Forty-Sixth Annual

World Affairs Institute

November 15, 2016

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The World Affairs Institute is a Community Service Project of Rotary International and the World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

Foreign Policy Challenges for

the New Administration

Rotary International Districts 6650,

7280, 7300, and 7330

World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

2640 BNY Mellon Center • 500 Grant Street • Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2510

412-281-7970 • fax 412-281-1795

email: welcome@worldpittsburgh.org • www.worldpittsburgh.org

© 2016 World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

Introduction

Every day, news reports continue to paint a concerning portrait of the state of world affairs. Conflicts in the

Middle East have resulted in a refugee crisis and U.S.-Russia relations are strained. North Korea is increasing

the frequency of their nuclear weapons tests. What has already been a complex relationship between the

U.S. and China is becoming more tense, as maritime disputes, cyber espionage, and other factors challenge

global stability. Along with all of this, there is still the question of how to mitigate climate change.

The next presidential administration will contend with these challenges while addressing how what is hap-

pening in the world affects the United States’ national security and defense strategy, and how involved the

United States will be in tackling challenges across the globe. This will be no easy feat, considering growing

fears from the public, increased international pressure, and current concerns over the United States’ domes-

tic stability.

For the background paper this year, the World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh partnered with the Council on

Foreign Relations to provide a concise overview of the most pressing of these foreign policy challenges. They

include: China, Cuba, Defense, Energy and Climate, Immigration, Iran, the Islamic State, National Security,

North Korea, Russia, and Trade. We encourage you to read through each overview and do further exploration

into each topic by reading and/or watching the articles and videos listed in the Related Links section.

All written content in this background paper has been provided by the Council on Foreign Relations. Photos

are from the Council on Foreign Relations as well as various online sources, credited where necessary.

Foreign Policy Challenges for the New Administration

China Global stability in the twenty-first century will hinge greatly on how well the next president and future U.S. leaders manage an increasingly complex relationship with China, the world’s second-largest economy and defense spender. Some foreign poli-cy experts say that core ideological differences and competing interests have set the two giants on a collision course. Others say the geopolitical “rivalry” is overstated and note opportunities for cooperation and several areas of interdependence, like trade.

The United States officially welcomes China’s “peaceful rise” and has encouraged its develop-ment into a “responsible international stakehold-er,” but in recent years the thicket of diplomatic challenges has only seemed to grow. Fresh ten-sions over Beijing’s trade protections, cyber espio-nage, maritime disputes, and its challenge to the Western-dominated financial order, with the founding of potentially competing development institutions, have piled on perennial issues like hu-man rights and Taiwan.

In 2011, the Obama administration announced that the United States would make a major strategic shift toward Asia, bolstering its military

and commercial ties with allies in the Asia-Pacific region. The so-called “pivot” or “rebalance” came as Beijing moved to expand its influence in the East and South China Seas, intensifying its territorial claims in disputed waters. Despite continued ten-sion, the United States and China have found areas of common ground on climate change, military-to-military cooperation, and reducing tariffs on infor-mation technology products.

© 2016 World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

China develops land on Subi Reef in the Northern Spratly Is-

lands, June 2015.

From CSIS Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative/DigitalGlobe

Cuba

In December 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama announced that the United States and Cuba would restore diplomatic relations. Since then, the two countries have reopened their embassies in each other’s capitals, Obama relaxed restrictions on commerce and travel, and the U.S. State Depart-ment removed Cuba from its list of state sponsors of terrorism. White House aides have said Obama had long seen U.S. efforts to isolate Cuba as a fail-ure. The moves also come at a time of changing attitudes among a new generation of Cuban-Americans. An estimated 1.2 million of 1.6 million Cuban-Americans live in Florida and represent an important voting bloc with outsized influence on U.S. Cuba policy. However, the group’s political in-fluence is changing as younger Cuban Americans are less likely than their parents to be single-issue voters and more likely to favor restored diplomatic ties.

Since taking office in 2008, Cuban President Raul Castro has enacted some reforms to spur economic growth and expand personal freedoms, including relaxing restrictions on small businesses and travel abroad. However, U.S. officials and rights groups say that human rights on the island remain a press-ing concern.

