CAN WE STILL WIN IN AFGHANISTAN? AND WHAT IS A WIN?

Saturday, April 28, 09:15-10:15
On the record Plenary Session with Media coverage
Location: Ballroom

The War in Afghanistan is heading into its sixth year. While the American and NATO Forces in the country are sufficient to win any serious military encounter with the Taliban, they are far too small in numbers to effectively control a country the size of Afghanistan. Additionally ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) faces serious operational problems. Several Alliance members have placed so-called national caveats on their committed troops, preventing those troops from operating in certain areas of Afghanistan or participating in combat missions. These restrictions severely compromise the efficiency of the NATO forces and have become a major source of contention within the Alliance as casualty numbers have started to rise for nations whose troops bear the brunt of the increasing Taliban attacks in the Southern and Eastern part of Afghanistan. Furthermore, it will be impossible to break the Taliban resistance as long as the porous border with Pakistan allows the insurgents to retreat to safe havens there and regroup after encounters with NATO forces.

The goal to establish and sustain a stable, democratic government and prevent a break-up or armed conflict between the different ethnic groups in Afghanistan is held back by the slow progress of civilian reconstruction. At the same time, the coordination of military and civilian efforts is hampered by a structural disconnect between the implementing authorities. As a result, the support for the coalition forces among the general population, imperative for winning the conflict with the Taliban, is waning, and the authority of the present government led by President Hamid Karzai is undermined.

GUIDING QUESTIONS

• Is the goal for the engagement in Afghanistan – the establishment of a strong central government and a stable democracy – attainable, or will the winning scenario have to be redefined?
• How long will NATO Allies’ political will for a long-term engagement in Afghanistan remain sustainable?
• Will we defeat each spring offensive for 10 years only for Afghanistan to fall back into the hands of the Taliban in the 11th year, after NATO has left?
• How can NATO Allies circumvent or overcome the disastrous effects of the national caveats for ISAF and the Alliance itself?
• How can the Pakistani Military and Security Forces be pressured into taking tougher action against the Taliban on their territory without risking destabilizing the government of President Musharraf – a crucial partner in this unstable region?
• What lessons need to be learned in order to make the integration of military and civilian efforts more effective?
• How can the support of the local population be regained and the stability and reach of the central government in Afghanistan be strengthened?
  
   

ARE WE LOSING IN TURKEY?

Saturday, April 28, 08:00-09:00
Off the Record – Chatham House Rule – No Media Coverage

Turkey has traditionally been a staunch pro-Western ally in a difficult region. More recently, however, Turkey has felt threatened by growing instability in its neighborhood — Iraq is convulsed by violence, Iran continues its drive for nuclear weapons, and the Arab world is buffeted by competing visions of a democratic or radicalized future. As the Turkish government seeks to manage its regional relations in this volatile environment, Ankara has pursued a foreign policy that has rankled Washington. Turkey’s relationship with the European Union has also soured since 2005, although the country is formally negotiating with the EU. Formidable problems such as the Cyprus issue and internal divisions within the EU have made Turkish membership an elusive target. Should Ankara’s bid for EU membership fail, there is significant risk that the country will become unmoored from the West and look elsewhere for strategic advantage and opportunity.

For the first time in decades, Turkey is disillusioned and under the leadership of a conservative government that is seeking a new role in the Middle East.

GUIDING QUESTIONS

• What are the contours of Turkey’s new regional posture?
• Can Turkey work with the Euro-Atlantic community and pursue its own national interests, which it is currently redefining?
• How can Turkey’s EU drive be resuscitated, and what role can the U.S. play, if any at all?
• Is it possible to redefine the Turkey-U.S. relationship within a global vs. regional power equation?
• What should the modalities be for a more workable relationship between Turkey, the EU, and the U.S.?
  
   

BALTIC TO THE WIDER BLACK SEA: THE NEW EUROATLANTIC CHALLENGE?

Saturday, April 28, 08:00-09:00
Off the Record – Chatham House Rule – No Media Coverage

The states of the Black Sea region, until recently considered by the United States and Europe to be marginal to the strategic interests of the West, have moved from the strategic hinterlands toward the center of the debate about how to spread the zone of peace and stability within Europe. Three major developments brought the states of the region to the policymaking forefront in the United States — Georgia’s Rose and Ukraine’s Orange democratic revolutions and the events of September 11, 2001, which revealed the importance of the region as a bridge to the Middle East. After Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union, the countries of the region became direct neighbors, and Europe’s growing energy dependence on Russia stresses the importance of the wider Black Sea region as an alternative energy hub.

