Search results

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year galvanised the West against not only the Kremlin, but also other rivals, especially an increasingly assertive China. But last month, French President Emmanuel Macron headed to Beijing, where ...

Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary in the Blair government from 2001 to 2006. His five years at the Foreign Office saw him grappling with every conflict zone from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, the accession of ten new states to the EU, the failed accession bid from Turkey, the bombing of the Twin Towers on 9/11, and the Allied invasion of Iraq, led by the United States. At this seminar he will reflect on the role of Foreign Secretary with Sir David Manning, foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair from 2001 to 2003, and at the time of the invasion of Iraq, British Ambassador to the US.

Theme After widespread relief in capitals around the world about Bolsonaro's failed re-election bid in October 2022, Lula has normalised Brazil's ties to the rest of the world. Yet at the same time, friction between Brazil and the West vis-à-vis the war in Ukraine, as well as Lula's controversial views regarding Venezuela, reveal more fundamental […]
La entrada Lula's foreign policy: normalisation and friction se publicó primero en Elcano Royal Institute.

The Biden administration's foreign policy record in 2023 won't give the president much to boast about in next year's election. The U.S. is even more overstretched at the end of 2023 than it was at the beginning, and the president has had very few policy successes. For most of the year, there weren't any major debacles, but that changed over the last two months as the president gave the Israeli government a blank check to wage a brutal war in Gaza. The president committed Washington to support another foreign war in the wake of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel while the conflict in Ukraine settled into a stalemate. Even though the U.S. was under no obligation to support this war, the president made a point of turning it into one of his signature policies and linked it closely with support for Ukraine in his public rhetoric. Biden did not, and has not made a compelling case that unconditional support for Israel's campaign is in the best interests of the United States, and the costs of that support have been rising ever since. Furthermore, backing the war exposed U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria to renewed attacks from local militias, and it has also led to increasing risks for U.S. ships in the Red Sea as the Houthis have been launching attacks on commercial shipping to protest the war. The risks that the conflict could escalate and spread into other parts of the region have been growing, and so has the risk that the U.S. could become directly involved in a multi-front war. The president's instinct to back Israel to the hilt has made a wider war more likely and it has put U.S. forces in greater danger.U.S. support for Israel in Gaza has not only overshadowed the rest of Biden's foreign policy agenda, but it has also tied the U.S. to an indiscriminate bombing campaign and a punishing siege that is driving hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians into famine conditions. The Biden administration has not only torched whatever remained of Washington's credibility on human rights and international law, but it has closely associated the U.S. with the war crimes committed against Palestinian civilians.The damage to America's reputation has already been considerable, and the damage to American interests in the Middle East and beyond over the longer term will likely be significant.The setback for Biden's own agenda has been undeniable. The administration's biggest diplomatic initiative of 2023 — the ill-advised pursuit of Saudi-Israeli normalization — stalled when the war in Gaza showed the administration's understanding of the region to be fundamentally flawed. Having bought into the false assumption that U.S.-facilitated normalization agreements between Israel and Arab clients would stabilize the region, the administration failed to recognize how bad things were getting in occupied Palestine. Like their predecessors, the Biden administration did nothing to keep Netanyahu's coalition government in check as it pursued its creeping annexation of the West Bank. Believing that the Palestinians could be safely sidelined and that their grievances could be ignored, the administration was trying to find out what inducements it would take to get Mohammed bin Salman to endorse normalization. If they had been successful, it would have meant another security commitment and more costs for the United States, so it was just as well that this policy was derailed.It isn't clear how much of a factor the push for Saudi normalization was in contributing to Hamas' decision to attack, but it clearly wasn't helpful for the U.S. to waste so much effort on trying to entice the Saudis into a deal while tensions between Israel and the Palestinians was about to explode. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan's infamous line uttered shortly before the start of the war about how the region was quieter than it had been in decades reflected how much the administration had come to believe its own press releases. Support for the war has cost the U.S. a lot of goodwill in countries of the Global South, and the administration's stubborn opposition to a ceasefire has left the U.S. as deeply isolated at the United Nations as it has ever been on a major issue. The administration had earlier emphasized the importance of competing for influence with other major powers in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, but with its hardline position on Gaza it seems to have frittered away most of whatever gains it has made. Especially for an administration that constantly talks about the importance of America's leadership role, it has outdone itself in alienating and driving the rest of the world away from the U.S. on this issue.U.S. support for the war in Ukraine has been undermined by backing for the war in Gaza in two ways. First, it has diverted U.S. attention and resources away from Ukraine as the U.S. has turned its focus once again to the Middle East. It has also made a mockery of the administration's rhetoric in support of Ukraine. The U.S. spent the better part of two years extolling the importance of international law to rally support for Ukraine, and then demonstrated that the U.S. doesn't hold its own clients and partners to the same standard that it expects from other states. The Biden record this year wasn't all bad. On the plus side, the U.S. made some modest progress in stabilizing relations with China near the end of the year after months of deteriorating ties in the wake of the spy balloon incident in February. There was a small diplomatic breakthrough with Iran in the summer that led to the release of five Americans that had been wrongfully detained by the Iranian government. Unfortunately, the administration then reneged on releasing Iranian funds that had been frozen under "maximum pressure" sanctions because they didn't want to be seen as "rewarding" Iran following Hamas' attack.The administration also recently secured another prisoner release agreement with the Venezuelan government. While these were positive results, they were also hardly earth-shattering.The Biden administration had more success in working with established allies. They further developed the technology-sharing AUKUS arrangement with Australia and Britain, and they took advantage of a temporary improvement in relations between South Korea and Japan to strengthen ties with both. In both cases, the administration was pushing on an open door, and it is questionable whether either arrangement will endure, but they can at least point to these things as examples of advancing Biden's agenda. Even more than in previous years, the Biden administration's foreign policy in 2023 has been defined by too much reliance on military tools and too little effort put into diplomatic engagement. That may be one of the reasons why the public now broadly disapproves of Biden's handling of foreign policy. Both for his own sake and for the sake of U.S. interests, the president needs to make some major course changes in 2024 in Gaza and in his overall approach to the world.

