The Stimson Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that analyzes issues related to global peace. It is named after the American lawyer and politician Henry L. Stimson.
Stimson analyzes issues such as nuclear proliferation, arms trafficking, water management, wildlife poaching, and responses to humanitarian crises. It also provides consulting for US and international institutions and publishes articles for the general public.[2]
In 2013, Stimson received the MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions.[3] Stimson was ranked 10th best U.S. think tank in the University of Pennsylvania's 2020 Global Go To Think Tanks Report.[4]
The Stimson Center was founded in 1989 by Barry Blechman and Michael Krepon.[5][6] It is currently led by Chairman of the Board Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle and President and CEO Brian Finlay.[7][8]
The center is funded by research contracts, grants from foundations and other donations. It publicly discloses funding sources on an annual basis.[9]
The Stimson Center conducts research, engagement, and solutions building across five thematic areas: Trade and Technology, Security and Strategy, Human Security and Governance, Climate and Natural Resources, and Pivotal Places, a geographic topic that largely covers work on Asia and the Indo-Pacific.[10]
The organization has about twenty different policy programs,[11] including:
The 38 North program cultivates public policy debate about North Korea, emphasizing hands-on experience and expertise with the authoritative 38north.org web journal, in-depth research on issues central to North Korean strategic thinking, and informal diplomatic engagement. Other major projects include North Korea's Economy: A Glimpse Through Imagery, a commercial satellite imagery analysis series focused on the North Korean economy in partnership with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the DPRK Digital Atlas, a comprehensive geospatial dataset based on open source data of DPRK political, economic, cultural and security infrastructure.
The East Asia program conducts research on regional security issues and offers recommendations for policymakers in the U.S. and in the region on a variety of issues.[12] The program analyzes the dynamics of cross-Strait relations, including the exchange of ideas and people between the U.S. and Asia-Pacific region. The program also examines China's foreign relations toward Northeast and Southeast Asia, with a special focus on Myanmar, Iran, and Africa, and addresses U.S.–Japan alliance relations and developments on the Korean Peninsula.[13][14]
The Environmental Security program explores how increased stress on global ecosystems and shared natural resources may compromise economic development, fuel social conflict, and undermine political stability in key areas throughout the world.[15]
The Middle East program explores issues that affect regional security from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. They study cross-border dynamics in the region, and are focused on the rising threat from sectarianism and its roots in radical Islamic ideology.[16] The program's Gulf Security work analyzes traditional and nontraditional security issues impacting the Gulf States and their neighbors.[17] In 2015, the program is monitoring the regional security repercussions of the Iran nuclear negotiations.
The South Asia program seeks to reduce nuclear dangers in South Asia by focusing on risks associated with the accelerating arms competition between India and Pakistan.[18] These risks are amplified by the activities of terrorist groups and political instability in the region. The program has championed confidence-building and nuclear risk-reduction measures in South Asia for over twenty years. The South Asia program analyzes U.S. crisis management on the subcontinent, producing case studies of the “Twin Peaks” and Mumbai crises, and identifying future challenges. The program seeks to empower an emerging generation of strategic analysts in South Asia by means of the South Asian Voices website, conferences, and visiting fellowships.[19]
Brian Eyler is the Director of the Stimson Center's Southeast Asia program, and is regarded as an expert on transboundary issues in the Mekong region and China's economic relationship with Southeast Asia.[20]
The Southeast Asia program[21] addresses major challenges facing the region today, ranging from the food-water-energy security nexus in the Mekong Basin to political and economic issues of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) integration. The main focus of the program's research is development in the Greater Mekong Subregion, particularly hydroelectric power projects and their impacts on the food-water-security nexus and regional stability. The program also regularly addresses trade, economic, and political issues involving ASEAN member states, U.S.–ASEAN relations and policy issues, and maritime security issues in the South China Sea, particularly territorial disputes and fishery management.
This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(May 2023)
A selection of recent publications includes:
"Confronting the Crisis of Global Governance"[22] – A report from the Commission on Global Security, Justice and Governance that details a practical action plan for innovating global governance, as well as offering ways to mobilize diverse actors to advance reform to better respond to 21st century threats, challenges, and opportunities.[23]
"Recommendations and Report of the Task Force on US Drone Policy"[24] – This report details recommendations for overhauling UAV strategy, improving oversight, accountability and transparency, developing forward-looking international norms relating to the use of lethal force in nontraditional settings, and devising sound UAV export control and research and development policies.[25]
"A New US Defense Strategy for a New Era: Military Superiority, Agility and Efficiency"[26] – This report sets out ten key operating principles that emphasize greater efficiency and effectiveness throughout the Defense Department and finds that a successful defense strategy could be achieved at budget levels significantly lower than present.[27]