The debate about the region has been carried out on several fronts. Georgia is actively pursuing its strategic orientation toward the Euroatlantic community. Armenia and Azerbaijan, faced with rising energy prices for imports from Russia and assertive Russian behavior in the region, have begun to consider more proactive Euroatlantic policies. The slow pace of market reforms, disregard of democratic principles, and unresolved frozen conflicts diminish positive involvement in the region. An overstretched NATO and an EU faced with enlargement fatigue need encouragement from the region and from the new members to move forward.

GUIDING QUESTIONS

• Should the countries of the region pursue NATO- or EU-first policies?
• Is the enlargement experience of 1990s in Central and Eastern Europe still relevant for the wider Black Sea region?
• Can Georgia become a member of NATO without resolving its frozen conflicts?
• Can Azerbaijan become a member of NATO?
• Is Armenia capable of a strategic turnaround?
• Can Russia be a partner of the West in the wider Black Sea region?
  
   

MANAGING CHALLENGES OF GLOBALIZATION FOR INDUSTRY AND SOCIETY

Saturday, April 28, 10:15-11:30
On the record Plenary Session with Media coverage

Globalization has proven to be a powerful force for positive change in the international system, with market liberalization, economic integration, and technological innovation leading to both poverty reduction and prosperity for millions of people in emerging and developing countries. Empirical evidence suggests that over the last decade this political and economic “flattening” of the world has offered opportunities that previously were not available to individuals, corporations, or countries, and that this transformation, combined with unique patterns of cooperation focusing on issues related to the common good, has established the framework for unprecedented productivity and growth.

But in spite of this progress, uncertainty and anxiety about a global “race to the bottom” remains alongside a tangible backlash against further unbridled transformation. Questions on a wide range of issues — for example, income inequalities between the rich and poor, the dissolution of long-standing social compacts, environmental sustainability, the volatility of financial markets, the accumulation of debt, access to innovative technology, and brain drain from developing countries — have not been answered in an effective fashion. As a result, we now see voters in rich and poor countries alike standing directly in the path of further liberalization and integration. When individuals and communities no longer feel they realistically benefit from globalization, and they see inequity instead of opportunity in their immediate future, why should they support government policies that threaten their welfare? The current state of the Doha Round is the most obvious reflection of this skepticism.

GUIDING QUESTIONS

• How should the governments of the United States and Europe respond to this challenge?
• How should governments halt the trend toward nationalism and protectionism and create the foundation for positive change?
• How do we address issues like cross-border investment and international labor flows?
• Are there viable policies that will allow globalization to continue but also establish the political and economic prerequisites required for that to occur?
• What is the appropriate role for corporations and civil society in the process?
• Are there socio-economic models in the United States, Europe, or elsewhere that we can use as reference points as we confront these questions, or must we instead start from scratch and create innovative strategies for the challenges we now face?
  
   

THE INTEGRATION OF MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS: WHY IS IT A HOT ISSUE IN EUROPE BUT NOT IN THE UNITED STATES?

Saturday, April 29, 21:00
Night Owl Session, Chatham House Rule, No Open Press

Muslims are the largest and ethnically most diverse religious minority in Europe. Over the last years, European countries have stepped up efforts to integrate more fully resident and newly arriving migrants of Muslim faith. The political and societal debate focuses on two strands: the potential radicalization of Muslim immigrants and their links to international terrorist networks, and the question of basic values and norms for religious practices in Western democratic societies. While norms are dictated by the host society and are non-negotiable, values are up for debate, and it is in the realm of values that many of the tensions between Westernized host societies and their Muslim newcomers exist. Even within Muslim communities, many competing views of what integration means and how it should be achieved continue to create cleavages that impede the community’s ability to integrate into their host countries.