The EU has not changed enough in response to Russia's war on Ukraine. To be effective, the bloc needs a strategic foreign and security policy.*

Over the last decade, a new generation of foreign policy professionals has risen through the ranks in Washington. The post-9/11 world shaped its worldview, and despite diverse experiences and backgrounds, this cohort has developed shared values on issues ranging from global democratic norms to the need for changing the conversation on global terrorism. Many of us who belong to this cohort fundamentally believed that Washington's foreign policy institutions were evolving to be more inclusive and nuanced. But the U.S. response to the Hamas terror attack on Israel, Israel's disproportionate response, and the conversation dominating the Washington foreign policy elite, has shattered that illusion. It exposed the double standards — illustrated most vividly by the difference between discussions about the war in Ukraine and the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza — that dominate the so-called D.C. foreign policy blob.Living as a foreign policy professional in Washington over the last few months is reminiscent of what I often encounter in my home nation of Pakistan, where friends and family often tell me to speak in hushed tones in public when talking about blasphemy laws and violence against underprivileged communities.Many of us now find ourselves whispering our views on what is going on in Gaza, fearful of the impact that speaking out in public may have on our careers. One of my mentors who cut her teeth during the post-9/11 era told me to keep my head down and quietly work the system. Many of us know of examples of people who veered off the party line of commentary about Israel's attacks and found themselves shamed or, in extreme examples, fired.Things are changing, albeit slowly. Chuck Schumer's remarks on the floor of the Senate were described by Fareed Zakaria — a key establishment voice — as a "watershed moment". In addition, the Biden administration has placed sanctions on some Israeli settler outposts and increased its public criticism of the Nethanyahu government.But this is not happening because men like Biden and Schumer have somehow rediscovered their moral compass; they are in large part responding to the data which suggests that the White House's policies have put at risk Biden's reelection prospects. The growing domestic and global outcry about the civilian body count, destruction and famine in Gaza — and little prospect that Prime Minister Netanyahu is ever going to shift direction — have also contributed to the change in tone (though this has not prevented the administration from sending billions of dollars in new weapons, including 2,000-pound bombs and fighter jets, to Israel in recent days).The Biden administration may eventually abandon Nethanyahu, primarily guided by Biden's collapsing polling numbers among key constituencies. The Uncommitted Campaign, led by grassroots Arab-American organizers like Layla Elabed, has played a critical role by mobilizing hundreds of thousands of voters in places like Michigan and Minnesota.But the fear is that once the anger subsides, the current conflict winds down, and Israel elects a new leader, Washington will go back to its status quo policy of providing unconditional military aid to Israel, ignoring the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, and paying lip service to a two-state solution.While things are changing, the mission to transform American foreign policy towards Israel and Palestine is only just getting started. Achieving greater influence to help shape better policies will take years, if not decades. The broader community will have to be patient, but forceful and uncompromising. It will have to work the levers of America's political system to develop a coterie of staffers on Capitol Hill, advisors in the National Security Council, and think tank scholars and academics who develop, shape, and influence American foreign policy for the better.While it is true that Joe Biden's embrace of Netanyahu's hard line government has cost him dearly, there are still things he can do to showcase that he is open to evolving his policies. To do so, Biden must not only call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, but also stop the illegal provision of offensive weapons to Israel, join the majority of the world's nations in recognizing the state of Palestine, and pursue a policy that punishes Israel for the continued expansion of settlements on Palestinian lands.Many of us who belong to this rising group of experts will not sit idly by in the face of stagnant, imbalanced U.S. foreign policy – much like our global contemporaries who reject status quo politics. The polls are now bearing this out: Americans do not approve of Israel's ongoing operations in Gaza. As a result, the Biden administration should not be supporting Israel further with weapons and military aid. President Biden and his advisors must recognize that Washington cannot continue dismissing the concerns and recommendations of their citizens and voters.

