Advanced search    Help

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

• Canada-U.S. Relations [May 4, 2010]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Relations between the United States and Canada, though generally close, have undergone changes in tenor over the past three decades. During the 1980s, the two countries generally enjoyed very good relations. The early 1990s brought new governments to Ottawa and Washington, and although Canada's Liberal Party emphasized its determination to act independently of the United States when necessary, relations continued to be cordial. In early 2006, a minority Conservative government assumed power in Ottawa. […]. The two North American countries continue to cooperate widely in international security and political issues, both bilaterally and through numerous international organizations. Canada's foreign and defense policies are usually in harmony with those of the United States. Areas of contention are relatively few, but sometimes sharp, as was the case in policy toward Iraq. Since September 11, the United States and Canada have cooperated extensively on efforts to strengthen border security and to combat terrorism, particularly in Afghanistan. [...].. This report begins with a short overview of Canada's political scene, its economic conditions, and its recent security and foreign policy, focusing particularly on issues that may be relevant to U.S. policymakers. This country survey is followed by several summaries of current bilateral issues in the political, international security, trade, and environmental arenas. The questions following each summary are designed as potential inquiries to Canadian officials to promote thought and discussion among policymakers."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Fergusson, Ian F.; Ek, Carl

  2010-05-04
• NATO Common Funds Burdensharing: Background and Current Issues [February 15, 2012]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) contribute to the alliance in various ways. The most significant means by far is through funding, in their individual national defense budgets, the deployment of their respective armed forces in support of NATO missions. As the alliance has undertaken enlargement in the post-Cold War period, current member countries have been providing bilateral assistance to prospective future members to assist them in modernizing their forces and making them interoperable with other NATO militaries. Defense analysts point out that the NATO allies also contribute to mutual security in many other ways. Several NATO activities, however, are coordinated and conducted by the alliance's headquarters in Brussels. These operations are directly funded by three common accounts: the NATO Military Budget, the NATO Civil Budget, and the NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP). The funds are maintained by direct contributions from NATO's member states. Individual shares of the civil and military budgets remained unchanged for decades, while NSIP shares were adjusted every few years based upon relative gross domestic product (GDP), per capita GDP, and several other factors. In 2005, members negotiated new burdensharing arrangements for all three funds-for all countries except the United States. Twice a year, ministers of NATO member countries provide guidance on general use of NATO resources. But the actual management of the accounts is conducted by various separate committees. As their names imply, the three funds are responsible for separate, but often complementary, activities."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl

  2012-02-15
• NATO Common Funds Burdensharing: Background and Current Issues [March 10, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "For decades, Congress has maintained an interest in burdensharing arrangements with allies, particularly with those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The 28 NATO member states contribute to the activities of the alliance in several ways, the chief of which is through the deployment of their own armed forces, funded by their individual national budgets. Certain commonly conducted activities, however, are paid for out of three NATO-run budgets. These three accounts--the civil budget, the military budget, and the security investment program--are funded by individual contributions from the member states. [...] During a November 2010 summit in Lisbon, NATO member states agreed to the acquisition of a new capability: ballistic missile defense. Although the estimated commonly shared costs of the planned system are relatively modest, member states eventually will be encouraged to assume responsibility individually for deploying various elements of the system, such as radar, sensors, and Aegis-equipped naval vessels. The 112th Congress may examine U.S. contributions to the NATO budgets. In the wake of the global financial crisis, most member states have been making or considering reductions in their defense budgets, prompting questions over their willingness and ability to contribute effectively to possible future alliance operations."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl

  2011-03-10
• NATO Common Funds Burdensharing: Background and Current Issues [Updated January 24, 2008]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) contribute to the activities of the alliance in several ways, the chief of which is through the deployment of their own armed forces, funded by their national budgets. Certain commonly conducted activities, however, are paid for out of three NATO-run budgets. These three accounts -- the civil budget, the military budget, and the security investment program -- are funded by individual contributions from the member states. The countries' percentage shares of the common funds are negotiated among the members, and are based upon per capita GDP and several other factors. The aggregate U.S. share, which has fallen over the past three decades, was 25.8% in 2005. Ten central and eastern European nations were admitted into the alliance in 1999 and 2004, and several other countries would also like to join. As NATO expands, it has incurred certain additional costs to accommodate the new members. These costs are being shared by all, including the new countries. In 2005, members of the alliance adopted new burdensharing arrangements; the U.S. level, however, was limited to its current share. Additional changes in the cost share formulas are under review. The second session of the 110th Congress will likely review U.S. contributions to the NATO budgets in the context of the Defense and State Departments' appropriations. This report will be updated as events warrant."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl

