Why U.S. Trade Deals Haven't Exported U.S. Drug Prices
Why U.S. Trade Deals Haven't Exported U.S. Drug Prices
In response to Foreign Affairs’s survey, Elliott Abrams offers a brief explanation of why congress should not approve the JCPOA.
In the era of globalization, policymakers are increasingly debating the proper role of international law, and a group of legal scholars have embraced transnationalism, the idea that growing interconnectedness should dissolve international boundaries. But that approach is at odds with basic American principles.
Is reducing the world's nuclear arsenals to zero possible, or even desirable?
U.S. and EU talk of “partnership” with Russia has reverted to rivalry as Moscow moves to undo some of the agreements of the 1990s.
"In some ways, the pre-Sykes-Picot Middle East is coming back – but without the order imposed by the Ottoman Empire," writes CFR President Richard N. Haass. "And if no basis for a new regional order emerges, the Middle East stands to suffer far worse in the next century than it did in the last."
The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement explains little about the contemporary Middle East’s problems, writes CFR’s Steven A. Cook. Assuming it does is bad history and leads to bad assumptions for U.S. foreign policy.
Writing in The American Interest, Philip Gordon asks whether the nuclear deal will transform Iran, and argues for firmness and patience while we wait to find out.
Joshua Kurlantzick discusses effects the Trans-Pacific Partnership will have on its economy, its regional trade ties, and its broader foreign policy.
While final ratification seems more likely than not, the very ambition of the TPP could yet be its undoing, writes CFR’s Edward Alden
President Obama, fresh off the implementation of the nuclear accord and a prisoner swap, may want to believe that Iran is, as he suggested to NPR a year ago while discussing what it would take to get a deal done, now on its way to becoming “a very successful regional power” that will abide “by international norms and international rules.”
A defining feature of twenty-first century multilateralism is growing reliance on informal, non-binding, purpose-built partnerships and coalitions of the interested, willing, and capable. But the new multilateralism also presents dangers, among these encouraging rampant forum-shopping, undermining critical international organizations, and reducing accountability in global governance, writes Stewart Patrick.
There is no other area of global governance—not climate change, not management of the oceans, not monetary policy, not peacekeeping—in which the nations of the world have agreed to cooperate more closely than on the rules governing international trade. But over the past half-century, each step toward greater trade cooperation has been a bit harder than the last.
Remember the Iran nuclear deal, source of so much anxiety just one month ago? While much of the world watched in horror at the aftermath of the attacks in Paris, Iran began dismantling its centrifuges. But short-term compliance with the deal isn’t as important as what happens when it expires in 10 years.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal concluded on Monday puts the US in a place it has not been in more than two decades — out in front in the competition to write the rules for the next generation of global trade.
In an article for The Weekly Standard, Elliott Abrams discusses why Prime Minister Netanyahu and AIPAC are right to expend their political capital on fighting the nuclear deal with Iran.
At this point in time, given the current Iranian leadership, the state of Iranian public opinion, and Iranian economic conditions, relying on unilateral economic leverage to obtain a better deal is an illusion, argues Miles Kahler. More likely it would drive Iran further in the direction of North Korea—an unrestrained nuclear program and an economically isolated, unreformed regime.
In an article for The Weekly Standard, Elliott Abrams explains that the Obama administration’s hopes of rapprochement and a nuclear agreement with Iran led it to overlook the consequences of empowering the regime in Teheran at the expense of the Iranian people.
In a piece for POLITICO, Philip Gordon argues that the Iran deal the P5+1 negotiated turned out pretty well. And in any case, no one has come up with a better alternative.
To ensure the success of Myanmar's historic democratic transition, the United States should revise its outdated and counterproductive sanctions policy.
Blackwill and Campbell analyze the rise of Chinese President Xi Jinping and call for a new American grand strategy for Asia.
Williams argues that greater U.S. involvement is necessary to enhance the quality and success of peacekeeping missions.
Kurlantzick offers the sharpest analysis yet of what state capitalism’s emergence means for democratic politics around the world. More
In a cogent analysis of why the United States is losing ground as a world power, Blackwill and Harris explore the statecraft of geoeconomics. More
Takeyh and Simon reframe the legacy of U.S. involvement in the Arab world from 1945 to 1991 and shed new light on the makings of the contemporary Middle East. More
Learn more about CFR’s mission and its work over the past year in the 2015 Annual Report. The Annual Report spotlights new initiatives, high-profile events, and authoritative scholarship from CFR experts, and includes a message from CFR President Richard N. Haass.
Read and download »