Orbis最新文献

This article examines subnational aid allocation patterns during the postwar period in Sri Lanka, focusing on whether war-affected areas receive aid. We use geocoding, mapping, and econometric analysis to understand whether war-affected districts received more aid than others after controlling for economic development. The article uses geocoded aid projects comparing the aid allocation priorities of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a bilateral donor and World Bank and Asian Development Bank as multilateral donors. The PRC and World Bank aid projects’ geocoded data come from AidData, while we geocoded Asian Development Bank projects at the ADM2 level. The data covers 2002–2014, both years included. The study finds that, in general, donors do not respond to the needs of the poorer and war-affected districts, which affects reconciliation and, thereby, long-term sustainable peace. Additionally, we find that China aid project allocations are motivated by domestic politicians, whereas that may be different for multilateral aid projects.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has once again reinvigorated the debate about the likelihood of conflict spreading into NATO’s frontline states, namely the Baltic republics. This article argues that somewhat paradoxically, the Baltics currently find themselves in both the best of times and the worst of times. On the one hand, with each “turn of the screw”—Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014 and 2022—Moscow has ensured a greater allied presence across the Baltics. Still, despite this and Russia’s substantial losses incurred in the war, the Baltic lawmakers will not write off Russia as a military threat any time soon.

When Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine last February, he seemed surprisingly confident that threatening nuclear escalation would inhibit any North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) response. Despite Russia’s poor military performance, this coercive nuclear gambit seems to have paid off. Western countries preemptively ruled out direct intervention and have declined Ukraine combat aircraft and longer-range missiles as they openly agonize about how Putin could react if facing an outright military defeat. This seemingly successful use of nuclear brinkmanship raises the specter of the stability-instability paradox, a largely forgotten Cold War theory worrying that stable mutual nuclear deterrence could embolden military adventurism at lower levels of warfare

The US-led, rules-based order enables China to pursue a peaceful international power transition by leveraging the agenda-setting power. The agenda that China proposes is development, and the lever to promote the agenda is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The BRI helps China publicize the development agenda, co-opt the existing US-led system, showcase China’s material success, legitimize its creation of new international institutions, and attract supporters of its calls to revise the current US-led order. Since Washington wants to avoid its competition with China turning apocalyptic, the most sensible US countermeasure is keeping China inside this rules-based order and competing to set its agenda.

This article is derived from an Atlantic Council report, “A Democratic Trade Partnership: Ally Shoring to Counter Coercion and Secure Supply Chains,” published June 1, 2022.¹

This study compares China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and US infrastructure diplomacy, in the context of their influence over the Global South. Historically, both superpowers have viewed the Global South as a critical sphere of influence, a trend that remains evident in the twenty-first century. With China’s rise as a global power, its extensive infrastructure projects and financial support across the Global South have prompted the United States to reassess its policies in the region. However, US influence appears to be waning, marked by a shift in the political landscape within multilateral institutions and decreased support from countries in the Global South. This article explores potential strategies for the United States to regain and retain influence, which include promoting high standards, consistent engagement, and cooperation where possible. Moreover, it discusses the need for policy beyond infrastructure diplomacy, suggesting a focus on human capital and education as potential avenues for strategic partnerships.

An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) may be naturally occurring or can be created from the detonation of a nuclear weapon high above the Earth’s surface. Various presidential administrations have grappled with how to best manage risks around EMP threats. As this paper explains, the nuclear EMP debate is unfortunately often framed between two extremes. Some administrations have focused on naturally occurring EMP threats, such as space weather events, whereas others have focused predominately on the nuclear EMP threat, or even taken a hybrid approach here. Despite this contretemps, protecting against one form of an EMP threat thankfully also serves to protect against the other. Thus, this paper recommends that the United States Government and private sector work together to harden the electric grid from both natural and man-made EMP incidents, and establish an EMP Manhattan Project to develop national contingency plans for such scenarios.