The U.S. economic embargo, a major obstacle to improving ties with Cuba and the rest of Latin America, can only be repealed by Congress—something many members of the Republican ma-jority oppose. Obama and Democratic presidential candidates have called on Congress to lift the long-standing embargo. While some advocates say that the opening in relations with Cuba will help im-prove human rights, spur further economic re-forms, and improve U.S. diplomacy in the region, critics charge that the détente appeases a dictator-ship and does little to improve human rights.

President Barrack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro

From NBC News

© 2016 World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

Defense Military strength is a top national priority and the bedrock of U.S. power and influence abroad. U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are deployed across the globe, at tremendous expense, to pro-tect the country’s vital interests and allies. As com-mander-in-chief, the next president and his or her advisors will determine how these forces, conven-tional and nuclear, respond to acute international crises. Some critics in both parties say Congress has ceded too much of its war powers role to the White House in recent decades, failing to provide adequate oversight, for example, over U.S. coun-terterrorism operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s budget is a regular hot-button issue in Washington. The United States spends on average more than half a trillion dollars annually on the armed services, more than triple that of China, the next largest spender. The De-fense Department is currently operating under budget caps (known as sequestration) pursuant to controversial deficit reduction legislation passed in 2011 (and amended in 2015).

The base budget in FY2015 was $496 billion, with the Army maintaining 32 brigades (490,000 active duty soldiers), the Marine Corps 23 battalions (184,000 active Marines), the Air Force about 5,400 aircraft,

and the Navy 271 ships. Lawmakers and candidates continue to debate if and how much cuts in de-fense spending should factor into efforts to rein in the national debt.

© 2016 World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

Summary of chart: U.S. accounts for $598 billion of global

spending for defense. The next top 14 countries in defense

spending include China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the U.K., Germany,

Japan, France, India, S. Korea, Iraq, Italy, Australia, Brazil, and

Israel. Together, these 14 countries spend $664 billion in de-

fense. The rest of the world spends $317 billion in defense.

Energy and Climate The energy landscape has changed dramatically since President Obama took office in 2009. A boom in U.S. oil and natural gas production has signifi-cantly reduced the country’s energy imports and increased its market clout. The so-called fracking or shale revolution has transformed the United States into one of the world’s most influential oil produc-ers. Meanwhile, steep declines in the cost of power from renewable sources have given hope to clean energy advocates and those concerned about the negative effects of climate change.

The United States relies on a changing mix of fuels to generate power. Coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and other fuels each carry their own economic, environmental, and security costs. President Obama has pushed a broad energy strate-gy, with some policies intended to expand fossil fuel production, like ending a decades-old ban on offshore drilling, and others to promote the devel-opment of renewable sources, like providing bil-lions of “stimulus” dollars to green energy initia-tives.

In parallel, President Obama has called climate change the defining global challenge of the twenty-first century, and his administration has rolled out several major initiatives to reduce the country’s production of greenhouse gases. In 2015, the White

House issued sweeping EPA regulations, known col- lectively as the Clean Power Plan, which set carbon-emissions limits for the first time on existing power plants. The president also blocked completion of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, a massive energy infra-structure project supported by most Republicans and opposed by environmental groups, and com-mitted the United States, along with nearly two hundred other countries, to reducing global carbon pollution (the Paris Agreement).

© 2016 World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

“Because of ongoing and potential loss of their sea ice habitat

resulting from climate change, polar bears were listed as a

threatened species in the U.S. in May 2008.”

Image and quote from the World Wildlife Fund

Immigration Few issues provide more grist for debate in Wash-

ington and on the campaign trail than immigration,

particularly as it relates to border security and the

legal status of the more than eleven million undoc-

umented people living in the United States, most

for more than a decade. The White House and

many from both parties in Congress have in recent

years pushed for a complete overhaul of the immi-

gration system, including changes that would affect

high-skilled legal immigrants, but comprehensive

legislation has proved elusive.