  2008-01-24
• NATO Common Funds Burdensharing: Background and Current Issues [Updated January 23, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) contribute to the activities of the alliance in several ways, the chief of which is through the deployment of their own armed forces, funded by their national budgets. Certain commonly conducted activities, however, are paid for out of three NATO-run budgets. These three accounts-the civil budget, the military budget, and the security investment program-are funded by individual contributions from the member states. The countries' percentage shares of the common funds are negotiated among the members, and are based upon per capita GDP and several other factors. The aggregate U.S. share, which has fallen over the past three decades, was 25.8% in 2005. Ten central and eastern European nations were admitted into the alliance in 1999 and 2004, and several other countries would also like to join. As NATO expands, it has incurred certain additional costs to accommodate the new members. These costs are being shared by all, including the new countries. In 2005, members of the alliance adopted new burdensharing arrangements; the U.S. level, however, was limited to its current share. Additional changes in the cost share formulas are under review. The 110th Congress will likely review U.S. contributions to the NATO budgets in the context of the Defense and State Departments' appropriations. This report will be updated as events warrant."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl

  2007-01-23
• NATO's Prague Capabilities Commitment [Updated July 22, 2008]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "With the end of the Cold War, NATO began to reassess its collective defense strategy and to anticipate possible new missions. The conflicts in the Balkans highlighted the need for more mobile forces, for technological equality between the United States and its allies, and for interoperability. In 1999, NATO launched the Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI), an effort to enable the alliance to deploy troops quickly to crisis regions, to supply and protect those forces, and to equip them to engage an adversary effectively. The conflict in Afghanistan marked a new development in modern warfare through the extensive use of precision-guided munitions, directed by ground-based special forces; many believe that this step widened the capabilities breach between the United States and its European allies. At its 2002 summit in Prague, NATO approved a new initiative, the Prague Capabilities Commitment (PCC), touted as a slimmed-down, more focused DCI, with quantifiable goals. Analysts have cautioned that the success of PCC will hinge upon increased spending and changed procurement priorities - particularly by the European allies. At NATO's 2004 Istanbul summit and its 2006 Riga summit, the alliance reaffirmed the goals of PCC and, in light of NATO missions, particularly in Afghanistan, stressed the urgency of acquiring specific capabilities such as airlift. During the 110th Congress, lawmakers are likely to review the alliance's progress in boosting NATO capabilities, especially in the context of the appropriations process. This report will be updated as events warrant. See also CRS Report RS22529, The NATO Summit at Riga, 2006, by Paul Gallis."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl

  2008-07-22
• NATO's Prague Capabilities Commitment [November 7, 2003]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "With the end of the Cold War, NATO began to reassess its collective defense strategy and to anticipate possible new missions. The conflicts in the Balkans highlighted the need for more mobile forces, for technological equality between the United States and its allies, and for interoperability. In 1999, NATO launched the Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI), an effort to enable the alliance to deploy troops quickly to crisis regions, to supply and protect those forces, and to equip them to engage an adversary effectively. To meet the DCI's goals, however, most allied countries needed to increase their individual defense budgets, a step many were reluctant to take. The war in Afghanistan marked a new development in modern warfare through the extensive use of precision-guided munitions, directed by ground-based special forces; many believe that this step widened the capabilities breach between the United States and its European allies. At its November 2002 summit in Prague, NATO approved a new initiative, the Prague Capabilities Commitment (PCC), touted as a slimmed-down, more focused DCI, with quantifiable goals. Analysts argue that the success of PCC, like DCI, will hinge upon increased spending and/or changed procurement priorities -- particularly by the European allies. This report will be updated periodically. See also CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report RS21354, 'The NATO Summit at Prague 2002.'"

