Middle East,‖ Robert D. Blackwill and Walter B. Slocombe, Los
Angeles Times, October 31, 2011.

―The Gaza Flotilla and International Law,‖ Peter Berkowitz, Policy Review, August 1, 2011.

―The Settlement Obsession,‖ Elliott Abrams, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2011.

―Fatah, Hamas, and the Statehood Gambit,‖ Jonathan Schanzer, Commentary, June
2011.

―The End of the ‗Peace Process,‘‖ Elliott Abrams, Council on Foreign Relations, May 6,
2011.
35
Latin America
America‘s strong presence in Latin America is important
to America‘s national security and economic growth.
Thanks to globalization, new and diverse sources of
foreign investment and trade have decreased the
region‘s economic dependence on the United States. At
the same time, many democracies in Latin America face
pressure from autocratic rulers, Venezuelan petrodollars,
and complex criminal organizations financed by illicit drug
trade. It is therefore critical for Washington to do more to
strengthen democratic institutions in the region and
d e e p en
t ra d e
t i es
with
democratic
partners.
Unfortunately, many governments in Latin America have
expressed disappointment that the United States has not
been more engaged.
Key Points:

The United States must do more to consolidate democratic gains in the region. As a result of
the Obama administration‘s increasing neglect of the region, support for Washington has
diminished while Chinese, Iranian, and Venezuelan influence has grown. Past U.S. initiatives
remain incomplete, democracy and security funding to the region has been slashed, and
few new policy proposals have emerged from the current administration.

The United States should expand exports opportunities to Brazil. As one of the fastest growing
economies in the world and the largest economy in the region, Brazil is America‘s second
largest Latin American trading partner.

Signed into law in October 2011, the bilateral free trade agreements with Colombia and
Panama strengthen economic and strategic ties with two important democratic partners in
the Western Hemisphere. The Colombia agreement rewards a stalwart ally of the United
States and ensures economic ties with one of Latin America‘s fastest-growing economies.
The Panama agreement enhances America‘s longstanding ties with a nation increasingly
fearful of the rapidly expanding drug war that is threatening governments across Central
America.

The United States should continue to demand that the Cuban government release all political
prisoners, end human rights abuses, and embrace real democratic political reform. Cuba‘s
transition to freedom will not be accelerated by U.S. policies that serve only to strengthen the
current regime. As Senator Marco Rubio noted, ―Sanctions are an important tool of
leverage for democratic change, particularly in a post-Castro era. In the interim, sanctions
have the effect of denying funds to the Cuban regime‘s repressive apparatus, which it
would otherwise use to exert further economic and political control over the Cuban
people.‖ Rather, the United States should increase its support for Cuba‘s pro-democracy
movement, using tools that have worked well against other tyrannies, such as making more
effective use of the Internet to undermine the regime.

The United States should boost assistance to democratic allies in the region‘s facing an
ongoing war against powerful drug traffickers and criminal gangs. The Obama
administration has rightly continued implementation of the Bush administration‘s $1.3 billion
Merida Initiative, a program that targets criminal organizations in Central and South
America. The Obama administration should work in greater cooperation with the Mexican
government to curb the escalating violence that plagues America‘s neighbor to the south.
In Central America, the greatest near-term threat to U.S. security lies in Guatemala.
Guatemalan officials face increased levels of gang violence, organized crime, and well36
funded drug cartels. El Salvador‘s democratically elected government also faces spiraling
violence and regional uncertainty.
Notable Facts:
1.
Violence related to transnational criminal activity and drug trafficking has made Central
America‘s North triangle—including El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—home to the
world‘s highest homicide rates, according to the United Nations.
2.
In January 2012, Mexico announced that the five-year death toll related to organized
crime surpassed 47,500.
3.
A 2012 report by Freedom House stated that ―media freedom is on the defensive in much
of Central and South America.‖ Governments in Argentina, Bolivia, and Ecuador, in
addition to the repressive governments in Cuba and Venezuela, implemented significant
restrictions on media freedoms.
4.
By slashing Colombian tariffs for U.S. goods (which are sometimes as high as 35%), the
newly implemented Colombia free trade agreement will increase American exports to
Colombia by approximately $1.1 billion.
5.
Iranian companies continue to launder billions in funds through Venezuelan banks and
ventures in order to avoid international financial sanctions. Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez will face reelection on October 7, 2012 despite his ongoing bout with cancer.
6.
Bilateral trade with Latin America‘s largest economy, Brazil, reached $101 billion in 2011.
The United States held a trade surplus with Brazil of $25 billion in 2011, according to the
office of the United States Trade Representative.
FPI Resources:

―FPI Analysis: A Latin America Security Agenda for President Obama,‖ Foreign Policy
Initiative, April 13, 2012.