The United States as a case study illustrates the problems governments face and what Muslims do in terms of institution-building and framing the debate in order to reconcile the fundamental contradiction facing them: remaining true to traditional Muslim values while integrating into Western society. Converts to Islam, born in America, are currently trying to return to older Islamic sources in order to reinterpret and reapply Islamic doctrine in accordance with Muslim life in the modern world. Rather than using the same reference points as religious extremists, they are choosing to go further back in intellectual and theological history. This development has constituted a critical movement away from radical or extremist interpretations of text and has been reflected in the recent struggles for women’s rights within the faith. While this movement has gained attention and progress is being made in this area, Islamic leaders abroad still exert great influence on Muslims in the Western world, and Muslims still grapple with their own theological traditions in the process of integration into modern society.

GUIDING QUESTIONS

• How are Europeans and Americans confronting the issue of Muslim integration?
• Is multiculturalism dead, and if yes, which social model works best to integrate religious minorities in general and Muslims in particular?
• How can democratic values, the freedom to practice religion, and the individual right to preserve or forsake tradition be reconciled?
• What is the relationship between national identity and citizenship?
  
   

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND STABLE STATES: ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS A FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITY

Saturday, April 28, 21:00
Off the Record – Chatham House Rule – No Media Coverage

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the rapid integration of more countries into the global economy have led to unparalleled economic and political development. But progress has been uneven. The promise of transitioning toward stable states anchored by sound legal, regulatory, and political institutions and liberating populations to freely pursue economic opportunities has been unfulfilled. The uncertain and polarized political situation in several Eastern European countries has raised questions over the future path of reform. Latin America has seen sluggish growth, sharp income inequality, and political backsliding. In Africa and other poor parts of the world, living standards are stagnant or in decline. In some cases, a cycle of economic and political instability creates failed states and a whole range of foreign policy challenges.

U.S. and European foreign policies have sought to address these problems through development assistance, support for democracy, and, in the extreme, military intervention. But success has been elusive. While much attention is focused on macro policies — balanced budgets and sound monetary policy — the role of the entrepreneur in helping societies advance commerce and foster stable states has tended to be an afterthought. Facilitating an “entrepreneurial spirit” within societies, spurring new firm creation, helping firms innovate, and integrating them effectively into the international economy is an essential component of fostering not only economic growth, but also more open, tolerant, and democratic societies supported by political institutions.

GUIDING QUESTIONS

• Should the creation of business environments that allow the emergence of entrepreneurs be a foreign policy priority?
• Can addressing foreign policy challenges through the prism of entrepreneurship help foster political stability along with economic prosperity?
• Can entrepreneurs play a significant role in advancing democracy by becoming strong stakeholders in the developmental process?
• Are entrepreneurship best-practices transferable in the sense that successful models can be moved from developed to developing economies?
  
   

IS DEMOCRACY LOSING ITS PLACE IN OUR FOREIGN POLICY

Saturday, April 28, 21:00
Off the Record – Chatham House Rule – No Media Coverage

Democracy promotion has a long history in U.S. and European foreign policies, drawing on common values and dating back to the creation of the German political party foundations in the early- and mid-20th century that inspired their U.S. counterparts in the 1980s. Yet democracy promotion’s place in foreign policy has become controversial with the debate over the war in Iraq and the declaration by the United States that “promoting freedom, justice, and human dignity” is the first pillar of its national security. The relationship between democracy promotion and regime change sparked debate not only among allies but also outside the alliance. “Color revolutions” in countries like Georgia, Ukraine, and Lebanon, perceived as supported by the United States and Europe, have provoked a backlash in their authoritarian neighbors. Russia and China have drafted new restrictions on the ability of Western non-governmental organizations to operate in their countries and have promoted themselves as an alternative development model in Africa and Asia.

The debate has been carried out on several fronts. In the United States and Europe, some argue that democracy promotion in the Middle East has backfired and empowered our enemies. It has become a partisan issue in the United States with a reassertion of “realism” arguing for a narrower vision of national interest in advance of the 2008 presidential elections. Some in Europe have distinguished their efforts from the United States, declaring that the EU seeks simply to promote good governance and rule of law. For both Americans and Europeans, democracy promotion is in potential conflict with other strategic foreign policy objectives, such as energy security, cooperation on terrorism, and non-proliferation. At the same time, Russia and China have actively worked to counteract Western democracy promotion efforts in their countries and with the formation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization where they vigorously denounced democracy promotion as interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states.

