Earlier this month, Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency reached an agreement to reestablish certain transparency measures at select nuclear sites. Amid growing concern over Iran’s expanding nuclear activities, the deal is a positive step that bodes well for international efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear program.
Nuclear risks are steadily growing, while the fragile restraints that limited nuclear proliferation fall by the wayside. As we enter an era where major breakthroughs on arms control and nonproliferation are unlikely, the U.S. will face the unglamorous but still crucial task of trying to prevent a bad situation from getting worse.
Following recent turbulence in Western financial markets, many states without vast resources at their disposal are teetering at the edge of financial collapse. As an increasing number of emerging markets face brutal choices, the impact of inflation and austerity could increase the likelihood of political crises and armed conflicts.
The need for peacebuilding in post-conflict societies grew out of the realization that signing agreements to bring fighting to an end is a necessary but insufficient step toward true and enduring peace. But while many of peacebuilding’s objectives seem self-evident, it is often laborious and expensive—and easily undone.
Many popular accounts of women’s experiences during war exoticize and decontextualize female fighters, while underscoring women’s vulnerability and victimhood at the expense of their agency. But these narratives can have high costs, making a more holistic understanding of women’s contributions to armed groups urgently necessary.
Three years ago, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on warring parties to “put armed conflict on lockdown” to allow health workers to fight COVID-19. The call for a global cease-fire created a glimmer of hope during the early days of the pandemic. But today it feels like a historical footnote from a very different time.
Corruption knows no geographic boundaries, and its impact is devastating, particularly for developing countries. While recent revelations of massive corruption have made the issue a high priority for voters, the obstacles to effectively tackling corruption can prove to be persistent. That, in turn, can lead to popular disenchantment with leaders and democratic processes.
Around the world, the popular backlash against global migration has fueled the rise of far-right populist parties and driven some centrist governments to adopt a tougher line on immigration. But with short-term strategies dominating the debate, many of the persistent drivers of migration go unaddressed, even as efforts to craft a global consensus on migration are hobbled by demands for quick solutions.
Despite the challenges that technological innovations like artificial intelligence and autonomous drones pose to governance and society, they will continue to emerge. In the absence of any global agreement, there is still an opportunity for governments to seize on the benefits these advances might bring, while encouraging their ethical and democratic use.
President Joe Biden’s first priority upon taking office was to reassure U.S. allies of America’s ongoing security commitments, promising that “America is back.” Despite some missteps along the way, that effort has paid off during the current standoff with Russia over Ukraine. But Biden still has a lot of work to do when it comes to shoring up America’s security partnerships to deal with a rising China.
Ever since the unveiling of OpenAI’s ChatGPT program, the field of AI has taken center stage in the competition over cutting-edge technology. And its impact on geopolitical contests, particularly in the political and military spheres, has the potential to be just as significant as its impact on business pursuits.
Increasingly, diasporas are powerful constituencies in their countries of origin. Despite their physical distance, they influence homeland politics and can also be instrumental in shaping relations between their countries of origin and residence. Yet, home and host government attitudes toward diasporas are decidedly mixed.
The global food system accounts for a whopping 31 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and changing the way we eat is increasingly seen as essential to fighting climate change. So how can governments nudge the transformation of something as big and complex as the global food system in order to reduce its climate impacts?
In January, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists set their “Doomsday Clock” to 90 seconds before midnight, in an assessment of how close the world is to “global catastrophe”—the prospect of nuclear war. Three recent events over the past few weeks have reinforced the idea that the world is entering a dangerous era of nuclear risk.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump upended what was once a relatively staid global economic and trade system. For all of the upheaval he created, though, Trump left office with only one clear-cut accomplishment: an updated NAFTA deal. And even as Trump sowed chaos in America’s trade relationships, most of the world reinforced its commitment to trade liberalization.