In the absence of legislative reforms, President

Barack Obama has moved independently to defer

deportation and allow temporary work permits for

nearly half of the undocumented population. Many

Republican leaders condemn the actions as execu-

tive overreach and are challenging them in court,

while most Democrats say the president is acting

within his constitutional authority. But experts say

that even if the president’s actions stand, they

would fall far short of the broader fix that’s needed

from Congress to address the range of immigration

challenges, including border security, interior en-

forcement, employment verification, legalization of

the undocumented, and visas.

The ongoing conflict in Syria and terrorist attacks in

Western Europe and the United States further

stoked the immigration debate, with many policy-

makers and presidential candidates from both par-

ties calling for changes in how U.S. agencies screen

foreign nationals seeking entry to the country, par-

ticularly refugees.

© 2016 World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

Latinos protest in favor of comprehensive immigration re-

form on the West side of Capitol Hill in Washington.

From Larry Downing, Reuters

Iran The international agreement to restrict Iran's nu-clear program in exchange for sanctions relief is one of the Obama administration's signature for-eign policy achievements. But within the United States the deal remains divisive. The White House and its international partners say the agreement will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and promote regional stability. Meanwhile, most Republicans oppose the agreement, saying it lacks effective verification mechanisms, could allow Iran to eventually develop a nuclear weapon, and gives Iran access to resources to expand its influence in the region.

There are limits as to what the next president can do to unravel the deal, as many Republican candi-dates have pledged to do. The next administration will closely monitor Iran’s compliance with the agreement; some Republican lawmakers and can-didates say that any apparent violation ought to be grounds for the United States to break off its com-mitments.

The next president will also need to monitor Iran's regional ties. Iran is influential with the Iraqi gov-ernment as well as with some of the Shia militias Baghdad relies on to roll back the self-proclaimed Islamic State, a group the United States is waging battle against. At the same time, Iran props up the

Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad and supports Leb-anon's Hezbollah, its militant proxy in the region. In this context, many policymakers say the United States will need to shore up its primary Middle Eastern allies, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia, providing them with the latest military weapons, intelligence, and other forms of support.

© 2016 World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

From Iran Matters, a project by the Belfer Center, Harvard Uni-

versity

The Islamic State The Obama administration has made the battle against the self-proclaimed Islamic State a top pri-ority in the Middle East. The Sunni Islamist move-ment emerged in 2014 as a major regional security threat, seizing swathes of Iraq and Syria, killing civil-ians, and staging high-profile executions of cap-tives, including some U.S. citizens. The November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 130 civil-

ians demonstrated the Islamic State’s threat be-yond the Middle East and put Western intelligence agencies on heightened alert. The United States

and its allies are particularly concerned that their citizens who travel abroad to fight with the Islamic State may return to commit similar atrocities, or that their nationals could be remotely inspired to commit or support acts of terror. (In 2015, the FBI arrested more than fifty individuals for domestic activities related to the Islamic State.) At the same time, some policymakers and politicians in these countries voice fears that terrorists could infiltrate their borders along with the hundreds of thousands of migrants fleeing unrest in the Middle East and North Africa.

The United States and coalition partners are con-ducting regular airstrikes on Islamic State targets in both Iraq and Syria. In late 2015, the Obama admin-istration announced plans to dispatch several dozen special operations forces to advise allies fighting on the ground in Syria, the first extended U.S. deploy-ment to the war-torn country. In neighboring Iraq, the Pentagon has reintroduced several thousand troops to advise, assist, and train Iraqi security forc-es. In December 2015 the Pentagon also an-nounced the deployment of a special operations force to northern Iraq to carry out raids and cap-ture Islamic State leaders.

© 2016 World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of the Islamic State militant

group, made his first appearance on video in July 2014.

Image and caption from BBC.

National Security The 9/11 attacks triggered the most far-reaching reorganization of the U.S. security apparatus since the end of World War II, and national leaders con-tinue to assess and debate the counterterrorism policies put in place in their wake, particularly ele-ments of the Patriot Act. Many rights groups and policymakers in both parties believe the country took some actions that ran contrary to its core val-ues. Some policies may even have been counter-productive and helped terrorists recruit, these critics allege. Meanwhile, others say some extreme security measures were necessary to prevent an-other national trauma. These concerns sprung to the forefront of the campaign in 2015 and 2016 after a spate of terror attacks in the United States and Europe.