―Latin America Loses Faith in Obama,‖ FPI Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, The Weekly
Standard Blog, April 12, 2012.

―Will Obama Defend Freedom in the Americas?‖ FPI Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, The
Weekly Standard Blog, April 5, 2012.

―Time to Defriend Hugo Chavez,‖ FPI Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, The Daily Caller,
March 9, 2012.

―FPI Bulletin: High Time for Free Trade with South Korea, Colombia and Panama,‖ FPI
Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, Foreign Policy Initiative, September 7, 2011.
Suggested Reading:

―Impasse in El Salvador,‖ Washington Post, July 15, 2012.

―Castro & Co. Are Best Kept at Arm's Length,‖ Juan Williams, The Wall Street Journal, July
2, 2012.

―Chávez‘s Dangerous Liaisons with Tehran,‖ Roger Noriega, AEI‘s The American, July 2,
2012.

―U.S. Foreign Policy, Close to Home,‖ Senator Marco Rubio, Los Angeles Times, April 25,
2012.
37

―After Chavez, the Narcostate,‖ Roger Noriega, Foreign Policy, April 11, 2012.

―The India of Latin America?‖ Jaime Daremblum, The Weekly Standard Blog, April 9, 2012.

―Venezuela‘s Presidential Primary: Capriles Radonski Ready to Challenge Chavez,‖ Ray
Walser, The Heritage Foundation, February 13, 2012.

―Iran's Gambit in Latin America,‖ Roger Noriega, Commentary, February 2012.

―Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa‘s
Washington Post, January 11, 2012.

―Time for Latin America to Roll Up Iran Welcome Mat,‖ Roger Noriega and Jose
Cardenas, Washington Times, November 1, 2011.

―Latin America Deserves More Attention,‖ Jaime Daremblum, The Weekly Standard,
October 20, 2011.

―Hugo Chávez‘s Long Shadow,‖ Vanessa Neumann, The Weekly Standard, October 17,
2011.
38
Assault
on
Media
Freedom,‖ Editorial,
Non-Military Foreign Assistance
U.S. non-military foreign assistance plays a critical role
in advancing America‘s strategic interests and moral
values around the globe. From major aid programs,
such as the Marshall Plan that helped to rebuild postwar Europe and stem the advance of communism, to
today‘s smaller development initiatives, properly
targeted and monitored U.S. aid promotes prosperity
and opportunity.
Key Points:

The United States has a national interest in continuing properly monitored and targeted nonmilitary foreign assistance. For example, the Millennium Challenge Corporation is an
independent U.S. agency that awards grants to nations that have shown a commitment to
good governance and economic freedom. These grants have been used for water supply
and sanitation projects, finance and enterprise development, democracy promotion, and
other activities. In turn, such aid helps not only to strengthen current U.S. allies and partners,
but also to develop new ones, at a time when China and other emerging powers have
become more active across the globe. The Republic of Georgia, Ukraine, and the
Philippines are among the strategically important nations that have received such grants.

