Treaties and Agreements

The United States needs to champion international cooperation and work toward collective rather than unilateral security in outer space. 

The Five Questions Series is a forum for scholars, government officials, civil society leaders, and foreign policy practitioners to provide timely analysis of new developments related to the advancement of women and girls worldwide.

Take this quiz to test your knowledge of presidential summit meetings from the Cold War through today. 

If the President wants to use an arms build-up to advance arms control, he should take his cues from the Reagan record.

The circumstances surrounding the attack on a former Russian spy in England leave little doubt that Russia was the culprit and cast a lengthening shadow over the global regime to stop chemical weapons.

With the emergence of a militarized cyber domain that creates the conditions for misperceptions that could lead to inadvertent conflict, why are there no cyber arms control regimes?

A new CFR Interactive Report presents compelling evidence about the value of women’s contributions to peace processes around the world. 

In justifying his decision to renounce the Paris climate agreement, President Donald Trump on Thursday cited the need to defend U.S. sovereignty. This is a red herring if ever there was one. 

This afternoon, I joined Randal C. Archibold, Arturo Sarukhan, and José W. Fernández to speak about the domestic politics of Mexico, the impact of corruption, and Mexico’s bilateral strategy with the United States following disagreements over immigration, border walls, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. You can watch the conversation here.

As the world watches one foreign policy hopeful after the next take a spin through the revolving doors of Trump Tower to meet with President-Elect Trump, it is easy to imagine that it is CEO Trump interviewing candidates for the top positions at one of his new hotels abroad. There will be a chief marketing officer, a chief financial officer, legal counsel, and a communications director, among other senior staff. Once Mr. Trump picks his team, it will be time to weigh various opportunities. As they cast their eyes out to the Asia-Pacific, they should begin by undertaking the proper due diligence. As a first step, Mr. Trump and his team should head out to the region to get a sense for the dynamics at play. Much as he would scout out locations for a new hotel, Mr. Trump should study the Asian political and economic landscape. What is the view from the property? Who lives there? What are the economics of the area? How stable is the region? What do people want? What is the value-added of the U.S. brand? Sitting in Washington and New York is not useful for understanding the regional dynamics of the United States and even less useful for understanding those in Asia. Mr. Trump also needs to assess the competition. What do others offer that the United States does not? In Asia, the competition is primarily from China, which has established a new financing mechanism, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, along with a multi-year strategic plan, “One Belt, One Road”, to spread China Inc. throughout the region. China is also expanding its security forces to lay claim to future potential hotel locations. How much market share are we ready to cede to Beijing? And what about our joint ventures? Brand America has many longstanding and trustworthy regional partners, such as Singapore, Japan, Australia, and South Korea. These partners are not only useful in keeping the United States apprised of any potential risks to its investments but also are critical to ensuring that potential spoilers—say North Korea—do not keep Team USA from doing its job. More recently, the United States has been expanding its position, developing new relationships with countries such as Vietnam and Myanmar. While these properties are not quite ready for prime time, they show a lot of promise. Still others, such as the Philippines, are clearly in need of refurbishment. The United States is also renowned as a high quality investor, introducing best practices throughout the region. Transparency, accountability, and a strong legal framework have been the hallmarks of U.S. investments in Asia; and these commitments have contributed to the regional security, free trade, and democratic values that have enabled regional peace and economic success. A Trump presidency should consider the long-term payout from maintaining the United States’ reputation for good governance and strong corporate social responsibility. Finally, Mr. Trump and his team should take a step back to consider the long-term strategy for the company. Hotels are one thing, but what about golf courses, restaurants, and casinos? On the face of it, President-Elect Trump may believe that his plan to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement on his first day in office is costless—the United States hasn’t ratified the agreement and estimated gains from the agreement amount to only a 0.5 percent increase in U.S. incomes by 2030. It is like canceling a project of which Trump and his team did not conceive. But without TPP, U.S. companies will be disadvantaged in a world in which the most dynamic part of the global economy—the Asia-Pacific—is likely bound by a trade agreement, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) that does not include the United States. Companies will not want to base production in the United States for goods to be sold in RCEP member economies, which account for 30 percent of the world’s GDP and half of the world’s population. The collapse of TPP could prove to be a silent job killer for Americans. President-Elect Trump needs to assess whether he wants the United States to be a Leading Hotel of the World or a small budget chain based only in the United States. A great hotel has several attributes: an excellent location, a strategic vision, the ability to anticipate guests’ needs, an ability to innovate, and excellent amenities and services. Without these things, a hotel will be second rate; no one will emulate its practices, and no one will want to stay there. The same is true of the United States. Read more about how the Trump administration should approach U.S. policy toward China, Japan, Korea, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.