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl

  2003-11-07
• NATO Common Funds Burdensharing: Background and Current Issues [January 27, 2009]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) contribute to the activities of the alliance in several ways, the chief of which is through the deployment of their own armed forces, funded by their national budgets. Certain commonly conducted activities, however, are paid for out of three NATO-run budgets. These three accounts--the civil budget, the military budget, and the security investment program--are funded by individual contributions from the member states. The countries' percentage shares of the common funds are negotiated among the members, and are based upon per capita GDP and several other factors. The aggregate U.S. share, which has fallen over the past three decades, was 25.3% in 2007. Ten central and eastern European nations were admitted into the alliance in 1999 and 2004, and two other countries are set to join. As NATO has expanded, it has incurred certain additional costs to accommodate the new members. These costs are being shared by all, including the new countries. In 2005, members of the alliance adopted new burdensharing arrangements; the U.S. level, however, was limited to its current share. Additional changes in the cost share formulas are under review. The 111th Congress will likely review U.S. contributions to the NATO budgets in the context of the Defense and State Departments' appropriations. This report will be updated as events warrant."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl

  2009-01-27
• NATO's Prague Capabilities Commitment [Updated January 24, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "With the end of the Cold War, NATO began to reassess its collective defense strategy and to anticipate possible new missions. The conflicts in the Balkans highlighted the need for more mobile forces, for technological equality between the United States and its allies, and for interoperability. In 1999, NATO launched the Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI), an effort to enable the alliance to deploy troops quickly to crisis regions, to supply and protect those forces, and to equip them to engage an adversary effectively. The conflict in Afghanistan marked a new development in modern warfare through the extensive use of precision-guided munitions, directed by ground-based special forces; many believe that this step widened the capabilities breach between the United States and its European allies. At its 2002 summit in Prague, NATO approved a new initiative, the Prague Capabilities Commitment (PCC), touted as a slimmed-down, more focused DCI, with quantifiable goals. Analysts have cautioned that the success of PCC will hinge upon increased spending and changed procurement priorities -- particularly by the European allies. At NATO's 2004 Istanbul summit and its 2006 Riga summit, the alliance reaffirmed the goals of PCC and, in light of NATO missions, particularly in Afghanistan, stressed the urgency of acquiring specific capabilities such as airlift. During the 110th Congress, lawmakers are likely to review the alliance's progress in boosting NATO capabilities, especially in the context of the appropriations process. This report will be updated as events warrant."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl

  2007-01-24
• NATO's Prague Capabilities Commitment [January 24, 2004]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "With the end of the Cold War, NATO began to reassess its collective defense strategy and to anticipate possible new missions. The conflicts in the Balkans highlighted the need for more mobile forces, for technological equality between the United States and its allies, and for interoperability. In 1999, NATO launched the Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI), an effort to enable the alliance to deploy troops quickly to crisis regions, to supply and protect those forces, and to equip them to engage an adversary effectively. The conflict in Afghanistan marked a new development in modern warfare through the extensive use of precision-guided munitions, directed by ground-based special forces; many believe that this step widened the capabilities breach between the United States and its European allies. At its 2002 summit in Prague, NATO approved a new initiative, the Prague Capabilities Commitment (PCC), touted as a slimmed-down, more focused DCI, with quantifiable goals. Analysts have cautioned that the success of PCC will hinge upon increased spending and changed procurement priorities -- particularly by the European allies. At NATO's 2004 Istanbul summit and its 2006 Riga summit, the alliance reaffirmed the goals of PCC and, in light of NATO missions, particularly in Afghanistan, stressed the urgency of acquiring specific capabilities such as airlift. During the 110th Congress, lawmakers are likely to review the alliance's progress in boosting NATO capabilities, especially in the context of the appropriations process. This report will be updated as events warrant. See also CRS Report RS22529, 'The NATO Summit at Riga, 2006', by Paul Gallis."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl

  2004-01-24
• NATO Common Funds Burdensharing: Background and Current Issues [January 20, 2006]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) contribute to the activities of the alliance in several ways, the chief of which is through the deployment of their own armed forces, funded by their national budgets. Certain commonly conducted activities, however, are paid for out of three NATO-run budgets. These three accounts -- the civil budget, the military budget, and the security investment program -- are funded by individual contributions from the member states. The countries' percentage shares of the common funds are negotiated among the members, and are based upon per capita GDP and several other factors. The aggregate U.S. share, which has fallen over the past three decades, stood at 27.4% in 2003. Ten central and eastern European nations were admitted into the alliance in 1999 and 2004, and several other countries would also like to join. As NATO expands, it has incurred certain additional costs to accommodate the new members. These costs are being shared by all, including the new countries. This report will be updated as events warrant."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl

  2006-01-20
• Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe [January 21, 2009]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Successive U.S. governments have urged the creation of an anti-missile system to protect against long-range ballistic missile threats from adversary states. The Bush Administration believed that North Korea and Iran represent strategic threats, and questioned whether they could be deterred by conventional means. The Bush Administration's position on this issue remained unchanged, even after the intelligence community assessed that the Iranian nuclear weapons program halted in 2003. The Bush Administration built long-range missile defense bases in Alaska and California to protect against adversary missile threats, especially North Korea. Although the system has been tested, most agree that further testing is necessary. The Bush Administration proposed deploying a ground-based mid-course defense (GMD) element of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) in Europe to defend against an Iranian missile threat. The system would include 10 interceptors in Poland, a radar in the Czech Republic, and another radar deployed in a country closer to Iran, all to be completed by 2013 at a reported cost of at least $4 billion. The proposed U.S. system has encountered resistance in some European countries and beyond. Critics in Poland and the Czech Republic assert that neither country currently faces a notable threat from Iran, but that if American GMD facilities were installed, both countries might be targeted by missiles from rogue states--and possibly from Russia. The Bush Administration signed agreements with both countries permitting GMD facilities to be stationed on their territory; however, the two countries' parliaments decided to wait to ratify the accords until after the Obama Administration clarified its intentions on missile defense policy. NATO has deliberated long-range missile defense, and has taken actions that many interpreted as an endorsement of the U.S. GMD system."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Hildreth, Steven A.; Ek, Carl

  2009-01-21
• NATO Enlargement: Albania, Croatia, and Possible Future Candidates [October 6, 2008]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "At the April 2-4, 2008, NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, a principal issue was consideration of the candidacies for membership of Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia. The allies agreed to extend invitations to Albania and Croatia. Although the alliance determined that Macedonia met the qualifications for NATO membership, Greece blocked the invitation due to an enduring dispute over Macedonia's name. After formal accession talks, on July 9, 2008, the foreign ministers of Albania and Croatia and the permanent representatives of the current 26 NATO allies signed accession protocols amending the North Atlantic Treaty to permit Albania and Croatia's membership in NATO. To take effect, the protocols must now be ratified, first by current NATO members, then by Albania and Croatia. Albania and Croatia are small states with correspondingly small militaries, and their inclusion in NATO cannot be considered militarily strategic. However, it is possible that their membership could play a political role in stabilizing southeastern Europe."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Woehrel, Steven J.; Nichol, James P.; Ek, Carl . . .

  2008-10-06
• Canada-U.S. Relations [January 2, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Relations between the United States and Canada, though generally close, have undergone changes in tenor over the past three decades. During the 1980s, the two countries generally enjoyed very good relations. The early 1990s brought new governments to Ottawa and Washington, and although Canada's Liberal Party emphasized its determination to act independently of the United States when necessary, relations continued to be cordial. In early 2006, a minority Conservative government assumed power in Ottawa. It was regarded as being more philosophically in tune with the George W. Bush Administration than the Liberals had been; some observers believe that this compatibility helped facilitate bilateral cooperation. This cooperation has continued with the election of President Obama in November 2008, despite the differences in the two leaders' governing philosophies. The two North American countries continue to cooperate widely in international security and political issues, both bilaterally and through numerous international organizations. Canada's foreign and defense policies are usually in harmony with those of the United States. Areas of contention have been relatively few, but sometimes sharp, as was the case in policy toward Iraq. Since September 11, the United States and Canada have cooperated extensively on efforts to strengthen border security and to combat terrorism, particularly in Afghanistan. Both countries were also active participants in the U.N. [United Nations-sanctioned NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] mission in Libya. […] This report begins with a short overview of Canada's political scene, economic conditions, security and foreign policy, and environmental initiatives, focusing particularly on issues that may be relevant to U.S. policymakers. This country survey is followed by several summaries of current bilateral issues in the political, international security, trade, and environmental arenas. The questions following each summary are designed as potential inquiries to Canadian officials to promote thought and discussion among policy makers."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Fergusson, Ian F.; Ek, Carl