Anton Moiseienko (ANU College of Law) has posted Crime and Sanctions: Beyond Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool (German Law Journal (Forthcoming)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Targeted sanctions, namely asset freezes and travel bans, are no longer the...

Americans give higher priority to countering the power and influence of Russia and China and finding a solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestinians than they did six years ago, according to a new survey released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.Conversely, policies aimed at promoting human rights, protecting refugees, and strengthening the United Nations are not as compelling to many citizens as they were in 2018, according to the survey, which was conducted during the first week of April.At the same time, the survey of 3,600 adults found big differences of opinion between respondents who identified as Democrats and Republicans or as leaning toward either party, and between younger and older respondents of what they consider to be "top priorities" for long-term U.S. foreign policy aims.Democrats and younger participants in the survey were far more likely to rate climate change, defending human rights, and reducing U.S. military commitments overseas as "top priorities." Republicans and older voters, by contrast, were far more likely to rate containing China and Iran, supporting Israel, and "maintaining the U.S. military advantage over all other countries" as "top priorities."At the same time, the survey found that foreign policy did not appear to be as important to the general public this year as it appeared five years ago. Asked which is "more important for President Biden to focus on," 83% of respondents identified "domestic policy" over "foreign policy" (14% ). Asked the same question with respect to former President Trump in July 2019, respondents favored "domestic policy" by a narrower margin – 74% to 23%. A second poll of the same respondents released by Pew Tuesday found that views of the United Nations have become somewhat more negative over the past year, with only a slight majority (52%) voicing an overall "favorable" opinion of the world body, down from 57% one year ago. As in the "priorities" survey, the poll found major differences in political and age differences in opinions about the U.N., with Democrats and Democratic-leaning and younger respondents having significantly more favorable views than their Republican and older counterparts. The poll also found that respondents with more education were also more likely to have a favorable opinion of the U.N. than less educated respondents, although the differences were not nearly as great as the partisan and age gaps.In the first survey, respondents were asked to rate a total of 22 long-range foreign policy goals by whether they should be considered "top priority," "some priority," and "no priority." Of the 22 goals listed this year, six had not been listed in previous surveys by Pew, so comparisons with past sentiment could not be made. Three of the new goals – "strengthening NATO," "supporting Israel," and "supporting Ukraine" – were directly relevant to ongoing conflicts that have dominated headlines but were far less salient three years ago when Pew last conducted a "priorities" poll.As in previous surveys of this kind, particularly since 9/11, two of the three goals that were rated "top priority" the most respondents were "taking measures to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks" (73%) and "preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction" (63%). "Reducing the flow of illegal drugs into our country" – a new goal not previously listed – was rated as a "top priority" by 64% of respondents (although only 34% of the youngest respondents (18-29 years old) agreed with that assessment).Other goals that were rated by a majority as a "top priority" included "maintaining the U.S. military advantage over all other countries" (53%), "reducing the spread of infectious diseases"(52%), "limiting the power and influence" of Russia (50%) and China (49%). The biggest differences between the latest "top priority" goals and those that Pew found in 2018 included containing China's influence and power, which rose from 32% six years ago to 49% ; finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict (from 18% to 29%); and containing Russia (from 42% to 50%). Support for maintaining U.S. military primacy also rose by a more modest 4% over the six years, although the goal of "getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order," also rose two points to 42%.The survey also bolstered the notion that younger Americans are significantly more idealistic than their older counterparts. Besides the goal of staunching the flow of illegal drugs, differences of 40 percentage points or more between the pool of respondents aged 18-29 and the oldest group (65 and older) were found with respect to containing China (28% versus 72%), "limiting the power and influence of Iran" (17% versus 61%), and maintaining U.S. military primacy (31% versus 71%). The youngest respondents were also considerably less concerned about containing Russia and North Korea, and "supporting Israel" was rated a "top priority" by only 7% of the youngest group.Partisan differences were often almost as great, although the 55-percentage point gap between Democrat- and Republican-inclined respondents over "dealing with climate change" as a "top priority" (70% versus 15%) was particularly dramatic. Gaps of 20% or more were found on "supporting Israel" (8% Democratic versus 39% Republican), reducing illegal drugs (51% versus 79%), maintaining military primacy (41% versus 68%, "supporting Ukraine" (37% versus 12%), aiding refugees (30% versus 7%), fighting diseases (63% versus 41%), defending human rights (36% versus 15%), getting other countries to bear costs of maintain world order (54% versus 33%), strengthening the UN (40% versus 20%), and containing Iran (29% versus 49%).