U.S. foreign assistance has helped millions of people, and reflects the generous character of
our people. No doubt, all efforts should be made to ensure that American aid is spent
properly and for its intended purpose. At the same time, it is important to remember that
foreign assistance has saved countless men, women, and children from starvation and
disease, particularly in African nations. It also has helped to transition nations ruled by
dictators to governments that uphold the human rights, the rule of law, and freedom of its
citizens. And, over the decades, American aid has also contributed to increasing prosperity
in many nations and, in the process, created new markets for U.S. goods and services.
Notable Facts:
1.
The U.S. federal government‘s budget for international affairs represents roughly 1% of
total federal outlays. Funding for democracy and human rights programs currently makes
up less than one-tenth of one percent of the total budget.
2.
Non-military foreign assistance is essential in areas where the United States is at war. As
General David Petraeus, then-commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, told
Congress in 2011, ―Inadequate resourcing of our civilian partners could, in fact,
jeopardize accomplishment of the overall mission.‖
3.
Foreign assistance promotes health, education, infrastructural development, economic
growth, and good governance. For example, incidents of malaria have been cut by
more than in 43 countries, and 42 million Africans have been enabled to attend school.
4.
The Obama Administration has worked to change America‘s development model by
crafting the first U.S. development policy. This approach emphasizes economic growth
and accountability, with the aim of creating the conditions in which foreign assistance is
no longer needed.
39
5.
An historical example of the success of this method is South Korea. Whereas the country
once had a GDP and life expectancy on par with countries in sub-Saharan Africa and
heavily relied on U.S. aid, it now has one of the largest economies in the world, and is a
donor of foreign assistance.
6.
Foreign assistance has historically enjoyed bipartisan support. President George W.
Bush‘s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and the Millennium Challenge Corporation paved
the way for the Obama administration‘s approach. In the last Congress, Members from
both parties and both houses supported legislation to reform foreign assistance.
FPI Resources:

―FPI Analysis: in Defense of America‘s International Affairs Budget,‖ Foreign Policy
Initiative, February 24, 2012.

―Congress and the Budget Quandary,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, Foreign
Policy’s Shadow Government, February 23, 2011.

―Seven Foreign Policy and Human Rights Orgs: Proposed Cuts to State And Foreign Ops
Budget Threat to National Security,‖ Open Letter by Foreign Policy Initiative, et al.,
February 17, 2011.
Suggested Reading:

―Conservative Foreign Aid,‖ Elliott Abrams, National Review, November 28, 2011.

―Soft Power Part of Reagan Legacy,‖ Former Senator Norm Coleman and Former
Governor Mike Huckabee, POLITICO, November 18, 2011.

―USAID Is Foreign Policy‘s Best Dollar Value,‖ J. Brian Atwood, Henrietta Holsman Fore, M.
Peter McPherson, and Andrew Natsios, POLITICO, November 3, 2011.

―Invest in U.S. Global Leadership,‖ Former Senator Tom Daschle and Former Secretary of
Homeland Security Tom Ridge, POLITICO, July 29, 2011.

―Why Congress Shouldn‘t Slash Foreign Aid,‖ Former U.S. Congressmen Jim Kolbe and
Connie Morella, The Daily Caller, April 6, 2011.

―What Is Foreign Aid For?‖ Paul Miller, Foreign Policy Online, January 27, 2011.

―The Realist Case for Nation-Building,‖ Paul Miller, Foreign Policy Online, September 23,
2010.

―USAID: Mend It, Don‘t End It,‖ Max Boot, Commentary‘s Contentions Blog, January 21,
2011.

―More Effective Foreign Assistance Can Pay Real Dividends,‖ Mark Green, Jim Kolbe, and
Rob Mosbacher, The Daily Caller, January 28, 2011.
40
North Korea
North Korea is the most brutally repressive regime in the world, a
nuclear state, and a key proliferator of missile and nuclear
technology to its fellow rogue regimes across the world. For
decades, Pyongyang has pursued a strategy of brazenly provoking
the United States and its allies in order to force de-escalatory
negotiations and extract economic and food aid from the
international community. Instead of continuing negotiations in the
hope of denuclearization, the United States should rally the world to
apply maximum pressure against the North Korean regime.
Key Points:

The North Korean regime shows no regard whatsoever for human rights. Over 200,000
people are imprisoned in a system of gulags for political crimes, often for arbitrary reasons.
The North Korean people do not enjoy any political rights, and extrajudicial killings,
disappearances, and torture are widespread. North Korea‘s ―military-first‖ philosophy
ensures that the country‘s military receives preferential treatment over the people, and that
international food aid often does not reach those who it is meant to help.

