Among many challenges revealed during the 2016 presidential election to the Obama adminisration’s rebalance to Asia, Sheila A. Smith, senior fellow for Japan studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, notes “it is the United States’ own commitment to the region that seems the most fragile.”
The President's Inbox, a Council on Foreign Relations podcast hosted by James M. Lindsay and Robert McMahon, examines challenges awaiting the next U.S. president. Tune in each Thursday to hear Lindsay, McMahon, and a rotating panel of CFR experts discuss trade, immigration, Russia, China, and more.
Partitioning Syria under a weak federal structure with a massive Western force to enforce a power-sharing agreement is the only real option the United States and its allies has for solving the Syrian conflict, writes CFR’s Ray Takeyh.
The Hillary-as-hawk talk is a caricature. Much damage has been done to U.S. influence first by failed military involvements and then by the effort to downsize the U.S. role and shift burdens to others. Acute awareness of that damage would shape the strategies of a Hillary Clinton administration. Doing better will take time, thought, and effort. It can’t rely on instinct.
For the first time ever, the United States abstained in the annual United Nations General Assembly vote to condemn the U.S. embargo of Cuba. The vote was bad enough; the explanation of vote offered by our envoy at the UN was in many ways even worse. Elliott Abrams explains the problem in National Review.
Whoever wins the U.S. presidential election faces political divisions that will hobble immigration and trade policy but progress may be possible in areas like infrastructure and tax reform, says CFR President Richard N. Haass.
Acclaimed writer and historian Jay Winik has joined the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as its first historian-in-residence. A New York Times best-selling author, Winik will spend the year at CFR looking at lessons from history for today’s pressing foreign policy challenges.
Donald Trump began the final presidential debate in what was, for him, an unexpected fashion. He was subdued, spoke calmly, and sounded like a conventional Republican. He promised to oppose abortion, support the Second Amendment, and appoint Supreme Court justices who “will interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted.” But about halfway through, Trump made one crazy, false statement after another. It was a farrago of falsehoods the likes of which no one has ever seen...since Trump’s last debate. What does it tell you about the future of the Republican Party that so many ordinary Republicans seemed to thrill to his misstatements and vicious attacks?