The year in foreign policy was marked by bloody conflict, humanitarian catastrophe, and grief, plus political failures and missteps. Let's take a look at the most notable ones as we approach 2024.Losers in major conflicts and geopolitical shiftsUkraine: The bravery and endurance of the Ukrainian people and its military forces have been extolled time and again. But the failure of its counteroffensive in the spring and the summer of 2023 has led in part to a loss in confidence that the country can ever hope to expunge the Russians from all of its territories. This of course has been not only the goal of President Volodymyr Zelensky, but of his Western supporters. Many of those allies, including the mainstream press, are now suggesting that not only will Ukraine have to find a way to end the war diplomatically — which critics including contributors at RS and at the Quincy Institute have been saying all along — but may have to make territorial compromises.The goal of Ukrainian NATO membership seems like a faraway dream now, and as of the end of the year, the flood of weapons and money from Washington and Western capitals has slowed immensely. Zelensky, now being pegged as increasingly isolated and unrealistic, has seemingly fallen from grace. Unfortunately for him, this is not the first time in U.S. foreign policy history that Washington has turned its favor elsewhere, to the grave detriment of its former beneficiaries.Israel, and the Palestinian people: The government of Israel, blind-sighted by a brutal Hamas attack that left 1200 Israelis dead and 240 hostages whisked away on Oct. 7, has retaliated with such force in Gaza strip that it is squandering much of the rest of the world's goodwill and sympathy. Israelis, as wracked by grief and anger as they are, are not confident that their government has a plan for Gaza after the war, but are steadfast (at least according to polls) that the Netanyahu regime can destroy Hamas, and that care to avoid Palestinian civilian suffering should not be a consideration in executing that.Meanwhile, the Palestinian death toll in Gaza as of this week was well over 21,000. Israel claims to have killed 7,000 Hamas fighters but, according to the New York Times, does not explain how it came to that number. This has created a situation in which Israel (and its U.S. supporters) are increasingly isolated, whether it be at the United Nations or in public opinion across the globe. Furthermore, the Palestinians in Gaza are suffering from catastrophic hunger and a lack of healthcare (there are reportedly no functioning hospitals left in northern Gaza). Nearly 90% have been displaced due to Israeli military bombardments, and infectious diseases are ripping through the traumatized population.Joe Biden: The president of the United States has been backed into a corner on two major fronts this year. On Ukraine, his framing of the war as a Manichaean battle — and a struggle for freedom that will have global repercussions if America doesn't help Zelensky "for as along as it takes" — is coming back to bite his administration. Calls are increasing to begin diplomatic talks in earnest with a government that Washington had relegated to Hitler-like status. Meanwhile, Congress is pushing back on giving Ukraine the billions more in weapons and cash it needs to survive.Biden's team looks indecisive and vulnerable as it moves into what promises to be a brutal re-election. This has only been compounded by the administration's complete inability to rein in the military excesses of the Israeli government in Gaza and the West Bank too. While supposedly making "it clear" to Benjamin Netanyahu that the U.S. wants civilians protected, Biden's administration did all it could to water down the UN Security Council ceasefire at the Israelis' behest, and even a resolution to institute humanitarian "pauses" has, as of this writing, not been put into effect.Biden has also greased the skids for all the weapons the Israelis have asked for, with American-made "dumb bombs" responsible for the multitude of deaths and property destruction in the Gaza strip today. Not only is Washington viewed as having no influence over the Israelis (despite the enormous sums of money and weapons sent there annually); it looks duplicitous when it comes to grand assertions about upholding the "rules-based order." Losers we might have missed ...The Armenian people: Every single Armenian — some 100,000 — was pushed out of the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh territory by Azerbaijan in October. Earlier this year, Azerbaijan and Armenia had pledged to work toward peace after decades of conflict. But hopes waned as Azerbaijan continued a crushing blockade of goods and humanitarian aid to Armenians in the region. An Azeri military operation, launched in September, led to the ultimate takeover of the disputed land and the expulsion of Armenians within days back to Armenia.African coup and civil war victims: West Africa saw a continued rash of coups with two more in Niger and Gabon this year. In Niger, the military overthrew President Mohamed Bazoum in July and put him and his family in the palace basement where they remain today. Niger joins Burkino Faso and Mali as what Quincy Institute non-resident