<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.newamerica.net" xmlns:dc="
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Transnational Issues: Latest Articles</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/programs/content/1264/articles</link>
 <description>Articles by Program for tabbed view on main program pages</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Minimum Deterrence</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/minimum_deterrence_7552</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Nuclear deterrence is a rather subjective concept: How many weapons are enough to ensure deterrence? How difficult is it to achieve and maintain deterrence? How important are the technical details of a country’s nuclear forces, such as the size, configuration, and readiness, to the goal of maintaining deterrence? The answers to these questions vary across recent history and across geographic areas.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
One view, I would say the dominant view in U.S. defense planning, is that deterrence can be achieved only through difficult choices, sustained with intelligent effort, and will depend very much on the technical details. This is the view expressed&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/minimum_deterrence_7552&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/jeffrey_lewis/recent_work">Jeffrey Lewis</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1394">Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/961">Nuclear Strategy &amp;amp; Nonproliferation Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/10">National Security</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/wmd">WMD</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:06:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7552 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Survey Says: Stop Backing Musharraf</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/survey_says_stop_backing_musharraf_7504</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The US government is pressing the new Pakistani civilian administration to back off efforts to remove Pervez Musharraf from the presidency.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
But if the United States truly wanted to shore up democracy and help fight terrorism inside Pakistan, it would pursue the exactly opposite policy: the United States should publicly back the immediate removal of Mr Musharraf. A new public opinion survey shows why.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
More than the ailing economy, the survey, conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow in collaboration with the New America Foundation and the Pakistan Institute for Public Opinion, revealed that the most important priority for Pakistanis is an&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/survey_says_stop_backing_musharraf_7504&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/peter_bergen/recent_work">Peter Bergen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1335">The National (UAE)</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1268">Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Insurgency Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/10">National Security</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/pakistan">Pakistan</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/terrorism">Terrorism</category>
 <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 07:05:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7504 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Does Osama bin Laden Still Matter?</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/does_osama_bin_laden_still_matter_7490</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Does Osama bin Laden matter anymore? You could be forgiven for thinking he doesn&#039;t. In recent months, an impressive cast of terrorism experts and counterterrorism officials around the world has coalesced around the notion that al-Qaeda&#039;s leader is no longer an active threat to the West. They point out that he has not been able to strike on U.S. soil since 9/11 or in Europe since the London bombings three summers ago. In Iraq, his most successful franchise operation is on the ropes. Across the Muslim world, opinion polls suggest his popularity has faded, and many of his early supporters&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/does_osama_bin_laden_still_matter_7490&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/peter_bergen/recent_work">Peter Bergen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/156">TIME Magazine</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1268">Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Insurgency Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/10">National Security</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/terrorism">Terrorism</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 05:57:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7490 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>The New Colonialists</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/new_colonialists_7379</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Even on their best days, the world’s failed states are difficult to mistake for anything but tragic examples of countries gone wrong. A few routinely make the headlines -- Somalia, Iraq, Congo. But alongside their brand of extreme state dysfunction exists an entirely separate, easily missed class of states teetering on the edge. In dozens of countries, corrupt or feeble governments are proving themselves dangerously incapable of carrying out the most basic responsibilities of statehood. These countries -- nations such as Botswana, Cambodia, Georgia, and Kenya -- might appear to be recovering, even thriving, developing countries, but like their failed-state&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/new_colonialists_7379&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/maria_figueroa_kupcu/recent_work">Maria Figueroa Küpçü</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/michael_a_cohen/recent_work">Michael A. Cohen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/parag_khanna/recent_work">Parag Khanna</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/104">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/887">Global Governance Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1267">Privatization of Foreign Policy Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/global_governance">Global Governance</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:32:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7379 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Europe&#039;s Century</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/europes_century_7299</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
This past week saw not only the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty, forcing a crisis summit this week to chart an alternative path to EU continuity, but also the annual EU-American summit in Slovenia, aiming to forge a common transatlantic agenda on Middle East peace, climate change and trade. The Irish vote is likely to fuel rumours of the EU&#039;s demise, yet it is the latter summit that will prove more revealing about its future. While mending transatlantic divides is commendable, the summit presents an opportunity to rectify misperceptions about the US leading and Europe following on global issues.&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/europes_century_7299&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/parag_khanna/recent_work">Parag Khanna</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/180">The Guardian (London)</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/887">Global Governance Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/11">Trade &amp;amp; Globalization</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/european_union">Europe</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/global_governance">Global Governance</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:25:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7299 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>US Economic Decline Top Issue</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/us_economic_decline_top_issue_7305</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The most important long-term strategic challenge facing the Gulf Cooperation Council is not the threat of Islamic extremism or the rise of Iran -- it is the continuing economic decline of the United States.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Ever since 1980, when Jimmy Carter, then president, first publicly committed the United States to use military force to defend the free flow of oil from the Middle East, the United States has been the region’s unquestioned hegemon. And ever since the GCC was formed in 1981, its members have relied on the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
