The Center for Preventive Action (CPA) aims to help policymakers devise timely and practical strategies to prevent and mitigate armed conflict around the world, especially in places that pose the greatest risk to U.S. interests. CPA accomplishes this by commissioning in-depth reports, convening meetings of experts, and consulting with representatives of governments, international organizations, civil society groups, corporations, and the media. The center’s Global Conflict Tracker informs the general public about threats to international peace and security by providing a reliable and regularly updated online source of information about ongoing conflicts.
Implementing the Global Fragility Act in Haiti necessitates a change in U.S. assumptions and actions, writes Susan D. Page. The United States should work alongside Haitians desirous of charting their own transition to democracy and support Haitian-chosen policies and leadership.
Mozambique faces a host of challenges, from escalating climate crises to an ongoing insurgency in the country's northeast, that the United States can help contain with funding from the Global Fragility Act, writes Emilia Columbo.
To stave off climate-induced instability in Central America, national governments and regional and international organizations all have a role to play to develop both immediate crisis response and long-term instability mitigation, argues Paul J. Angelo.
The Global Fragility Act allows the United States to encourage greater stability in Benin, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, and Togo over the next ten years, argues Eric Silla, though it will be contentious and require high-level diplomacy.
With al-Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Khorasan growing in strength since the U.S. withdrawal, Seth Jones lays out a strategy for the United States to prevent a renewed terrorist threat from emerging in Afghanistan.
To prevent Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine from escalating into a wider European conflict, Thomas Graham recommends that the United States bolster its deterrence efforts with NATO partners, while leaving the door open for Russia to de-escalate.
How well the United States and Japan are able to deter an attack on Taiwan and respond jointly and effectively to Chinese aggression if deterrence fails could determine Asia’s future, as well as their own.
Despite growing rivalry among the major powers, multilateral institutions like the United Nations can continue to play a vital role in the management of violent conflict. Washington should look for opportunities to work with these institutions and, where needed, bolster their role in cooperation with other powers to manage future regional threats to peace.
The United States should regard distrust—not cooperation—as a baseline condition for starting negotiations around shared global threats and challenges with other major powers, such as China and Russia.
South Asia will be both the venue for and the source of intensifying U.S.-China and China-India rivalries. The United States should prepare to manage these rivalries by collaborating with allies and partners, competing with rivals to protect U.S. interests, and grappling with the risk of conflict.
In an era of intensifying U.S.-China friction and volatility, the risks of conflict are real and growing in East Asia, and U.S. policymakers should revitalize existing tools and build new ones to manage an increasingly militarized competition.
Great power competition is altering the prospects for managing conflicts in the Middle East. As policymakers rethink the United States’ role in the region, they should avoid the kind of strategic errors that have provided opportunities for other major powers, notably China and Russia, to undermine U.S. policy.