GUIDING QUESTIONS

• Do Americans and Europeans still share common values and interests in promoting democracy in the world?
• Is democracy promotion vital to security?
• Has the democracy promotion agenda become so associated with regime change in the Middle East that it has lost its place within foreign policy?
• Has the “realist” assertion arguing for a narrow definition of national interest changed American party politics?
• How have Americans and Europeans balanced democracy against other objectives, such as energy when dealing Russia or cooperation on terrorism in the Middle East?
• Are Americans and Europeans equally vulnerable to the authoritarian pushback against democracy promotion?
• How should they respond?
  
   

RUSSIA: A GLOBAL POWER BACK ON STAGE?

Saturday, April 28, 21:00
Off the Record – Chatham House Rule – No Media Coverage

Russia has left the path of democratic reform. The Kremlin increasingly is using its recentralised domestic authority to pursue an assertive foreign policy. President Vladimir Putin’s recent speech at the Munich Conference on Security Policy demonstrated Russia’s political relations with the U.S. and with Europe have cooled. The U.S. is concerned about Russia’s role in Iran and Syria. The European Union is struggling with Russia to start negotiations for a new Partnership and Negotiation Agreement. Russia refuses to ratify the European Energy Charter Treaty. Driven by being a global energy power and its related economic growth, Russia aims to be considered and treated as a global political actor. Without a clear constructive vision of its role in the global order of the 21st century, it uses its ties to India, Iran, China, Central Asia, and its post-Soviet neighbors to establish itself as a power broker that has to be involved in the stabilization and solution of all global conflicts.

On the other hand, risks of “Dutch Disease” – the relationship between the exploitation of natural resources and a decline in the manufacturing sector – in the Russian economy, demographic decline, a poor health system, and growing Islamism in Russian border regions destabilize Russia internally. Nevertheless more than 70 percent of Russians support Putin and his policy.

GUIDING QUESTIONS

• Are there incentives to engage with Russia as a security partner in the Greater Middle East, in Central Asia, and in the “frozen conflict” regions?
• Is Russia a reliable partner in keeping the non-proliferation system valid in particular with regard to Iran?
• Are there common transatlantic interests to engage with Russia?
• How can the West deal with Russia’s domestic problems?
• Is there a transatlantic strategy to respond to Russia’s use of its energy wealth for political interests?
  
   

DEEPENING THE TRANSATLANTIC MARKETPLACE: FROM RHETORIC TO REALITY

Sunday, April 29, 08:00-09:00
Off the Record – Chatham House Rule – No Media Coverage

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has reinvigorated discussion of deepening the transatlantic marketplace. The United States and Europe have made similar, significant efforts in the past, most obviously with the 1995 New Transatlantic Agenda and the 1998 Transatlantic Economic Partnership. Yet these have largely failed to fulfill the promise of a truly open trade and investment relationship across the Atlantic. How do we avoid the mistakes of the past and turn vision into reality?

Any effort to liberalize trade and investment between the European Union and the United States means focusing on behind-the-border barriers, often posed by differences in regulation and regulatory models that are often more sensitive to domestic political concerns and constraints than “traditional” trade barriers like tariffs. The U.S. and EU have done much in recent years to help ensure that regulation does not create new transatlantic friction. But if we are to proactively remove the barriers that regulation can create, we will need to deepen our cooperation — in terms of market-opening and deepening the opportunities for transatlantic commerce. We will also have to address difficult institutional constraints on cooperation, such as those posed in the U.S. by regulators with a tradition of independence from the executive branch of government, and in Europe by differences in Member State implementation of regulatory directives.

If we succeed, the gains from success will be huge — not only in terms of the economic benefits that accrue directly to the transatlantic economy, but also because EU-U.S. cooperation here — and the lessons and best-practices learned — will tell us how to deliver the next generation of trade agreements.

GUIDING QUESTIONS

• What role is there for a new political vision for transatlantic trade and investment liberalization?
• How do we implement that vision?
• How do we better connect high-level political momentum with the necessary technical dialogue between regulators?
• To what extent does trade openness imply a trade-off with domestic consumer/investor protection?
• How do we encourage greater emphasis on transatlantic openness when developing new regulation?
• In the U.S., what role should Congress play, through its oversight responsibilities, in encouraging regulatory cooperation?
• If we are to open markets, what is the appropriate balance between seeking harmonization of rules and standards and seeking equivalence through mutual recognition?
• How do we judge equivalence in standards, and who would be responsible?
  