To support the US security umbrella,&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/us_economic_decline_top_issue_7305&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/flynt_leverett/recent_work_0">Flynt Leverett</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1335">The National (UAE)</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/668">Geopolitics of Energy Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/3">Energy &amp;amp; Environment</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/11">Trade &amp;amp; Globalization</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/middle_east">Middle East</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:35:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7305 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Al Qaeda In Iraq</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/al_qaeda_iraq_7302</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
In a great journalistic coup, Michael Ware and the CNN team in Iraq have unearthed the largest collection of al Qaeda in Iraq material outside the hands of the US military. What they found in this collection of videos and memos underlines a key aspect of the al Qaeda organization in Iraq; it is highly organized, and not simply a loosely-knit collection of jihadists.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
A debate has recently erupted in the pages of Foreign Affairs, the leading American journal of international relations, between two scholars of terrorism. On one side is former CIA case officer, Marc Sageman, the author of Leaderless&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/al_qaeda_iraq_7302&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/peter_bergen/recent_work">Peter Bergen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/168">CNN.com</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1268">Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Insurgency Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/iraq">Iraq</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/terrorism">Terrorism</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:22:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7302 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Bush’s Bluffing Has Made Mideast Peace a Bad Bet</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/bush_s_bluffing_has_made_mideast_peace_bad_bet_7288</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
From Taba to Tony, from the Rose Garden to Riyadh, from Geneva to Gaza -- in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, no American president has been presented with more opportunities for reaching a true and lasting peace than George W. Bush. But with just a half a year to go before he leaves the White House and little indication of a breakthrough, it is all but certain that Bush will leave behind a conflict more intractable than ever, not to mention a situation in Gaza that ranks as the world’s third-largest humanitarian crisis after Somalia and Darfur.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
This is more&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/bush_s_bluffing_has_made_mideast_peace_bad_bet_7288&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/michael_shtender_auerbach/recent_work">Michael Shtender-Auerbach</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/740">The Forward</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1289">Law and Globalization Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/middle_east">Middle East</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:39:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7288 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Stop Looking for &#039;Moderate&#039; Shiites and Address Interests</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/stop_looking_moderate_shiites_and_address_interests_7232</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Even those in America who call for a more humble American foreign policy and recognize the need to listen to foreign populations and global public opinion persist in deploying at every possible moment the most patronizing of monikers in describing their preferred allies: &amp;quot;moderate.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Over the past eight years, the condescending label of moderate has been applied to a variety of potential interlocutors in regional conflicts -- with never a positive result. Negotiations with so-called &amp;quot;moderate Taliban&amp;quot; proved a failure; Taliban interests and unity certainly outweighed any incentives the U.S.-backed Karzai regime could muster. The much lauded effort in Iraq&#039;s Anbar&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/stop_looking_moderate_shiites_and_address_interests_7232&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/parag_khanna/recent_work">Parag Khanna</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1323">World Politics Review</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/887">Global Governance Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/iran">Iran</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/middle_east">Middle East</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/religion">Religion</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 08:55:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7232 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>The Rise Of Non-Americanism</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/rise_non_americanism_7194</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
After the Iraq war, Fareed Zakaria argued in his Newsweek column that the world&#039;s new organizing principle was pro- or anti-Americanism. But as the Iraq muddle drags on and China rises, the larger story of the post-Cold War era has come into sharp relief: We are not the center of the universe. It matters less that particular countries are pro- or anti-American than that the world is increasingly non-American. We need to get over ourselves.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Zakaria&#039;s The Post-American World is about the &amp;quot;rise of the rest,&amp;quot; a catchy phrase from one of the most widely cited writers on foreign affairs. His&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/rise_non_americanism_7194&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/parag_khanna/recent_work">Parag Khanna</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/44">The Washington Post</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/887">Global Governance Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/asia">Asia</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/books">Books</category>