Upon taking office, the Obama administration sus-pended some of the most controversial national security policies implemented by the George W. Bush White House, like the CIA’s detention and in-terrogation programs, but it continued or expand-ed on others, like lethal drone strikes and bulk electronic surveillance.

Likewise, the next administration will have to de-cide how much of this policy legacy it wants to em-brace as it protects the country from the next gen-eration of threats.

© 2016 World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

“On all of these issues, I am open to working with Congress to

insure that we build a broad consensus for how to move for-

ward, and am confident that we can shape an approach that

meets our security needs while upholding the civil liberaties of

every American.” -President Barack Obama at a 2014 press

conference, on national security.

Image and quote from The New Yorker

North Korea North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and bal-listic missile technology, as well as its destructive activities in cyberspace, are a leading security con-cern of the United States and its treaty allies in the Asia-Pacific region, South Korea and Japan. (The United States stations roughly twenty-eight thou-sand troops in Korea and about fifty thousand in Japan.) A series of North Korean atomic weapons tests, the most recent in January 2016, seem to indicate that years of international sanctions have done little to halt the development of its military nuclear program. Researchers estimate that the country has enough fissile material for somewhere between ten to twenty-two nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, there has been effectively no progress on the diplomatic front for nearly a decade. The so-called Six Party Talks, which included the United States, China, North and South Korea, Japan, and Russia, stalled in late 2008. President Obama has ratcheted up U.S. sanctions on the regime of Kim Jong-un, but many Republican critics say the ad-ministration’s “strategic patience” with regard to North Korea has allowed it to make dangerous ad-vances in weapons technology. At the same time, many foreign policy experts worry that an impover-ished Pyongyang may sell these weapons and know-how to hostile states or militant groups.

© 2016 World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

Russia U.S.-Russia relations have slumped to a low not seen since the Cold War. The Obama administra-tion’s early efforts to “reset” diplomacy with Mos-cow achieved some gains in areas like strategic arms control, with the so-called New START Treaty, and on Iran, with a UN Security Council vote impos-ing new international sanctions. But a number of Republican policymakers and presidential candi-dates have called this effort a failure that signaled weakness to President Vladimir Putin, emboldening his moves to annex Crimea, support separatists in eastern Ukraine, and intervene militarily in Syria on behalf on the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Many Western leaders see these developments as confirmation that Russia is keen on playing a larger, more forceful, and often countervailing role in world affairs.

In 2014, the Obama administration responded to Russia’s appropriation of Crimea by suspending bi-lateral cooperation with Moscow on a range of is-sues, including on military affairs, trade, and invest-ment. It also imposed financial sanctions on many top Russian officials and businesses. In the months since, the Pentagon has bolstered NATO's air pa-trols over Poland and the Baltic states and is con-sidering sending more troops to Europe on a rota-tional basis. But some policymakers and presiden-

tial candidates say the United States must do more, including expanding sanctions, arming the Ukraini-an military, and establishing permanent NATO ba-ses in eastern Europe. Some also say that Washing-ton should be working to reduce Europe’s depend-ence on Russian oil and natural gas.

© 2016 World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

A soldier looks out from a Russian army vehicle outside a Ukrain-

ian border guard post in the Crimean town of Balaclava, on

March 1, 2014.

Caption from The Atlantic

Image from Baz Ratner, Reuters

Trade The United States has long led the charge for global trade liberalization, betting that U.S. businesses prosper and Washington’s influence expands with the opening of foreign markets. The Obama admin-istration has carried this agenda forward in recent

years, working with Congress to pass bilateral free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, and advancing negotiations on two colossal regional accords: the Asia-centered Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the European Union. Critics, particularly congressional Democrats and labor unions, often contend that these as well as past free trade agreements, like NAFTA, disproportionately benefit large corpora-tions, ship U.S. jobs overseas, and sully the environ-ment. Meanwhile, some Republicans believe the government intervenes too heavily in foreign com-merce, wasting taxpayer dollars on trade agencies like the Export-Import Bank, the U.S. export credit agency, which they cite as an example of “corporate welfare.” The Constitution gives Con-gress the power to regulate foreign trade, but for decades lawmakers have perennially granted the president special authority to negotiate, and ideally expedite, international trade deals. This occurred most recently in June 2015 despite considerable opposition from congressional Democrats.