   

CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY SECURITY

Sunday, April 29, 08:00-09:00
Off the Record – Chatham House Rule – No Media Coverage
Meeting Space: Empire

The debate about climate change occurrence can be declared for all intents and purposes as over. The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirms with 90 percent certainty that the earth is warming and human activity is the major cause for this warming. The Stern Review, a report commissioned by the British government, has analyzed the economic costs of global warming to society and warns that the longer we wait to tackle it, the more costly it will be and the more certain that detrimental impacts to economic growth will result. The debate has therefore shifted from whether or not global warming is occurring to what the collective global community is going to do about it. This has lead to another interesting shift in the discussion – it is no longer considered as being solely an environmental issue, but is rather being addressed from almost every possible policy angle – energy, economics, foreign policy, and trade and development.

With the scientific debate behind us, the public and private sectors are seeking out the best policies and measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The United States, the European governments, and cities and states on both sides of the Atlantic have developed a wide array of approaches to the problem, including promoting nuclear energy or greater efficiency standards, cap-and-trade schemes, carbon taxes, and investments in renewable energy technologies like solar, wind, and biofuels. While there is argument over which of these policies or set of policies may have the greatest effect, there is one point of great consensus – no one city, state, or country can solve this problem alone. Global warming is a global problem that will need strong international cooperation to solve.

GUIDING QUESTIONS

• What does dangerous climate change mean, and how do we balance risk analysis with opportunities?
• What actions are needed in the high-level political arena?
• What new alliances are necessary?
• What are the appropriate roles regarding research and development for new climate technologies for the public and private sectors?
• What role can transatlantic cooperation play in engaging the global community?
• How should our leaders move forward to include new constituencies?
  
   

BACKLASH IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE: WHY IS IT HAPPENING AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Sunday, April 29, 08:00-09:00
Off the record – Chatham House Rule – No Media Coverage
Meeting Space: Loui Restaurant

By any standards, the progress of the post-communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe over the last decade and a half has been phenomenal. In a world littered with failed attempts to establish functioning democracies and vibrant market economies, these countries have provided clear evidence that, under the right domestic and international conditions, the job can be done. Against such a backdrop, therefore, the rise of populists and nationalists in the region following the 2004 wave of European Union accession has come as something of a shock. Poland, the largest and perhaps the most strategically important of the new members, has moved from one political crisis to another. Hard-line nationalists, social populists, and even homophobes have found a place in government. Slovakia, hailed by the World Bank in 2003 as the best reformer in the world, saw its center-right government of radical reformists dumped from power in June 2006 elections. The new government is now led by forces with populist tendencies and is buttressed by hard-line chauvinists and also by the party of former premier Vladimir Meciar who led the country into isolation in the 1990s. The Czech Republic has only just managed to produce a feeble coalition government after a seven-month political stalemate with no functioning leadership at all. Hungary saw the biggest wave of demonstrations since 1956 after Prime Minister Ferency Gyurcsany was caught on tape admitting to a consistent policy of lying to voters while his country’s economy struggles to overcome massive deficits on the current account and the state finances. To complete the picture, not a single country in the region, with the exception of Slovenia, which joined the Eurozone this year, yet meets the criteria for euro adoption. Many will struggle to join by the middle of the next decade.

GUIDING QUESTIONS

• What should we make of these developments?
• Are we witnessing serious reversal?
• Will things get worse? Or is the criticism overdrawn?
• Are we in danger of overreacting to setbacks that do not amount to much when set against the bigger picture?
• Are the current problems likely to be quickly overcome?
  
   

TRANSATLANTIC APPROACHES TO CHINA: POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CHALLENGES

Sunday, April 29, 9:30-10:45
On the record Plenary Session with Media coverage
Meeting Space: Ballroom 

The rise of China poses a wider-ranging set of challenges for Europe and the United States than virtually any other foreign policy issue. The broad spectrum of potential outcomes for China’s economy, political structures, and international orientation in 10 or 20 years’ time makes long-term strategic responses difficult and uncertain. In the last few years, China has moved from being perpetually “tomorrow’s issue” to transforming the economic and political situations everywhere from East Asia to sub-Saharan Africa. No discussion on global trade, international economic imbalances, Western corporate strategy, or geopolitics, strategic policy, and the resolution of international crises from Iran to Sudan is complete without a full analysis of China’s impact.