Global trade and the supply chains that support it are undergoing a period of profound change. Supply chains face threats including a resurgence of protectionism, climate change, decaying infrastructure, and human rights abuses. The Development Channel’s series on global supply chains will highlight experts’ analysis on emerging trends and challenges. This post is from Dr. Sherry Stephenson, senior fellow at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD).  We live today in a networked economy led by investment flows where business-to-business intermediate trade accounts for over two-thirds of the goods and nearly three-quarters of the services exchanged worldwide. Global value chains (GVCs) now define how companies do business and how world trade is structured. These complex chains mean different things to different actors and the “governance” of GVCs is understood in various ways. It can be viewed from at least three perspectives: of firms; of individual countries; and of the international trading system. At the firm level, governance of a supply chain refers to management, or how the activities in a production network are organized and carried out among participating firms. Usually the lead firm sets and enforces the parameters under which other firms in the network operate, through deciding what will be produced and in what location, the type of quality controls that must be followed, and the management structure. Companies are most concerned with generating efficient production to maximize profits. How they position themselves in a given value chain and what type of management or governance structure they adopt will depend partly on the type of activity in which they are involved. Sovereign nations look at the governance of global value chains as a policy issue. Their goals are to create an environment that will bring in investment, enhance economic growth, and stimulate the transfer of technology and skills. Governments aim to create the most conducive and enabling set of policies that will allow firms to engage in GVC operations. Both domestic and international policies matter. Domestically, a liberalizing trade policy is a necessary first step to integrating into GVCs. Education, too, is needed for a country’s labor force to contribute high-quality services, or add high-quality inputs to goods and services going into value chain networks. Other enabling policies and factors include: a competitive services industry investment-friendly policies strong government institutions with mechanisms for legal recourse in the case of disputes a robust digital infrastructure customs and border management for efficient logistics non-discriminatory domestic regulation Governments must push these reforms, all the while balancing domestic politics, which may or may not support this open trade agenda. Finally, the international trading system governs GVCs through rules negotiated between countries in trade agreements and addresses decisions that affect trade and investment flows between several trading partners or the trading system as a whole. This form of GVC “governance” has been little explored and discussed by analysts and policy officials. Some argue there is a "supply chain governance gap" at the multilateral level due to the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) preoccupation with the Doha Round agenda of 20th century trade issues, and with a WTO system characterized by: outdated trading rules—the WTO came into force in 1995 when the internet was considered “emerging technology” and the World Wide Web had just appeared; lack of rules on investment, competition policy, and e-commerce and digital trade, all vital to GVC operations; trade rules that are structured in silos, with no cross-cutting forum to discuss horizontal issues that affect GVC operations. In the WTO’s absence, preferential, plurilateral and mega-regional trade agreements have stepped into the governance void. The Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), being negotiated by fifty countries, covers all services sectors as well as key 21st century trade-related issues. Investment, competition policy, and digital trade/data flows are all included in new, deeper preferential trade agreements, such as the recently-concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). If ratified, the TPP should create an enabling environment for GVCs among its members. However, it will further splinter the WTO system. If followed by other preferential trade agreements, it will lead to more fragmentation in GVC governance.