© 2016 World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman speaks at a press

conference during the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) meeting

of trade representatives in 2014.

Caption from the Council on Foreign Relations

Image from Jason Reed, Reuters

NGOs & International Agencies

Amnesty International

www.amnestyusa.org/russia

Human Rights Watch

www.hrw.org

International Monetary Fund

www.imf.org

United Nations

www.un.org

World Bank

www.worldbank.org

World Health Organization

www.who.int/en/

World Trade Organization

www.wto.org/

Research Organizations

Brookings-Latin America and the Caribbean

www.brookings.edu/research/topics/latin-america-and-the-

caribbean

Foreign Policy

www.foreignpolicy.com

Center for Strategic and International Studies

www.csis.org

Council on Foreign Relations – Cuba

www.cfr.org/region/cuba/ri327

US Government

US Central Intelligence Agency

www.cia.gov

The US Department of State

www.state.gov

The White House

www.whitehouse.gov/

The World Factbook

www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/

World News

BBC News

www.bbc.com

Bloomberg

www.bloomberg.com

The Economist

www.economist.com

Forbes

www.forbes.com

The New York Times

www.nytimes.com

Reuters

www.reuters.com

The Washington Post

www.washingtonpost.com

Websites

Key Terms and Phrases

Embargo: An official ban on trade or other commercial activity with a particular country.

Fracking: The process of injecting liquid at high pressure into rocks, etc. below the surface, so as to extract oil or gas.

START Treaty: The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, signed in 1991 between the U.S. and the USSR. It is the largest and most com-

plex arms control treaty in history, and in late 2001, it resulted in the removal of about 80% of all strategic nuclear weapons in ex-

istence.

© 2016 World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

Additional resources

China

"China Policy and the U.S. Presidential Election." Council on Foreign Relations. 28 January 2016.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXIhnLdVhQk>.

"In China Trade Dispute, EU Accuses Government Mouthpiece of Censoring Envoy." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 01

November 2016. <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-china-trade-idUSKBN12W3PP>.

Parameswaran, Prashanth. "China Enforcing Quasi-ADIZ in South China Sea: Philippine Justice." The Diplomat. 13

October 2015. <http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/china-enforcing-quasi-adiz-in-south-china-sea-philippine-justice/>.

"The China Power Project." Center for Strategic and International Studies. <http://chinapower.csis.org>.

Zhang, Feng. "The Fight Inside China Over the South China Sea." Foreign Policy Comments. 23 June 2016.

<http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/23/the-fight-inside-china-over-the-south-china-sea-beijing-divided-three-camps/>.

Cuba

“Central America and the Caribbean: Cuba.” The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. 28 October 2015.

<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html>.

Davis, Julia Herschfeld. "Obama, Cementing New Ties With Cuba, Lifts Limits on Cigars and Rum." The New York Times. 14

October 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/15/world/americas/obama-cuba-trade-embargo.html?_r=0>.

DeYoung, Karen. "In a First in 25 Years, U.S. Abstains in U.N. Vote Condemning Its Cuba Policy." Washington Post. 26

October 2016. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-a-first-in-25-years-us-to-abstain-in-un-

vote-condemning-its-cuba-policy/2016/10/26/fa5610ae-9b8a-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html>.

“Fact sheet: Charting a New Course on Cuba.” Office of the Press Secretary. The White House. 17 December 2014.

<https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/17/fact-sheet-charting-new-course-cuba>.

Gupta, Girish. "How Venezuela’s Collapse Helped Thaw Cuban-American Relations." Time. 18 December 2014.

<http://time.com/3639939/venezuela-role-cuba-america-relations/>.

Defense

Baldor, Lolita C. "U.S. Defense Chief: Don’t Seek Repayment of Enlistment Bonuses." PBS. 26 October 2016.

<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/u-s-defense-chief-dont-seek-repayment-enlistment-bonuses/>.