North Korea is the leading proliferator of nuclear and missile technology to the world.
Pyongyang has played a key role in the development of Iran‘s nuclear and missile programs.
Syria‘s secretly-built nuclear reactor near Dair al-Zour--destroyed by an Israeli airstrike in
September 2007—was a mirror-image of a North Korean reactor at Yongbyon. North Korea
was a key participant in the A.Q. Khan proliferation network, and has sold missiles to Libya,
Syria, Vietnam, and Yemen, among others.

U.S. policy towards North Korea for the past two decades has been rooted in quid pro quo
agreements in which the U.S. promised aid in exchange for North Korean good behavior.
Unfortunately, North Korea has rejected these inducements, and repeatedly conducted
long-range missile tests, shelled South Korean territory, and sank a South Korean ship. Instead
of further bilateral deals, the United States should lead an international effort to undermine
the stability of the regime by freezing Pyongyang‘s financial assets abroad; stopping North
Korea‘s sale of conventional arms, ballistic missile and nuclear technology; increase efforts to
help North Korean escapees; and improve broadcasts into the country to inspire the
population against the regime.
Notable Facts:
1.
The new North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Un, is believed to be in his late-twenties. He
assumed power following the death of the country‘s former leader, his father Kim Jong-il
in December 2011. Kim Jong-Il had succeeded North Korea‘s first leader, his father Kim IlSung, in 1994. While it is unclear if Kim Jong-Un has full control over the regime, it is
believed that a circle of older relatives and advisers assist him in the day-to-day affairs of
the state.
2.
The current crisis over North Korea‘s nuclear program began in 1993, when Pyongyang
blocked international inspectors from investigating its nuclear activities, and threatened
to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The Clinton administration
negotiated and signed the Agreed Framework in 1994, in which the U.S. provided fuel oil,
economic aid, and permitted the construction of two light-water plants in return for a
freeze on North Korea‘s plutonium production program. In 2002, it was revealed that
North Korea has pursued a secret nuclear program during the eight years of the Agreed
Framework. North Korea provocatively tested a nuclear explosive device in 2006, and
again in 2009. Currently, the North has completed physical preparations for a third
nuclear test, but has not yet made the political decision to do so.
41
3.
The Bush administration created the Six-Party Talks in 2003 in an effort to break from the
Clinton administration‘s bilateral model for negotiations, and get key regional powers—
namely, Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan—to join the United States in pressuring
North Korea. The Six-Party Talks broke down when Russia and China undermined
negotiations by taking North Korea‘s side during negotiations.
4.
Although President Obama did not initially respond to North Korean provocations by
calling for further negotiations, his administration ultimately agreed to the short-lived
―Leap Day Deal‖ of 2012, in which the United States agreed to provide food aid in return
for Pyongyang‘s cessation of long-range missile launches, nuclear tests, and nuclear
weapons-related activities. However, the North‘s failed—but nonetheless provocative—
launch of a satellite-bearing rocket in April 2012 scuttled that agreement.
5.
While South Korea eventually emerged from the Korean War as a global economic
powerhouse, North Korea is heavily dependent on China‘s aid for assistance.
FPI Resources:

―Don‘t Return to Korea Status Quo,‖ FPI Policy Analyst Evan Moore, The Diplomat, April 20,
2012.

―Seeking Instability,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, The Weekly Standard Blog,
December 23, 2011.

―It‘s Time for the Lights to Come on in North Korea,‖ FPI Policy Analyst Evan Moore, The
Commentator, December 20, 2011.

―North Korea: The Goal Is Regime Change,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, National
Review Online’s The Corner, November 24, 2010.

―Pressuring Pyongyang,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, Carolyn Leddy, and
Christian Whiton, The Weekly Standard Blog, May 1, 2009.
Additional Resources:

―Power Struggles and Purges in Pyongyang,‖ Bruce Klinger, The Wall Street Journal Asia,
July 19, 2012.

―It's Time for a Political War on Pyongyang,‖ Christian Whiton, The Wall Street Journal Asia,
September 26, 2010.