Last week the forty-eight “participating governments” of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) met in a plenary session in Seoul. Among the subjects of discussion: how to consider for membership countries that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Discussion of membership for non-NPT signatories was the result of India’s application for membership, an application the United States has vocally supported. Some high-profile voices have weighed in against the idea of India’s membership, including eighteen senior nonproliferation experts, who viewed the idea of an exception for India as a step that would weaken global nonproliferation efforts. (I disagree with this view, and believe the legal changes India has made to become part of the global nonproliferation regime marks a net positive for nonproliferation concerns.) Pakistan decided to apply for membership as well, despite its past with the A.Q. Khan network. China pressed for NPT adherence as a requirement for entry. India’s status as a non-NPT signatory meant that this application was never going to be easy. The Seoul plenary ended without a decision on the membership discussion. Specifically, as the plenary public statement from Seoul put it, The NSG had discussions on the issue of “Technical, Legal and Political Aspects of the Participation of non-NPT States in the NSG” and decided to continue its discussion. Since the plenary produced no outcome on the question of India’s membership other than a deferral, Indian public debate has begun over matters like whether it was a good idea to pursue membership in the first place; whether the diplomatic strategy was appropriate; and even whether Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visible push for support around the world cast India in the proper light. People have also focused on the Seoul outcome as a “failure.” My own view, which appears in today’s Indian Express, is that India has done the right thing to be out there trying, that it has the support of forty-plus NSG members which is a significant accomplishment, and that it should keep trying. Read the entire opinion piece here. Follow me on Twitter @AyresAlyssa or like me on Facebook: fb.me/ayresalyssa

The three North American leaders meet tomorrow in Ottawa, the new Trudeau government reviving an annual summit. As a recent poll of U.S. perceptions of its neighbors by Vianovo and GSD&M confirms, they face public opinion headwinds. Canvassing 1,000 U.S. adults through YouGov, the survey reveals the deep suspicions Americans hold of their neighbors, especially Mexico. Less than one in four Americans have a positive image of Mexico, and fewer still believe it has a modern economy or is safe for travel. Many see Mexico as an economic drain—when removing those who say they don’t know enough, a similar number want to leave as stay in NAFTA (mirroring the Brexit divide). A majority of Americans see the Mexican government as corrupt, the nation as unstable, and believe illegal immigration is increasing. Over half want to build a wall to shield the United States from these perceived problems. For them, Mexico is a problem, not a partner. These views divide sharply along partisan lines. By a two-to-one margin Democrats say they want to preserve NAFTA, compared to pluralities of Republicans and independents who would prefer to abandon it. Feelings about Mexico in particular differ depending on one’s politics. Republicans overwhelmingly see Mexico as the source of problems for the United States rather than as a good neighbor; Democrats are split between the two views. These perceptions don’t reflect reality. Since 2009 migration flows from Mexico have been net zero to negative (more people leaving than coming). Instead the largest sources of U.S. migrants are China and India. Economically, North American supply chains undergird much of U.S. manufacturing and support the jobs of millions of Americans. Without NAFTA the auto, electronics, and machinery industries would likely shut down, moving wholesale to other regions. Overall the majority of Americans miss the fundamental transformations Mexico has undergone over the last few decades. Now the eleventh-largest global economy, Mexico boasts top research universities, highly successful multinational companies, tens of millions of middle class consumers, and GDP per capita topping $18,000 (in PPP terms). Though cold comfort, American suspicions aren’t limited to Mexico. One in five Americans want to wall themselves off from Canada. These isolationist views aren’t driven by Trump—perceptions haven’t changed much in four years (the last time the firms conducted a survey). Few respondents even mentioned him, though when asked a strong majority thought he would worsen relations with our neighbors. What did emerge is that Americans that know Mexico—having visited for work or fun—feel better about the country. Time to encourage more visits—on top of the estimated 22 million trips by U.S. citizens each year. Perhaps that can change perceptions.