This report from UK development charity Oxfam says that UK foreign policy is at a crossroads, as one prime minister hands over the reins to another. It cautions that as foreign-policy discussions remain dominated by the debacle in Iraq, the danger is that UK foreign policy could lurch to a much more cautious approach, turning away from trying to solve the world’s worst crises, with potentially catastrophic consequences for people in them.
This paper from Oxfam reviews the performance of the United Nation’s Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) in its first year. The Fund is designed provide a rapid response to sudden-onset disasters, and to bridge the funding gaps in under-funded emergencies.
Authors: David S. Bassiouni, Halvor Fossum Lauritzsen, and Howard Roy Williams
An independent report commissioned by the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator & Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
In recent years, humanitarian organizations have become increasingly effective in saving lives, alleviating human suffering, and advocating for the rights of people in need. Nonetheless, there still are considerable gaps in the ability of the humanitarian system to respond adequately to all humanitarian crises. Hence, we must, and we can, do better to be more predictable in our response to vulnerable populations around the globe.
Laurie Garrett says before American cruise missiles reach their targets, serveral diplomatic steps must be taken in order to stop the further use of nerve gases by the Syrian regime against its own people and prevent the use of chemical weapons from becoming the region's "new normal."
According to Micah Zenko, "We are deluding ourselves if we believe that we need more time to "think through" U.S. military intervention options for Syria. We have an excellent understanding of what those options are, and a vast majority of officials, policymakers, and the American people do not believe they are worth the effort."
Authors: Michael Scott Doran and Max Boot New York Times
Michael Scott Doran and Max Boot lay out five reasons for why the United States should intervene in Syria, arguing that President Obama is forgoing his "lead from behind" approach where it would benefit the United States the most.
Jonathan Tepperman says a decision by the United States to intervene militarily in Syria must be made with hard facts and an honest decision about what standing up for U.S. interests and values will entail.
The Council on Foreign Relations' David Rockefeller Studies Program—CFR's "think tank"—is home to more than seventy full-time, adjunct, and visiting scholars and practitioners (called "fellows"). Their expertise covers the world's major regions as well as the critical issues shaping today's global agenda. Download the printable CFR Experts Guide.
The authors argue that it is essential to begin working now to expand and establish rules and norms governing armed drones, thereby creating standards of behavior that other countries will be more likely to follow.
The author examines Pakistan's complex role in U.S. foreign policy and advocates for a two-pronged approach that works to quarantine threats while integrating Pakistan into the broader U.S. agenda in Asia.