  2014-01-02
• NATO Common Funds Burdensharing: Background and Current Issues [April 22, 2010]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) contribute to the activities of the alliance in several ways, the chief of which is through the deployment of their own armed forces, funded by their national budgets. Certain commonly conducted activities, however, are paid for out of three NATO-run budgets. These three accounts--the civil budget, the military budget, and the security investment program--are funded by individual contributions from the member states. The countries' percentage shares of the common funds are negotiated among the members, and are based upon per capita gross national income and several other factors. The U.S. shares for the three funds, which have fallen over the past three decades, currently range from about 22%-25%. Twelve central and eastern European nations were admitted into the alliance in 1999, 2004, and 2009. As NATO has expanded, it has incurred certain additional costs to accommodate the new members. These costs are being shared by all, including the new countries. In 2005, members of the alliance adopted new burdensharing arrangements; the U.S. level, however, was limited to its current share. Additional changes in the cost share formulas are under review. Congress will likely examine U.S. contributions to the NATO budgets in the context of the Defense and State Departments' appropriations."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl

  2010-04-22
• Muslims in Europe: Promoting Integration and Countering Extremism [September 7, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Many European countries have large and growing Muslim minorities. This is particularly true for the countries of Western Europe that have experienced influxes of Muslim immigrants over the last several decades from a variety of Middle Eastern, African, and Asian countries, as well as Turkey and the Balkans. Today, although some Muslims in Europe are recent immigrants, others are second- or third-generation Europeans. While expanding Muslim communities pose significant social and economic policy questions for European governments, the realization that some segments of Europe's Muslim populations may be susceptible to radicalization and terrorist recruitment has also sparked security concerns in the decade since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Blanchard, Christopher M.; Ek, Carl; Belkin, Paul

  2011-09-07
• Missile Defense and NATO's Lisbon Summit [December 28, 2010]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "For several years, the United States and NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] have pursued parallel paths to develop a ballistic missile defense (BMD) capability to defend U.S. troops and European populations against potential ballistic attacks from countries such as Iran. At the November 2010 Lisbon Summit, alliance heads of state approved a plan to integrate existing NATO member BMD capabilities as part of the overall alliance defense posture. NATO officials have placed the estimated cost of the new territorial BMD system at 200 million euros (approximately $260 million), to be borne among all 28 member states over the next 10 years. Industry analysts, however, believe that the cost could be significantly higher. The Obama Administration's program to deploy a regional BMD capability in Europe, called the Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA), will now proceed with the NATO effort on an integrated basis. The Lisbon Summit agreement is significant in that NATO officials identified territorial missile defense as a core alliance objective and adopted a formal NATO program in response. [...] Analysts have noted the distinct advantages for NATO in adopting missile defense as a core alliance objective. Some of these include increased protection against potentially devastating ballistic missile attacks into Europe, strengthened relations with the United States, economic benefits that might flow from this effort, and opportunities to engage Russia constructively. Some have also questioned, however, whether this alliance effort is really necessary or whether such an effort is technologically feasible. [...] Congress has taken an active interest in missile defense, and has largely given bipartisan support to the Bush and Obama Administrations' plans to guard against the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles through the deployment of radar and interceptors in Europe. NATO's adoption of such a capability, and its close integration with the U.S. Phased Adaptive Approach, also will likely raise several issues that Members of Congress may choose to address, including command and control protocols, technology transfer, participation by Russia, and the extent to which European allies contribute to the common effort."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Hildreth, Steven A.; Ek, Carl

  2010-12-28
• Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe [April 26, 2010]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "In early 2007, after several years of internal discussions and consultations with Poland and the Czech Republic, the Bush Administration formally proposed to defend against an Iranian missile threat by deploying a ground-based mid-course defense (GMD) element in Europe as part of the global U.S. BMDS (Ballistic Missile Defense System). […]. On September 17, 2009, the Obama Administration announced it would cancel the Bush proposed European BMD program. Instead, Defense Secretary Gates announced U.S. plans to develop and deploy a regional BMD capability in Europe that could be surged on relatively short notice during crises or as the situation may demand. Gates argued this new capability in the near term would be based on expanding existing BMD sensors and interceptors. Gates argued this new Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) would be more responsive and adaptable to the pace and direction of Iranian short- and medium-range ballistic missile proliferation. This capability would continue to evolve and expand over the next decade to include BMD capabilities against medium and long-range Iranian ballistic missiles. The Polish and Romanian governments have signaled their willingness to host facilities for the new system. However, Russia, though initially positive over the abandonment of the Bush Administration's BMD plan, soon found reasons to object to the Obama Administration's alternative. Although the terms of the debate over the Bush-proposed European BMD capability have changed significantly in the wake of President Obama's decision, this report will be retained for historical purposes to include background information and analysis through the Obama Administration's decision to cancel it. It will not be updated."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Hildreth, Steven A.; Ek, Carl