 <pubDate>Sun, 18 May 2008 09:25:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7194 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Bin Laden And Palestine </title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/bin_laden_and_palestine_7183</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Less than a day after Republican presidential candidate John McCain promised that if he won the presidency Osama bin Laden would be captured or killed by 2013, a message from al Qaeda’s leader appeared on jihadist websites reminding the world that he is alive and well.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Bin Laden’s audiotape message commented on the recent 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel; promised that he would fight for the liberation of Palestine, and told his Muslim listeners that they have a duty to help in that effort.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Was the audiotape an attempt by bin Laden to remain relevant by pushing&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/bin_laden_and_palestine_7183&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/peter_bergen/recent_work">Peter Bergen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/168">CNN.com</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1268">Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Insurgency Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/middle_east">Middle East</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/terrorism">Terrorism</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 11:04:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7183 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Here Comes the Second World</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/here_comes_second_world_7069</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
This article is adapted from Parag Khanna&#039;s book The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The term &amp;quot;second world&amp;quot; has fallen out of use. It used to mean countries of the socialist world; today I use the phrase to refer to those countries in eastern Europe and central Asia, Latin America, the middle east and southeast Asia which are both rich and poor, developed and underdeveloped, postmodern and pre-modern, cosmopolitan and tribal -- all at the same time. This is not a temporary state between third world and first, but a permanent condition in which&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/here_comes_second_world_7069&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/parag_khanna/recent_work">Parag Khanna</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/60">PROSPECT</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/887">Global Governance Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/11">Trade &amp;amp; Globalization</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/asia">Asia</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/china">China</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/european_union">Europe</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/global_governance">Global Governance</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/india">India</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/latin_america">Latin America</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/russia">Russia</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 09:42:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7069 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Just Like America, China Is Building a Multi-Ethnic Empire In the West</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/just_america_china_building_multi_ethnic_empire_west_6941</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
It is difficult to find a westerner who does not intuitively support the idea of a free Tibet. But would Americans ever let go of Texas or California? For China, the Anglo-Russian great game for control of central Asia was neither inconclusive nor fruitless, something that cannot be said for Russia or Britain. Indeed, China was the big winner.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
**** 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Boundary agreements in 1895 and 1907 gave Russia the Pamir mountains and established the Wakhan Corridor -- the slender eastern tongue of Afghanistan that borders China -- as a buffer to Britain. But rather than cede East Turkestan (Uighurstan) to the&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/just_america_china_building_multi_ethnic_empire_west_6941&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/parag_khanna/recent_work">Parag Khanna</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/944">Guardian Unlimited</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/887">Global Governance Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/china">China</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 04:15:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6941 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Disappearing Act: Rendition by the Numbers </title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/disappearing_act_rendition_numbers_6844</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
An extraordinary rendition may be defined as the extrajudicial transfer of an individual to a country where there is reasonable probability he will be tortured. In our research we have counted 67 known cases of extraordinary rendition by the United States since 1995. While the details are often incomplete, they help paint a more complete picture of this secretive and controversial Central Intelligence Agency program. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Our research is based on reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU Law School, Andy Worthington&#039;s The Guantanamo Files, Stephen&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/disappearing_act_rendition_numbers_6844&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/peter_bergen/recent_work">Peter Bergen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/katherine_tiedemann/recent_work">Katherine Tiedemann</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/81">Mother Jones</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/961">Nuclear Strategy &amp;amp; Nonproliferation Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/terrorism">Terrorism</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6844 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Waving Goodbye to Hegemony</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/waving_goodbye_hegemony_6604</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Turn on the TV today, and you could be forgiven for thinking it&#039;s 1999. Democrats and Republicans are bickering about where and how to intervene, whether to do it alone or with allies and what kind of world America should lead. Democrats believe they can hit a reset button, and Republicans believe muscular moralism is the way to go. It&#039;s as if the first decade of the 21st century didn&#039;t happen -- and almost as if history itself doesn&#039;t happen. But the distribution of power in the world has fundamentally altered over the two presidential terms of George W. Bush,&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/waving_goodbye_hegemony_6604&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/parag_khanna/recent_work">Parag Khanna</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/41">The New York Times Magazine</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/887">Global Governance Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/11">Trade &amp;amp; Globalization</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/asia">Asia</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/china">China</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/european_union">Europe</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/global_governance">Global Governance</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/latin_america">Latin America</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/middle_east">Middle East</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/russia">Russia</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/38">Cover Story</category>