―Tackling Pyongyang‘s Proliferation Trade,‖ Carolyn Leddy, Journal of International
Security Affairs, Fall 2010.
42
Russia
The Obama administration's effort to ―reset‖
relations with Russia should not overlook the
challenges that the Kremlin's current policies
pose not only to a more stable, democratic
world, but also to the survival of the fading
democratic process within Russia. Together
with our democratic allies, especially in
Europe, the United States should pursue a
relationship with Russia that accounts for
the reality of the Kremlin‘s policies in a
manner that is consistent with U.S. strategic
interests and moral values.
Moscow‘s
continuing violations of human rights and
subversion of the rule of law inside Russia
should alarm everyone who supports
democratic rights and freedoms.
Key Points:

The price for the Obama administration‘s ―reset‖ effort to gain Russian cooperation on
nuclear nonproliferation and arms control should not be American timidity toward Russian
actions that harm U.S. and allied interests elsewhere. The United States should work with
Russia on issues where both share interests, as they have in securing loose nuclear materials
against the threat of terrorist seizure. At the same time, Russia has not only prevented more
effective sanctions to curb Iran‘s controversial nuclear program, but also sold Iran advanced
anti-aircraft weapons systems. The U.S. diplomatic response to such Russian provocations
has been weak and irresolute.

When Russia obstructs international consensus, the United States should not hesitate to pursue
alternative multilateral approaches that exclude the Kremlin. Although it may have seemed
promising to engage Russia and China in multilateral talks with Iran and North Korea, in
practice Moscow and Beijing have used such negotiations to protect their client states from
international pressure. When appropriate, the United States should work with democratic
allies and like-minded partners to pressure Iran, North Korea, and other states of concern.

The United States should respond swiftly to activities undertaken by the Kremlin to thwart the
democratic process and violate basic human rights inside Russia. In recent years, the
Russian government has accelerated a systematic rollback of democratic reforms enacted
in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, curtailed press freedom and political
expression, and used the power of the state to harass political opponents and media outlets.
Russia has also ignored its international obligation to establish and ensure a free and open
political process inside its borders. The United States should speak out much more forcefully
against these actions as then-Senator Obama did in condemning Russia‘s flawed 2008
election as a ―tragic step backwards.‖ Turning a blind eye to such undemocratic behavior
further weakens democratic forces in Russia and harms American interests.

The United States and our allies should maintain strong support for the independence and
sovereignty of the democratic states on Russia‘s borders. Russia has threatened its
neighbors—and even invaded Georgia—and used its regional energy distribution
dominance to gain political leverage in foreign capitals dependent on Russian fuel.
American policy should seek to strengthen economic, military, diplomatic, and cultural ties
to the region.
43
Notable Facts:
1.
On March 4, 2012, Vladimir Putin was elected to his third term as Russian President, which
will end in 2018. The election was beset by fraud, and opposition demonstrators began a
campaign of protests and activism that remain ongoing.
2.
In a surprise development, Russian voters in the December 2011 parliamentary elections
dealt Prime Minister Vladimir Putin‘s political machine a stunning blow. Putin‘s United
Russia party, which has dominated the country‘s politics for over a decade, lost 77 seats
in the Russian State Duma, retaining only a slim majority of 238 seats in the 450-member
lower house. The outcome was all the more astonishing given widespread allegations of
ballot-box stuffing, harassment of election monitors, and other irregularities aimed at
boosting United Russia‘s performance at the polls.
3.
Through its membership in the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe
(OSCE), Russia has agreed specifically to ―respect the right of individuals and groups to
establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and
provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to
enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law
and by the authorities.‖
4.
In 2000, Transparency International ranked Russia 82nd in the global ratings; in 2010, Russia
had fallen to 154th.
5.
Today, the Indem think tank estimates market corruption at over $300 billion annually,
roughly 25% of Russia‘s gross national product.
6.
In August 2008, the Russian Federation invaded the country of Georgia, and after
recognizing the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent
states, continues to occupy them. These actions violate the cease-fire agreement that
Presidents Medvedev and Saakashvili signed on August 12, 2008.
FPI Resources:

―FPI Bulletin: Mr. President, Drop the Russian Reset,‖ FPI Policy Director Robert Zarate and
Policy Analyst Evan Moore, Foreign Policy Initiative, June 18, 2012.

―A Bill that Cracks Down on Russian Corruption,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan and David
Kramer, Washington Post, June 6, 2012.