  2010-04-26
• Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe [May 5, 2009]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Successive U.S. governments have urged the creation of an anti-missile system to protect against long-range ballistic missile threats from adversary states. The Bush Administration believed that North Korea and Iran represent strategic threats, and questioned whether they could be deterred by conventional means. […]. The Bush Administration proposed deploying a ground-based mid-course defense (GMD) element of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) in Europe to defend against an Iranian missile threat. The system would include 10 interceptors in Poland, a radar in the Czech Republic, and another radar deployed in a country closer to Iran, all to be completed by 2013 at a reported cost of at least $4 billion. The proposed U.S. system has encountered resistance in some European countries and beyond. Critics in Poland and the Czech Republic assert that neither country faces a notable threat from Iran, but that if American GMD facilities were installed, both countries might be targeted by missiles from rogue states--and possibly from Russia. The Bush Administration signed agreements with both countries permitting GMD facilities to be stationed on their territory; however, the two countries' parliaments decided to wait to ratify the accords until after the Obama Administration clarified its intentions on missile defense policy. NATO has deliberated long-range missile defense, and has taken actions that many interpret as an endorsement of the U.S. GMD system."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Hildreth, Steven A.; Ek, Carl

  2009-05-05
• Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe [June 22, 2009]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Successive U.S. governments have urged the creation of an anti-missile system to protect against long-range ballistic missile threats from adversary states. The Bush Administration believed that North Korea and Iran represent strategic threats, and questioned whether they could be deterred by conventional means. […]. The Bush Administration proposed deploying a ground-based mid-course defense (GMD) element of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) in Europe to defend against an Iranian missile threat. The system would include 10 interceptors in Poland, a radar in the Czech Republic, and another radar deployed in a country closer to Iran, all to be completed by 2013 at a reported cost of at least $4 billion. The proposed U.S. system has encountered resistance in some European countries and beyond. Critics in Poland and the Czech Republic assert that neither country faces a notable threat from Iran, but that if American GMD facilities were installed, both countries might be targeted by missiles from rogue states--and possibly from Russia. The Bush Administration signed agreements with both countries permitting GMD facilities to be stationed on their territory; however, the two countries' parliaments decided to wait to ratify the accords until after the Obama Administration clarified its intentions on missile defense policy. NATO has deliberated long-range missile defense, and has taken actions that many interpret as an endorsement of the U.S. GMD system."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Hildreth, Steven A.; Ek, Carl

  2009-06-22
• Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe [September 23, 2009]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "In early 2007, after several years of internal discussions and consultations with Poland and the Czech Republic, the Bush Administration formally proposed deploying a ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) element in Europe of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) to defend against an Iranian missile threat. […]. The proposed European BMD capability raised a number of foreign policy challenges in Europe and with Russia. On September 17, 2009, the Obama Administration announced it would cancel the Bush-proposed European BMD program. Instead, Defense Secretary Gates announced U.S. plans to develop and deploy a regional BMD capability that can be deployed around the world on relatively short notice during crises or as the situation may demand. Gates argued this new capability, based primarily around current BMD sensors and interceptors, would be more responsive and adaptable to growing concern over the direction of Iranian short- and medium-range ballistic missile proliferation. This capability would continue to evolve and expand over the next decade. This report is updated for Senate consideration of the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 3326) currently planned for the week of September 21, 2009. There are some reports that the issue of the European 3rd site will be considered during Senate floor debate. Although the terms of the debate over the Bush-proposed European BMD capability have changed significantly, this report will be retained for historical purposes to include background information and analysis up to the Obama Administration's decision to cancel it. It will be updated as necessary."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Hildreth, Steven A.; Ek, Carl

  2009-09-23
• Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe [Updated July 24, 2008]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This report discusses the implications for relations with Russia, the cost and placement of the Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe. From the report: "Successive administrations have urged the creation of an anti-missile system to protect against long-range ballistic missile threats from rogue states. The Bush Administration believes that North Korea and Iran are strategic threats and questions whether they can be deterred by conventional means. The Administration's policy position on this issue remains unchanged after a recent reassessment that the Iranian nuclear weapons program was halted in 2003. The Administration has built long-range missile defense bases in Alaska and California to protect against North Korean missile threats. Although the system has been tested, most agree that further testing is necessary. The Administration proposed deploying a ground-based mid-course defense (GMD) element of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) in Europe to defend against an Iranian missile threat. The system would include 10 interceptors in Poland, a radar in the Czech Republic, and another radar deployed in a country closer to Iran to be completed by 2013 at a cost now of about $4.8 billion."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Hildreth, Steven A.; Ek, Carl