 <pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6604 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Dems No Better than Bush on Pakistan</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/dems_no_better_bush_pakistan_6503</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Last week, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto marked the failure of an ill-conceived U.S. attempt to orchestrate the return of a deeply divisive political exile, discredited by allegations of corruption and incompetence, to take power in Pakistan. The Bush administration&#039;s aim was to install a leader who would simultaneously &amp;quot;democratize&amp;quot; and secularize her country, fight terrorist groups, and make peace with Israel. Instead, the sad event of Bhutto&#039;s murder has exposed the strategic bankruptcy of the administration&#039;s Pakistan policy. But Democrats should not feel vindicated by this failure, for they have endorsed virtually all of the Bush team&#039;s mistaken views&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/dems_no_better_bush_pakistan_6503&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/flynt_leverett/recent_work_0">Flynt Leverett</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/58">Salon</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/668">Geopolitics of Energy Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/pakistan">Pakistan</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:23:00 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>adminn</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6503 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Black is the New Green</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/black_new_green_6581</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The intersection of ongoing structural shifts in international energy markets with strategic trends in global financial markets poses the most profound challenge to American hegemony since the end of the Cold War. In 2006, Pierre Noël and I wrote in these pages about an &amp;quot;axis of oil&amp;quot; -- a loose and shifting coalition of energy-exporting and -importing states, anchored by Russia and China, that is emerging as a counterweight to the United States (so far, most notably in Central Asia and, increasingly, in Iran).1 The ability of such a coalition to resist American hegemony is now compounded by the vulnerability&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/black_new_green_6581&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/flynt_leverett/recent_work_0">Flynt Leverett</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/273">The National Interest</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/668">Geopolitics of Energy Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/3">Energy &amp;amp; Environment</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/china">China</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/middle_east">Middle East</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/russia">Russia</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6581 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>How to Defuse Iran?</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/how_defuse_iran_6431</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the wake of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran&amp;#39;s nuclear program, Democrats and others are criticizing President Bush for again having &amp;quot;hyped&amp;quot; a nuclear weapons threat. This criticism, while deserved, does not address the critical policy question: What do we do now? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, the United States cannot ignore Iran. Tehran may have suspended the purely weapons-related aspects of its nuclear program, but it continues to master uranium enrichment, with no agreed limits in place. And Iran is well positioned either to facilitate or thwart American objectives in Iraq and across the Middle East. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;At the same time, the&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2007/how_defuse_iran_6431&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/flynt_leverett/recent_work_0">Flynt Leverett</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/40">The New York Times</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/668">Geopolitics of Energy Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/10">National Security</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/iran">Iran</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/wmd">WMD</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/913">Best of 2007</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:43:00 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>adminn</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6431 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Bush&#039;s Real Lie About Iran</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/bushs_real_lie_about_iran_6443</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran&#039;s nuclear program raises questions once again about the Bush administration&#039;s veracity in describing a nuclear threat. But President Bush&#039;s worst misrepresentations about the Iranian nuclear issue do not focus on whether Tehran is currently pursuing a nuclear weapons program or when Bush knew the U.S. intelligence community was revising its previous assessments. Rather, the real lie is the president&#039;s claim that his administration has made a serious offer to negotiate with the Islamic Republic, and that Iranian intransigence is the only thing preventing a diplomatic resolution. 
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
Negotiations over Iran&#039;s nuclear activities started in&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2007/bushs_real_lie_about_iran_6443&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/flynt_leverett/recent_work_0">Flynt Leverett</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/58">Salon</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/668">Geopolitics of Energy Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/10">National Security</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/iran">Iran</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/wmd">WMD</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:08:00 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>adminn</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6443 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Five Myths About the Bomb and Us</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/five_myths_about_bomb_and_us_6400</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Bush administration likes to boast that it has dramatically cut the size of the nation&amp;#39;s nuclear stockpile. Meanwhile, it&amp;#39;s busily trying to shore up congressional support for multibillion-dollar proposals to &amp;quot;modernize&amp;quot; the bristling U.S. arsenal. A world that&amp;#39;s skeptical about the last superpower&amp;#39;s intentions only gets more so when U.S. officials push unconvincing lines about the world&amp;#39;s deadliest weapons. So here are a few myths about the U.S. nuclear posture of which the administration seems particularly fond.&lt;/p&gt;1. The U.S. nuclear stockpile is the smallest since the Eisenhower administration.&lt;p&gt;A recent statement from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2007/five_myths_about_bomb_and_us_6400&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/jeffrey_lewis/recent_work">Jeffrey Lewis</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/44">The Washington Post</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/961">Nuclear Strategy &amp;amp; Nonproliferation Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/10">National Security</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/russia">Russia</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/wmd">WMD</category>
 <pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:42:00 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>adminn</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6400 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