The EU-U.S. dispute over the proposed lifting of the European arms embargo on China illustrates the difficulties this may create for the transatlantic partnership. Both Europe and the United States are trying to balance political, economic, commercial, and strategic interests in their relationships with China alongside concerns about democracy and human rights. But without more active transatlantic dialogue, and even a degree of coordination in responses, it is possible that the policy approaches from the two sides will come into conflict again at a time when a mutually reinforcing agenda could significantly heighten the prospects of success.

GUIDING QUESTIONS

• What shared challenges – business, political, economic, and strategic – does China pose for Europe and the United States?
• Is current U.S. and European strategy toward China working successfully?
• Is a transatlantic approach toward China viable and desirable, and what might it look like?
• How is the rise of China both like and unlike that of other rising powers, and what does this imply for a policy response?
  
   

EUROPE’S EAST, RUSSIA’S WESTERN NEIGHBORHOOD: WORKING TOWARDS A COMMON TRANSATLANTIC APPROACH

Saturday, April 28, 17:30-19:00
Closed Session, Chatham House Rule, Partial Participation
Meeting Space: Ballroom

Russia has left the path of democratic reform. The Kremlin increasingly is using its recentralised domestic authority to pursue an assertive foreign policy. President Vladimir Putin’s recent speech at the Munich Conference on Security Policy demonstrated Russia’s political relations with the U.S. and with Europe have cooled. The U.S. is concerned about Russia’s role in Iran and Syria. The European Union is struggling with Russia to start negotiations for a new Partnership and Negotiation Agreement. Russia refuses to ratify the European Energy Charter Treaty. Driven by being a global energy power and its related economic growth, Russia aims to be considered and treated as a global political actor. Without a clear constructive vision of its role in the global order of the 21st century, it uses its ties to India, Iran, China, Central Asia, and its post-Soviet neighbors to establish itself as a power broker that has to be involved in the stabilization and solution of all global conflicts.

On the other hand, risks of “Dutch Disease” — the relationship between the exploitation of natural resources and a decline in the manufacturing sector — in the Russian economy, demographic decline, a poor health system, and growing Islamism in Russian border regions destabilize Russia internally. Nevertheless more than 70 percent of Russians support Putin and his policy.

GUIDING QUESTIONS

• Are there incentives to engage with Russia as a security partner in the Greater Middle East, in Cnetral Asia, and in the “frozen conflict” regions?
• Is Russia a reliable partner in keeping the non-proliferation system valid in particular with regard to Iran?
• Are there common transatlantic interests to engage with Russia’s domestic problems?
• Is there a transatlantic strategy to respond to Russia’s use of its energy wealth for political interests?
  
   

WHAT ROLE WILL FOREIGN POLICY PLAY IN THE 2008 CAMPAIGN?

Saturday, April 28, 16:00-17:00
Off the record – Chatham House Rule – No Media Coverage
Location: Ballroom

For many years, conventional wisdom has been that national security and foreign policy do not play a decisive issue in U.S. presidential campaigns. In the post-September 11th world, that may be changing. More than ever before, these issues now play a critical role in political campaigns and will be key in the 2008 race. Since September 11th, foreign policy has become one of voters’ top issues. If the trend continues, foreign policy could be decisive in deciding the next election.

Moreover, the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign is already underway despite Election Day being 18 months away. A start this early and the degree of intensity we are witnessing are new phenomena in American politics. These factors, coupled with President Bush’s lack of popularity in Europe and strained U.S.-European relations, have also heightened interest in these issues overseas, and among our European allies in particular, who are trying to understand what happens after Bush.

GUIDING QUESTIONS

• Where does foreign policy rank vis-à-vis other campaign issues?
• How are Republican and Democratic campaigns approaching the war in Iraq, the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, and Middle East peace?
• Is there a new American debate on Russia coming?
• What role will issues such as allies and alliances play in the foreign policy debate, if any?
• How will the next President address the decline in America’s standing and image overseas?
• How great is the danger that the U.S. could retreat from international affairs in the wake of Iraq and become more isolationist?
• How serious is the pressure for protectionism in both parties, and how will it affect the campaign?
• Will climate change be an issue?
• What should Europeans hope or brace themselves for after January 2009?