―FPI Bulletin: Reassessing U.S.-Russia Relations as President Putin Returns,‖ FPI Executive
Director Jamie M. Fly, Foreign Policy Initiative, May 9, 2012.

―Beware ‗Flexibility‘,” FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly and Policy Director Robert
Zarate, The Weekly Standard, March 31, 2012.

―Why is Obama Giving Up His Human Rights Leverage Against Russia? ” FPI Director of
Democracy and Human Rights Ellen Bork, The New Republic, March 30, 2012.

―FPI Analysis: Moving Beyond the U.S.-Russian ‗Reset‘,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, December
7, 2011.

―Time to Abandon ‗Reset‘?‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly and Policy Director
Robert Zarate, National Review Online, October 10, 2011.

―Loosening Putin‘s Grip,‖ FPI Director Robert Kagan, Washington Post, June 17, 2011.

―FPI Analysis: Evaluating the U.S.-Russian ‗Reset,‘‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, June 22, 2010.
44
Suggested Reading:

―Why Vladimir Putin Is Immune to the American Reset,‖ Gary Kasparov, The Heritage
Foundation, February 28, 2012.

―Russia‘s Choice,‖ David Satter, National Review, July 30, 2012.

―The Kremlin‘s Blacklist,‖ Vladimir Kara-Murza, Washington Post, July 26, 2012.

―President Putin's First 60 Days,‖ Rachel Denber, The Wall Street Journal Europe, July 16,
2012.

―Putin's Got America Right Where He Wants It,‖ Michael Weiss, Foreign Policy, June 28,
2012.

―Russia‘s Strongman is Losing his Grip,‖ Masha Lipman, Washington Post, May 7, 2012.

―A Kremlin Made of Sand‖ Leon Aron, Foreign Policy, May 4, 2012.

―A Tormenting in Moscow.‖ Leon Aron, Foreign Policy, April 12, 2012.

―Russia 2012: Increased Repression, Rampant Corruption, Assisting Rogue Regimes,‖
David Kramer, Testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, March 21, 2012.

―The Right Way to Sanction Russia,‖ Garry Kasparov and Boris Nemtsov, The Wall Street
Journal, March 15, 2012.

―The Promise of Russia‘s Middle Class‖ Condoleezza Rice, Washington Post, March 8,
2012.

―The Dying Bear: Russia‘s Demographic Disaster,‖ Nicholas Eberstadt, Foreign Affairs,
November 1, 2011.

―After New START,‖ Mark Schneider, National Review Online, July 21, 2011.
45
Trade
Free trade is critical to promoting America‘s
economic prosperity. By opening foreign markets
for U.S. goods and services, free trade also
enhances America‘s national security interests by
strengthening ties with democratic allies and
cultivating future partners. Protectionist policies
ultimately hurt U.S. interests, particularly given that
95% of the world‘s consumers live outside U.S.
borders.
Key Points:

American leadership on trade is critical to increasing U.S. economic growth and creating
more jobs for Americans. Without U.S. leadership on trade, global protectionist sentiment
could rise, delivering another blow to U.S. businesses and consumers that could result in
fewer jobs, reduced wages, and higher prices.

After a long delay, President Obama signed into law the congressionally-approved U.S. free
trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea on October 23, 2011. The
agreements were initially signed by the Bush administration in 2006 and 2007. The White
House estimates the South Korea agreement alone will increase U.S. GDP by at least $11
billion and support 70,000 jobs.

The United States should also expand export opportunities to Brazil and India. With one of
the fastest growing economies in the world and the largest economy in South America, Brazil
is America‘s second largest Latin American trading partner. Yet the U.S.-Brazilian trade
relationship still has great potential to grow. In addition, the United States and India, which
are increasingly bound together by shared strategic and economic interests, stand to reap
great benefits from deeper trade relations.

U.S.-Chinese economic interdependence should not hinder efforts to ensure that American
businesses are treated fairly. China‘s growing economy and population offer both
tremendous opportunity for U.S. companies and benefits for American consumers. China‘s
businesses should operate in a transparent fashion, its currency should be allowed to float to
reflect its market value, and Beijing should respect and enforce vigorously the intellectual
property rights of Americans firms. However, in working with China to end such practices, it
would be a mistake to impose U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports. The Obama administration has
refused to support new tariffs, which would likely lead to a counterproductive trade war with
China that hurt U.S. companies and raise the cost of goods for American consumers.