fellow Alex Thurston calls "the epicenter of mass violence and displacement in the region, and one of the worst conflict and humanitarian disaster zones in the world." The military seized power in Gabon in August, ousting President Ali Bongo after he had just won re-election. Meanwhile, a bloody civil war broke out in Sudan in April and soon became a proxy fight involving regional interests, with the Sudanese people, of course, caught in the crossfire. The conflict involves General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (himself a coup leader), pitted against his deputy and head of the Rapid Support Forces, General Mohamed Hamdan Dagolo, known as Hemedti. By June, fighting in the capital city of Khartoum had left scores dead, massive property damage, and an exodus of some 100,000 to points abroad. Fighting not only continues, but is spreading, imperiling millions of civilians and throwing the entire country into a humanitarian disaster. The U.S appears to have little left, diplomatically, to offer.Sweden: The Northern European nation wants into NATO. But what seemed to be a no-brainer — its accession was linked to regional security and Western unity in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 — has become a victim of cross-state politics and recrimination. Though as of this writing Sweden seems one step closer to joining Finland as a new member of the alliance, Turkey continues to use its leverage as a NATO member to get F-16s from the U.S. and force Sweden to amend its anti-terrorism laws. Hungary has been slow walking its vote too, accusing Sweden of telling "blatant lies" about the condition of Hungary's democracy.The American taxpayer: Before Congress left for the holidays, it passed $886 billion in defense spending as part of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These funding levels are the highest since World War II and, as the Quincy Institute's William Hartung points out, they are mostly directed toward "costly, dysfunctional weapons systems that are ill-suited to addressing current challenges."Aside from a pay increase for personnel, the 3% hike over last year represents a boon for the defense industry (which was accused this year in an important 60 Minutes report of gouging taxpayers) and the members of Congress who love them. As RS has reported many times, the defense budget does not reflect sound military strategy or even the national interest, but a wish list by contractors and politicians who benefit from funding expensive programs that in some cases, like the Osprey aircraft, put American troops in real danger. To make it worse, the Pentagon still can't pass an audit.And these guys ...Jake Sullivan: Biden's National Security Advisor penned a Foreign Affairs article entitled "The Sources of American Power," a 7,000-word attempt to put the best sheen on the Biden Administration's handling of current geopolitical events. Unfortunately, like much of the White House foreign policy approach over the last three years, it was out of step. Acknowledging "perennial challenges" in the Middle East, Sullivan said "the region is quieter than it has been for decades" and that "(we) have deescalated tensions in Gaza and restored direct diplomacy between the parties." The article was sent to print on Oct. 2, five days before the Hamas attacks on Israel. "Nobody can be expected to predict the future, but the essay offers a rare insight into how the United States misread an explosive situation in the Middle East," wrote the New York Times, which pointed out that the embarrassing comments were later scrubbed from the online edition of Foreign Affairs. However, Sullivan had been making public comments to the same effect all fall.American Generals: This year the retired generals and admirals who had been talking a big game about the Ukrainian counteroffensive and the failures of the Russian military have been forced to eat their words. Special attention should be given to all these four stars and flags (Petraeus, Stavridis, Keene, McCaffrey, Hodges, etc.) who make incessant rotations on major media and provide wrongheaded strategic assessments that are never corrected. They just pop up again in the next conflict.Malcolm Nance: One of the most visible pro-Ukraine commentators on major cable and on Twitter, the former Navy cryptologist left MSNBC in 2022 to help train the International Legion of foreign volunteers in Ukraine. His videos and tweets boasted his mission — as he was typically beefed up in uniform and weapons, ostensibly reporting from the combat zone — and drew a massive following of pro-Ukraine partisans.Then a New York Times expose dropped the bomb: Nance was enmeshed in a climate of petty squabbling and chaos and among those outsiders in Ukraine who were "fighting with themselves and undermining the war effort." He left the country and is still a commentator — on his paid subscription-only Substack. He's shifted to the Gaza War now, including a (week-long) visit to the Gulf States in October, penning posts like, "Ask Yourself, Are You Really for Palestine or Do You Just Hate Jews?" and, very much like his pro-Ukraine Twitter persona of 2022, accusing critics of Israel of "misguided ill informed myopia & latent antisemitism."