Burns, Robert. "We Have Your Breakdown of Trump's and Clinton's Military Policies." Military Times. 28 October 2016.

<http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/weve-got-your-breakdown-of-trumps-and-clintons-military-policies>.

McMahon, Robert. "Balance of War Powers: The U.S. President and Congress." Council on Foreign Relations. 20 June

2011. <http://www.cfr.org/united-states/balance-war-powers-us-president-congress/p13092>.

O'Neal, Lydia. "Who Has The Biggest Navy? Military Defense Spending On The Rise Amid Global Conflict." International

Business Times. 10 October 2016. <http://www.ibtimes.com/who-has-biggest-navy-military-defense-spending-rise-

amid-global-conflict-2428985>.

Thompson, Loren. "What Defense Downturn? Why Military Contractors Are Thriving Despite Lower Pentagon

Spending." Forbes. 31 October 2016. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/10/31/five-reasons-defense-

companies-have-outperformed-in-a-downturn/#6e3563da228a>.

Energy and Climate

"Exclusive Obama Interview on 'Terrifying' Threat of Climate Change | The New York Times." The New York Times. 08

September 2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpzuGfZ7xrY>.

Katakey, Rakteem. "Energy Giant Shell Says Oil Demand Could Peak in Just Five Years." Bloomberg. 2 November 2016.

<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-02/europe-s-biggest-oil-company-thinks-demand-may-peak-in-5-

years>.

Krauss, Clifford. "Big Oil Slowly Adapts to a Warming World." The New York Times. 3 November 2016.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/business/energy-environment/big-oil-slowly-adapts-to-a-warming-world.html>.

Mooney, Chris. "The World Is Racing to Stop Climate Change. But the Math Still Doesn’t Add up." The Washington Post.

3 November 2016. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/03/the-world-is-racing-

to-stop-climate-change-but-the-math-still-doesnt-add-up/>.

"World Energy Council." World Energy Council. <http://www.worldenergy.org/>.

Immigration

Galston, William A. "A Sliver of Agreement on Immigration." WSJ. 01 November 2016. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-

sliver-of-agreement-on-immigration-1478042163>.

"Immigration and Emigration." The New York Times. <http://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/immigration-and-

emigration>.

"The Economics of Immigration: Crash Course Econ #33." Crash Course. 18 May 2016.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XQXiCLzyAw>.

"UNHCR Viewpoint: 'Refugee' or 'migrant' – Which Is Right?" United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees News. 11

July 2016. <http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/latest/2016/7/55df0e556/unhcr-viewpoint-refugee-migrant-right.html>.

Whitaker, Bill. "Finding Refuge." CBSNews. 16 October 2016. <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-syrian-

refugee-crisis-immigration/>.

Iran

Baker, Luke. "Iran Commands 25,000 Shi'ite Fighters in Syria: Israeli Official." Reuters. 03 November 2016.

<http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-israel-idUSKBN12Y1VK>.

Ostovar, Afshon. "It's Time to Negotiate With Iran Over Syria." Foreign Policy. 12 October 2016.

<http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/12/its-time-to-negotiate-with-iran-over-syria-war-russia-rouhani-united-states/>.

“Quick take: What’s Next for Iran’s Economy?” Bloomberg. 17 October 2016.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-10-17/quicktake-what-s-next-for-iran-s-economy>.

"The Historic Deal That Will Prevent Iran from Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon." The White House.

<https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal>.

"The Rise of Iran as a Regional Power: Shia Empowerment and Its Limits." NATO Review.

<http://www.nato.int/docu/Review/2016/Also-in-2016/iran-regional-power-tehran-islamic/EN/index.htm>.

The Islamic State

"ISIS and the U.S. Presidential Election." Council on Foreign Relations. 27 April 2016.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV4E1_h40Q4>.

Johnson, Henry. "Mapped: The Islamic State Is Losing Its Territory — and Fast." Foreign Policy. 16 March 2016.

<http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/16/mapped-the-islamic-state-is-losing-its-territory-and-fast/>.

Laub, Zachary. "The Islamic State." Council on Foreign Relations. 10 August 2016. <http://www.cfr.org/iraq/islamic-

state/p14811>.

