1 - 6 of 6
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War
- Author:
- Neta C. Crawford
- Publication Date:
- 11-2019
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University
- Abstract:
- If climate change is a “threat multiplier,” as some national security experts and members of the military argue, how does the US military reduce climate change caused threats? Or does war and the preparation for it increase those risks?
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Climate Change, War, International Security, Military Spending, and Fossil Fuels
- Political Geography:
- North America, Global Focus, and United States of America
3. Where We Fight: US Counterterror War Locations 2017-2018
- Author:
- Stephanie Savell
- Publication Date:
- 01-2019
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University
- Abstract:
- This new map shows for the first time that the United States is now combating terrorism in 40 percent of the world’s nations.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Counter-terrorism, and War on Terror
- Political Geography:
- Africa, Europe, South Asia, Central Asia, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
4. United States Budgetary Costs of the Post-9/11 Wars Through FY2019: $5.9 Trillion Spent and Obligated
- Author:
- Neta C. Crawford
- Publication Date:
- 11-2018
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University
- Abstract:
- The United States has appropriated and is obligated to spend an estimated $5.9 trillion (in current dollars) on the war on terror through Fiscal Year 2019, including direct war and war-related spending and obligations for future spending on post9/11 war veterans. This number differs substantially from the Pentagon’s estimates of the costs of the post-9/11 wars because it includes not only war appropriations made to the Department of Defense – spending in the war zones of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and in other places the government designates as sites of “overseas contingency operations,” – but also includes spending across the federal government that is a consequence of these wars. Specifically, this is war-related spending by the Department of State, past and obligated spending for war veterans’ care, interest on the debt incurred to pay for the wars, and the prevention of and response to terrorism by the Department of Homeland Security. If the US continues on its current path, war spending will continue to grow.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Government, Military Affairs, Budget, Military Spending, War on Terror, and Veterans
- Political Geography:
- Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, South Asia, Middle East, Syria, and United States of America
5. The Costs of War: Obstacles to Public Understanding
- Author:
- Steven Aftergood
- Publication Date:
- 11-2018
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University
- Abstract:
- Public access to information about government spending is presumed – and required – by the US Constitution, which directs that “a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time” (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7). It is remarkable that, among all of the many categories of government information, budget information is singled out for publication in this way. The ability of the public to “follow the money” expended by its government is understood to be an essential prerequisite to self-rule. Budget data that are secret, unreliable, or otherwise unavailable are incompatible with constitutional democracy. In practice, however, public access to budget information is imperfect and incomplete. In the crucial area of national defense, the scale of spending alone makes it hard to grasp. Public understanding of the costs of war is further limited by secrecy, faulty accounting, and the deferral of current costs.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Government, National Security, Military Spending, and Transparency
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
6. The Landmine Ban: A Case Study in Humanitarian Advocacy
- Author:
- Don Hubert
- Publication Date:
- 01-2000
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University
- Abstract:
- <p><font size="+1">Don Hubert</font> </p><p>Occasional Paper #42<br /> 2000</p><p> Thomas J. Watson Institute for International Studies </p><br /><br /><p><font size="+1">Summary</font> </p><p>This study begins by discussing a historical case similar in many ways to the landmines campaign—the banning of the dum dum bullet in the nineteenth century. It then provides a detailed account of the emergence and development of the campaign from initial attempts to restrict landmines in the 1970s, through the birth of the international nongovernmental organization campaign in the early 1990s, to the signing of the Landmines Convention in December 1997. It also provides a thorough assessment of the key factors accounting for their success and a discussion of the broader significance of the campaign.</p><p>Two broad conclusions are drawn. First, while much of the credit for the successful banning of landmines has deservedly gone to the ICBL and to NGO advocates, the success of the campaign can be explained only through an examination of three other sets of actors: the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations, and key governments. Each of the four sets of actors played a distinct and indispensable role. At the same time, important circumstances completely outside the control of the campaign were also decisive, particularly the end of the Cold War and decisions by the U.S. government.</p><p>A second conclusion questions the widely perceived novelty of this initiative in humanitarian advocacy and stresses instead its similarity to earlier initiatives. Indeed, observers differ on the broader significance of the campaign. For some, it was an aberration, impossible to replicate. For others, it was a harbinger of a new diplomacy, revitalizing if not revolutionizing humanitarian politics. Stark parallels exist with the style of negotiations before World War II on humanitarian law and disarmament, particularly the 1899 Hague Convention's ban on dum dum bullets. Civil society organizations played a major role in the negotiations, and stringent provisions were pursued even though they posed a threat to universal agreement.</p><p>The study concludes with a discussion of an emerging model for humanitarian politics. The examination of the campaign to ban landmines is complemented by a brief analysis of three comparable campaigns from the 1990s: the creation of an International Criminal Court, the Optional Protocol on child soldiers, and attempts to limit the proliferation of small arms. Taken together, these experiences suggest that a model for effective humanitarian advocacy is emerging with three broad dimensions. They are the pursuit of stringent standards with widespread but not necessarily universal support; political coalition building among NGOs, states, and international organizations; and negotiating environments that allow for voting rather than consensus decisionmaking, access for NGOs, and the selection of a supportive chairperson.</p><blockquote><p> (PDF)</p> </blockquote><p> </p><p> </p>
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Human Rights, and International Organization