The U.S. economy benefits from the foreign direct investment (FDI) that flows into U.S.
companies. In turn, these companies often use this investment capital to fund research and
development activities, equipment purchases, and new or expanded production facilities.
Notable Facts:
1.
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, international markets represent 74% of the
world‘s purchasing power, 87% of its economic growth, and 95% of its consumers.
Developing countries purchased 53% of U.S. goods exports in 2010, led by a boom in
sales to East Asia and the Americas.
2.
When it comes to the sales of manufactured goods, farm products, services, and natural
resources, the United States tops both Germany and China by about $200 billion as the
world‘s top exporter.
46
3.
More than 50 million Americans work for companies that engage in international trade,
according to the U.S. Department of Treasury. One in three manufacturing jobs depends
on exports, and one in three acres of U.S. farmland is planted to feed hungry consumers
overseas.
4.
The U.S. Department of Commerce‘s Economics and Statistics Administration reported in
2011 that foreign direct investment (FD) in the United States over the last decade has
supported more than 5 million U.S. jobs.
FPI Resources:

―Obama Drops the Ball on India,‖ FPI Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, The Diplomat, March
27, 2012.

―FPI Bulletin: Boost U.S. Economy with Free Trade—Not Unilateral Tariffs,‖ FPI Executive
Director Jamie M. Fly and Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, Foreign Policy Initiative, October
6, 2011.

―FPI Analysis: Assessing U.S. Policy Towards China,‖ Foreign Policy Initiative, February 15,
2012.

―FPI Bulletin: Boost U.S. Economy with Free Trade—Not Unilateral Tariffs,‖ FPI Executive
Director Jamie M. Fly and Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, Foreign Policy Initiative, October
6, 2011.

―FPI Bulletin: High Time for Free Trade with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama,‖ FPI
Policy Analyst Patrick Christy, Foreign Policy Initiative, September 7, 2011.
Suggested Reading:

―America Needs a Business Pivot Toward Asia,‖ Curtis S. Chin, The Wall Street Journal,
August 8, 2012.

―How About a Free-Trade Deal With Europe?‖ Paula Dobriansky and Paul Saunders, The
Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2012.

―Enhance U.S. Security: Pass Free Trade Agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South
Korea,‖ Ray Walser and Bruce Klingner, The Heritage Foundation, June 21, 2011.

―Letter to President Obama,‖ Former U.S. Trade Representatives Mickey Kantor and
Charlene Barshefsky, et al., March 2, 2011.

―The U.S. Has No Good Reasons to Stall on Latin America Free-Trade Deals,‖ Editorial,
Washington Post, December 20, 2010.

―Colombia and Obama‘s Latin America Policy: Time to Close Ranks and Support a
Friend,‖ Ray Walser, The Heritage Foundation, July 23, 2010.
47
War on Terror/Islamic Extremism
The United States must continue not only to isolate, disrupt,
and defeat terrorists seeking to attack America‘s homeland
and strategic interests, but also to hold accountable foreign
governments that cultivate or provide sanctuary to violent
extremists. Washington and its allies must also remain
resolved to succeed in Afghanistan, support Iraq, and seize
the opportunities offered by the political reform movements
that are sweeping the Middle East. By doing so, the United
States can dramatically weaken the message and appeal
of Islamic extremism, and further isolate such violent
ideologies as a political force in Muslim populations.
Key Points:

The United States must stay on the offense against terrorist organizations using all instruments
of national power. The threat of another major attack remains. It is essential that America
work with allies and partners to maintain sustained, comprehensive, and global operations
against its enemies by using a broad array of tools, including the Patriot Act and other
homeland security measures, National Security Agency (NSA) terrorist surveillance programs,
diplomatic and economic initiatives, and covert and military operations.

Success in Afghanistan is critical to America‘s long-term security interests. The United States
has a vital interest in ensuring that Afghan territory never again becomes a safe haven for
terrorists threatening the U.S. homeland. The re-emergence of a ―failed state‖ in Afghanistan
will only increase the terrorist risk to the U.S. homeland and vital interests across the globe,
and the likelihood that we will be drawn back into these countries.