The international community has recently been rocked by the Hong Kong government's chilling decision to place bounties on eight exiled activists, two of whom are currently residing in Australia. This show of transnational repression, a ...

Are you looking for the perfect foreign policy book to start the New Year right? We spent the last few weeks asking our favorite thinkers what new titles they loved this year. Here are the seven books that stood out in 2023.Underground Empire: How America Weaponized the World Economy

By Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman"Underground Empire" tells the story of how America used the unipolar moment to create a vice grip on the international economy, making it impossible for most countries to do business with each other (or even exchange messages) without using U.S. payment systems or IT infrastructure. The world order, once defined by multiple dueling blocs, thus became synonymous with U.S. power.But empire isn't free. As Farrell and Newman note, Washington's constant use of sanctions and spying tools risks alienating other states and potentially bringing down the international system as we know it. Their book is a frightening reminder of the potential costs of overreach and a must-read for anyone interested in grand strategy and the future of global commerce. Ambitious readers may want to pair it with Chris Miller's "Chip War," a 2022 bestseller about America's quest to remain the kingpin of the world microchip industry.Grand Delusion: The Rise and Fall of American Ambition in the Middle East

By Steven SimonWhen observing the parlous state of the Middle East today, it's hard to avoid a fundamental question: How could well-meaning American policymakers have gotten the region so wrong? In "Grand Delusion," Simon argues that most of our missteps boil down to a mismatch between pie-in-the-sky ends and limited means, made worse by a conviction that "facts don't matter, only intentions." The biting and well-researched book is made all the more powerful by Simon's long background of government service, including top-level roles in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, where he argued in favor of many policies that he now badly regrets.Simon brings a palpable sense of anger at four decades of American overreach in the Middle East, dedicating a chapter to each of the last eight presidents, all of whom found their own unique ways to leave the region worse than it was when they took office. His book is a must-read for those who want to understand where U.S. policy went wrong — and how to do things better next time. (Simon, we should note, is a senior research analyst at the Quincy Institute, which publishes RS.)The New China Playbook: Beyond Socialism and Capitalism