  2008-07-24
• Canada-U.S. Relations [Updated September 26, 2005]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "During the 1980s, the United States and Canada generally enjoyed very good relations. The early 1990s brought new governments to Ottawa and Washington, and although Canada's Liberal Party ran " and won " on a platform that emphasized its intention to act more independently of the United States, relations between the two countries have continued to be cordial. Under the administrations of President Bush and Prime Minister Martin, ties have been close, although there have been differences over several issues, particularly in the trade and security arena. The two North American countries continue to cooperate extensively in international security and political issues, both bilaterally and through numerous international organizations. Canada's foreign and defense policies are usually in harmony with those of the United States. Areas of contention are relatively few, but sometimes sharp, as has been the case in policy toward Iraq. Since September 11, the United States and Canada have cooperated extensively on efforts to combat terrorism."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl

  2005-09-26
• Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe [Updated September 3, 2008]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This report discusses the implications for relations with Russia, the cost and placement of the Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe. From the report: "Successive administrations have urged the creation of an anti-missile system to protect against long-range ballistic missile threats from rogue states. The Bush Administration believes that North Korea and Iran are strategic threats and questions whether they can be deterred by conventional means. The Administration's policy position on this issue remains unchanged after a recent reassessment that the Iranian nuclear weapons program was halted in 2003. The Administration has built long-range missile defense bases in Alaska and California to protect against North Korean missile threats. Although the system has been tested, most agree that further testing is necessary. The Administration proposed deploying a ground-based mid-course defense (GMD) element of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) in Europe to defend against an Iranian missile threat. The system would include 10 interceptors in Poland, a radar in the Czech Republic, and another radar deployed in a country closer to Iran to be completed by 2013 at a cost now of about $4.8 billion."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Hildreth, Steven A.; Ek, Carl

  2008-09-03
• Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe [Updated December 8, 2008]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Successive administrations have urged the creation of an anti-missile system to protect against long-range ballistic missile threats from rogue states. The Bush Administration believes that North Korea and Iran are strategic threats, and questions whether they can be deterred by conventional means. The Administration's position on this issue remains unchanged after a recent reassessment that the Iranian nuclear weapons program was halted in 2003. The Administration has built long-range missile defense bases in Alaska and California to protect against North Korean missile threats. Although the system has been tested, most agree that further testing is necessary. The Administration proposed deploying a ground-based mid-course defense (GMD) element of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) in Europe to defend against an Iranian missile threat. The system would include 10 interceptors in Poland, a radar in the Czech Republic, and another radar deployed in a country closer to Iran, all to be completed by 2013 at a cost of about $4 billion. The proposed U.S. system has encountered resistance in some European countries and beyond. Critics in Poland and the Czech Republic assert that neither country currently faces a notable threat from Iran, but that if American GMD facilities were installed, both countries might be targeted by missiles from rogue states--and possibly from Russia. The Administration has signed agreements with both countries permitting GMD facilities to be stationed on their territory; however, the two countries' parliaments will likely wait to ratify the accords after the incoming Obama Administration has indicated its intentions on missile defense policy. NATO has deliberated long-range missile defense, and has taken actions that have been interpreted as an endorsement of the U.S. GMD system."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl

  2008-12-08
• Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe [Updated April 25, 2008]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This report discusses the implications for relations with Russia, the cost and placement of the Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe. From the report: "Successive administrations have urged the creation of an anti-missile system to protect against long-range ballistic missile threats from rogue states. The Bush Administration believes that North Korea and Iran are strategic threats and questions whether they can be deterred by conventional means. The Administration's policy position on this issue remains unchanged after a recent reassessment that the Iranian nuclear weapons program was halted in 2003. The Administration has built long-range missile defense bases in Alaska and California to protect against North Korean missile threats. Although the system has been tested, most agree that further testing is necessary. The Administration proposed deploying a ground-based mid-course defense (GMD) element of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) in Europe to defend against an Iranian missile threat. The system would include 10 interceptors in Poland, a radar in the Czech Republic, and another radar deployed in a country closer to Iran to be completed by 2013 at a cost now of about $4.8 billion."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Hildreth, Steven A.; Ek, Carl

  2008-04-25
• Canada-U.S. Relations [September 13, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Many Members of Congress follow U.S.-Canada environmental, trade, and transborder issues that affect their states and districts. In addition, because the countries are similar in many ways, lawmakers in both countries study solutions proposed across the border to such issues as federal fiscal policy and federal-provincial power sharing. This report begins with a short overview of Canada's political scene, economic conditions, security and foreign policy, and environmental initiatives, focusing particularly on issues that may be relevant to U.S. policymakers. This country survey is followed by several summaries of current bilateral issues in the political, international security, trade, and environmental arenas. The questions following each summary are designed as potential inquiries to Canadian officials to promote thought and discussion among policymakers."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl; Fergusson, Ian F.