Schreck, Adam. "Islamic State Group Leader Rallies His Fighters in Mosul." ABC News. 03 November 2016.

<http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-monitors-group-leader-rallies-fighters-mosul-43265452>.

"What Is 'Islamic State'?" BBC News. 2 December 2015. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29052144>.

National Security

Haass, Richard N. "The Real Threat to U.S. National Security." Council on Foreign Relations. 07 October 2013.

<http://www.cfr.org/united-states/real-threat-us-national-security/p31579>.

Hook, Janet. "Poll Finds National Security Now a Top Concern." WSJ. 14 December 2015.

<http://www.wsj.com/articles/poll-finds-national-security-now-a-top-concern-1450130463>.

Office of the Press Secretary. "Fact Sheet: The 2015 National Security Strategy." The White House. 06 February 2015.

<https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/06/fact-sheet-2015-national-security-strategy>.

Rainie, Lee, and Shiva Maniam. "Americans Feel the Tensions between Privacy and Security Concerns." Pew Research

Center. 19 February 2016. <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/19/americans-feel-the-tensions-between-

privacy-and-security-concerns/>.

Ryan, Miss, and Karen DeYoung. "'We're Not in Perfect Control': U.S. Plans Operation against Islamic State in Syria

despite Obstacles." The Washington Post. 31 October 2016. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-

security/were-not-in-perfect-control-us-plans-operation-against-islamic-state-in-syria-despite-

obstacles/2016/10/31/b649605e-9d1b-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html>.

North Korea

Kelly, Mary Louise. "Even With Failures, North Korea's Nuclear Program Races Ahead." NPR. 25 October 2016.

<http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/10/25/499321245/even-with-failures-north-koreas-nuclear-program-

races-ahead>.

"North Korea's Nuclear Programme: How Advanced Is It?" BBC News. 09 September 2016.

<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699>.

"North Korea Country Profile." BBC News. 09 September 2016. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-

15256929>.

"Obama Reminds North Korea of U.S. "Military Might" Reuters. 26 April

2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScOYp6Ls-sw>.

"U.S. Relations with North Korea." U.S. Department of State. 18 October 2016.

<http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm>.

Russia

Choi, David. "'Putin's Bridge' Connecting Russia to Crimea Might Be Having Issues." Business Insider. 26 September 2016.

<http://www.businessinsider.com/putins-bridge-russia-crimea-problems-2016-9>.

Dilanian, Ken. "A New Cold War? Russia, U.S. Relations at Lowest Point since 1970s." NBC News. 05 October 2016.

<http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-cold-war-russia-u-s-relations-lowest-point-1970s-n660126>.

"Julian Assange Claims Russia Isn’t Behind WikiLeaks’ Hacked Clinton Emails." Fortune. 03 November 2016.

<http://fortune.com/2016/11/03/julian-assange-wikileaks-russia-podesta-emails/>.

Masters, Johnathan. "The Russian Military." Council on Foreign Relations. 02 September 2016.

<http://www.cfr.org/russian-federation/russian-military/p33758>.

Nechepurenko, Ivan. "Russia Extends Aleppo Cease-Fire and Urges Rebels to Leave." The New York Times. 02 November

2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/world/middleeast/russia-syria-aleppo-ceasefire.html>.

Trade

“18 Maps that Explain Maritime Security in Asia.” Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. Center for Strategic and

International Studies. Summer 2014. <https://amti.csis.org/atlas/>.

"EU and U.S. Trade Talks Will Resume after the Presidential Election." Newsweek. 29 October

2016. <http://www.newsweek.com/eu-us-trade-talks-resume-after-election-515008>.

Granville, Kevin. "The Trans-Pacific Partnership, Explained." The New York Times. 01 January 2016.

<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/business/tpp-explained-what-is-trans-pacific-partnership.html?_r=0>.

Sile, Aza Wee. "Asia Markets Mixed after Short-lived Recovery; Oil up about 1%." CNBC. 03 November

2016. <http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/02/asx-slips-in-early-trade-asia-to-focus-on-us-elections-china-services-pmi-oil-

prices.html>.

"Trade and Tariff Data." World Trade Organization. <https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/statis_e.htm>.