By Keyu JinThese days, most English-language books about China begin from a place of deep skepticism. Government statistics are taken as carefully crafted fictions, official statements as likely lies. What else would one expect as a new cold war dawns?"The New China Playbook" is different. Written by a London-based economist whose father is a prominent Chinese Communist Party official, the book offers a rigorous yet sympathetic view of Beijing's rise. Jin's work provides crucial insights into the complex and sometimes surprising balance that the Chinese economy has struck between different systems. By demystifying China's economy, she urges us to consider a future of cooperation instead of conflict.Some have argued that Jin glosses over the darker aspects of Beijing's government policies. Readers can decide for themselves. But one thing is certain: Her book offers a thoughtful point of view on China that you won't find anywhere else.Victory at Sea: Naval Power and the Transformation of the Global Order in World War II

By Paul KennedyCould any list of foreign policy must-reads be complete without a book about WWII? We certainly didn't think so. Enter "Victory at Sea," a wide-ranging yet page-turning look at the naval activities that defined last century's greatest war from an eminent military historian. Kennedy's book, which features new paintings from marine artist Ian Marshall, narrates the fall of old great powers and the rise of new ones, first and foremost led by the United States.Readers with a limited background in naval history shouldn't fear this book, which is less about the details of each individual battle than the broader trends in geopolitics playing out at the time. Some reviewers have noted minor factual errors emanating from some less-than-ideal sourcing, but all in all, "Victory at Sea" is a helpful and provocative overview of a vital moment in military history. (This one was technically published in 2022, but the paperback edition doesn't come out until next year, so we'll call it even.)A Day in the Life of Abed Salama: Anatomy of a Jerusalem Tragedy

By Nathan ThrallThe book starts with a living nightmare: A truck slams into a Jerusalem school bus carrying kindergartners, leaving one teacher and six children dead. Many survivors left the resulting fire with life-changing burns."A Day in the Life of Abed Salama" tells the story of the father of one of those children. Thrall narrates Salama's desperate efforts to find his son, an emotional struggle made all the more difficult by the fact that the life-long resident of Jerusalem could not legally enter Jewish-controlled parts of the city.The book expands on a 2021 essay in the New York Review of Books in which Thrall interlaces stories about the accident with a crash course in Jerusalem's history. The extra space allows Thrall to dive deeper into Salama's life, in which everything from his marriage to his child's education is shaped by the brutal realities of life under occupation. As war rages in Gaza, this book offers a moving testimony of the more mundane forms of violence that define life between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.Getting Russia Right

By Thomas GrahamSome books argue that the U.S. and Russia are natural enemies, doomed to fight until one side wins. Others blame one country or the other for a laundry list of sins that made cooperation impossible after the heady days of the 1990s. "Getting Russia Right," to its great credit, does neither.Graham combines a realist sensibility with the hard pragmatism of a long-time policymaker, drawing on a wealth of experience as in both government and academia. In his view, structural factors — chief among them the difference in how each side views Russia's rightful place in the world — combined with a series of impertinent decisions by both sides to leave bilateral relations in their current sorry state.By insisting on the agency of both Washington and Moscow, "Getting Russia Right" argues that better-informed decisions could actually lead to better outcomes. And Graham, in his typical style, lays out a clear and specific set of recommendations to encourage such a shift. His relatively short book is required reading for those who feel like one Cold War was more than enough.Beyond the Water's Edge: How Partisanship Corrupts U.S. Foreign Policy

By Paul PillarThere's an old truism that, while American politicians play partisan games over domestic problems, such petty squabbles give way to unity "at the water's edge." Pillar's book destroys this fiction, illuminating how party interests have all too often taken precedence over sober-minded analysis by patriotic bureaucrats. This phenomenon, in his telling, leads to unnecessarily long wars and corrodes our own democracy at home.While "Beyond the Water's Edge" largely focuses on the past three decades, Pillar sometimes reaches further back into U.S. history to demonstrate the ways in which officials have overcome this tendency. But Pillar, who is a former intelligence official and current non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute, is far from pollyannaish: The book recommends myriad policies to reduce the influence of partisanship on foreign policy but deems their implementation highly unlikely. Little wonder that Francis Fukuyama described the slim treatise as an "ominous warning."

Feminist foreign policies (FFP) are considered the latest contribution of feminism to global governance. Eleven countries around the world have embraced FFP, aiming to "systematically integrate a gender perspective throughout" foreign policy agendas. In recent years, FFP has spread to Latin America: Mexico introduced an FFP in 2020 and the newly elected Chilean and Colombian […]