  2011-09-13
• Canada-U.S. Relations [April 5, 2012]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Relations between the United States and Canada, though generally close, have undergone changes in tenor over the past three decades. During the 1980s, the two countries generally enjoyed very good relations. The early 1990s brought new governments to Ottawa and Washington, and although Canada's Liberal Party emphasized its determination to act independently of the United States when necessary, relations continued to be cordial. In early 2006, a minority Conservative government assumed power in Ottawa. It was regarded as being more philosophically in tune with the George W. Bush Administration than the Liberals had been; some observers believe that this compatibility helped facilitate bilateral cooperation. This cooperation has continued with the election of President Obama in November 2008, despite the differences in the two leaders' governing philosophies. The two North American countries continue to cooperate widely in international security and political issues, both bilaterally and through numerous international organizations. Canada's foreign and defense policies are usually in harmony with those of the United States. Areas of contention have been relatively few, but sometimes sharp, as was the case in policy toward Iraq. Since September 11, the United States and Canada have cooperated extensively on efforts to strengthen border security and to combat terrorism, particularly in Afghanistan. Both countries were also active participants in the U.N. [United Nations-sanctioned NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] mission in Libya. […] This report begins with a short overview of Canada's political scene, economic conditions, security and foreign policy, and environmental initiatives, focusing particularly on issues that may be relevant to U.S. policymakers. This country survey is followed by several summaries of current bilateral issues in the political, international security, trade, and environmental arenas. The questions following each summary are designed as potential inquiries to Canadian officials to promote thought and discussion among policymakers."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl; Fergusson, Ian F.

  2012-04-05
• Canada-U.S. Relations [Updated May 15, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "During the 1980s, the United States and Canada generally enjoyed very good relations. The early 1990s brought new governments to Ottawa and Washington, and although Canada's Liberal Party emphasized its determination to act independently of the United States when necessary, relations between the two countries continued to be generally cordial. Canada's new Conservative government, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is regarded as more philosophically in tune with the Bush Administration than the Liberals were; some observers believe that this compatibility may facilitate bilateral cooperation. The two North American countries continue to cooperate extensively in international security and political issues, both bilaterally and through numerous international organizations. Canada's foreign and defense policies are usually in harmony with those of the United States. Areas of contention are relatively few, but sometimes sharp, as has been the case in policy toward Iraq. Since September 11, the United States and Canada have cooperated extensively on efforts to combat terrorism, particularly in Afghanistan...This report provides a short overview of Canada's political scene, its economic conditions, and its recent security and foreign policy, focusing particularly on issues that may be relevant to U.S. policymakers. This brief country survey is followed by several summaries of current bilateral issues in the political, trade, and environmental arenas. The report is updated annually."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Ek, Carl

  2007-05-15
• Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe [June 22, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Successive U.S. administrations have urged the creation of an anti-missile system to protect against threats from rogue states. The Bush Administration believes that North Korea and Iran are strategic threats and questions whether they can be deterred by conventional means. The Administration has built long-range missile defense bases in Alaska and California to protect against North Korean missiles. The system has been tested, with mixed results, and questions have been raised about its effectiveness. The Administration has proposed deploying a ground-based mid-course defense (GMD) element of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) in Europe to defend against the threat of long-range missiles from Iran. The system would include 10 interceptors in Poland, a fixed radar installation in the Czech Republic, and another forward deployed radar elsewhere in the region, but closer to Iran. Deployment of the European GMD capability is scheduled to be completed by 2013 at a cost of $4.04 billion. The proposed U.S. system has encountered resistance in some European countries and beyond. Critics in Poland and the Czech Republic assert that neither country currently faces a notable threat from Iran, but that if American GMD facilities were installed, both countries might be targeted by missiles from rogue states - and possibly from Russia."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Hildreth, Steven A.; Ek, Carl

  2007-06-22