In countering the forces of extremism, the United States must also focus on the vast majority
of Muslims who seek a better future for themselves and their families. In particular, America
and our allies should work with reformers who seek to build free, prosperous societies. The
bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report noted the importance of socio-political changes in the
region to countering Islamic extremism: ―Tolerance, the rule of law, political and economic
openness, the extension of greater opportunities to women—these cures must come from
within Muslim societies themselves. The United States must support such developments.‖

The United States thus should implement polices specifically designed to advance America‘s
long-term interests in the Arab Spring. Even though the pace and success of the reformers in
each nation will be uneven, America should pursue efforts—including economic aid,
effective public diplomacy, and technical and legal expertise that has helped other nations
transition to democracy—that help to promote the rule of law, respect for human rights,
economic development, and accountable governance. At the same time, such support
should be reviewed and/or withdrawn in the event the recipient government engages in
anti-democratic activity.
Notable Facts:
1.
The United States remains at risk for terrorist attacks. Since 9/11, several high-profile
terrorist attacks against the homeland—including the 2009 Christmas Day attack, the
October 2010 parcel plot and, most recently, the Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador
on American soil—have been foiled because of U.S. intelligence gathering and
counterterrorism efforts. In addition, 40 other attempted terrorist attacks against the U.S.
homeland have been foiled, according to The Heritage Foundation.
48
2.
Although al-Qaeda‘s central leadership continues to reside in Pakistan, the organization‘s
regional affiliates are increasing their profile within the network by directing terrorist acts
against Western targets.
3.
On May 2, 2011, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in a daring raid by U.S.
Navy SEALS. Bin Laden‘s lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, reportedly took control of the alQaeda network. On June 4, 2012, Abu Yaha al-Libi, Zawahiri‘s new second-in-command,
was killed in Pakistan by a CIA drone strike.
FPI Resources:

―A War that‘s Bigger than Afghanistan,‖ FPI Director William Kristol, Washington Post, May 2,
2012.

―We Can‘t Just Play Whack-A-Mole in The War on Terror‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly
and Policy Analyst Evan Moore, National Review Online’s The Corner, September 30, 2011.

―The Will and Moral Courage,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, National Review Online,
September 9, 2011.

―FPI Fact Sheet: Success in Afghanistan Is Critical to Prevailing in The War On Terror,‖ Foreign
Policy Initiative, June 23, 2011.

―The War Goes On,‖ FPI Executive Director Jamie M. Fly, National Review Online’s The
Corner, May 2, 2011.
Suggested Reading:

―Splitting al-Qa'ida and its Affiliates,‖ Daniel Byman, Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel, July 30,
2012.

―Abyani Tribes and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen,‖ Sasha Gordon, AEI‘s
Critical Threats Project, July 25, 2012.

―Boko Haram: An Overlooked Threat to U.S. Security,‖ Congressman Patrick Meehan, The
Heritage Foundation, July 24, 2012.

―Civilian Casualties Plummet in Drone Strikes,‖ Peter Bergen and Jennifer Rowland,
CNN.com, July 13, 2012.

―Terror Is Their Family Business,‖ Jeffrey Dressler, The Weekly Standard, July 7, 2012.

―The Drone Blowback Fallacy,‖ Christopher Swift, Foreign Affairs’ Snapshots, July 1, 2012.

―Can we Declare the War on al Qaeda Over?‖ Mary Habeck, Foreign Policy’s Shadow
Government, June 27, 2012.

―Recipe for Failure: American Strategy Toward Yemen and al-Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula,‖ Katherine Zimmerman, American Enterprise Institute, February 17, 2012.

―Targeted Killings Can't Be Total Strategy to Defeat al Qaeda,‖ Frederick Kagan, American
Enterprise Institute, September 30, 2011.

―Ten Years After 9/11: al-Qaeda's Reemergence in Yemen,‖ Katherine Zimmerman,
American Enterprise Institute, September 20, 2011.

―What We Got Right in The War On Terror,‖ Abe Greenwald, Commentary, September 2011.
49
© Foreign Policy Initiative 2012
For more information, please visit our website at www.foreignpolicyi.org.
50