Search

Begin New Search Political Geography United States of America Publication Year within 10 Years

1251. Comparative Approaches to Reconciliation: Canada, United States of America, Australia and New Zealand

Author:
Ben J. Geboe
Publication Date:
01-2015
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institute for the Study of International Development, McGill University
Abstract:
This paper examines the approaches taken by the Governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States to address the issue of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. A wide array of activities have been employed in these countries to improve relations with Indigenous communities. The paper notes that no single program or policy can address reconciliation, and that much remains to be done in order to achieve societies that are cognizant of the historical and contemporary contexts that have contributed to the current socio-economic reality of Indigenous peoples in the four countries examined. The definition of reconciliation is also complex and no single definition can be deemed to capture the dynamic of state and community relations. The review of policies and programs addressing reconciliation in the four countries examined is not exhaustive in nature. Programs and policies have been chosen based on government and community feedback indicating they were making a difference. From these experiences, key elements of programs and policies required to address reconciliation are compiled. The findings stress that reconciliation is a long-term process, based on truth, informed decision-making and accountability on the part of all partners involved. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is used as a lens to observe whether it can be used to address reconciliation efforts in a constructive manner. Many experts argue that the spirit of the UNDRIP could act as a symbolic guide and framework to address reconciliation efforts. In conclusion, the paper notes that reconciliation efforts in each country will require support and long term commitment from all sectors of society. It will also require the renewal of a partnership based on mutual long-term goals and objectives. The partnership must be closely monitored, supported and be based on mutual respect and accountability if it is to flourish.
Topic:
Human Rights, United Nations, Indigenous, and Reconciliation
Political Geography:
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and United States of America

1252. What a Real Liberal Foreign Policy Would Look Like

Author:
Jeffrey Lewis
Publication Date:
06-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Abstract:
Chris Murphy, Brian Schatz, and Martin Heinrich — three Democratic members of Congress — have written an essay in Foreign Affairs titled, “Principles for a Progressive Foreign Policy.” It is, of course, predictably, terrible. My colleagues are already forming up. Being a good progressive, I can’t resist embroiling myself in the coming silliness. What really bothers me about the essay is that, despite the title, there are no “principles” to be found anywhere in the text. Just some well-worn clichés (a “new Marshall Plan”) and anodyne recommendations (consult with allies). The essay does not offer a principle that might distinguish those of us on the left from our friends on the right or a principle that might link our domestic and foreign policies. That’s a pretty important thing if we hope that future Democratic administrations will be able to articulate a strategy that amounts to more than “Don’t do stupid shit.” As it happens, I believe there are such principles — or at least there are for lapsed philosophers like me. My very American strand of liberalism — and I prefer the phrase “liberalism” to “progressivism,” given my choice in philosophers — is defined by the work of the late John Rawls. He argued that justice is the first virtue of social institutions, and his works, A Theory of Justice and “Justice as Fairness,” made arguments about what a just society should look like. One particular principle stands out. After articulating the importance of certain liberties that could not be compromised and the importance of equality of opportunity, Rawls asked how society should view inequality.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Inequality, Leadership, and Liberalism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

1253. Ensuring Deterrence against Russia: The View from NATO States

Author:
Miles A. Pomper
Publication Date:
12-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Abstract:
Russia’s military actions in 2014 and 2015, particularly in Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria, have upended expectations among NATO members about their security and the future course of NATO-Russian relations. In response, many of the NATO states bordering Russia have argued for reinvigorating NATO’s deterrent capabilities after two decades of drawing down conventional and nuclear forces in the immediate post-Cold War era. At its 2014 summit in Wales, NATO agreed to a number of short-term measures to bolster the alliance’s conventional deterrent, dubbed the Readiness Action Plan. But as the standoff with Russia has continued, some analysts—particularly in the United States—have argued for additional deterrence measures, including in the nuclear realm. In response, researchers from the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies of the Middlebury Institute for International Studies at Monterey travelled to the NATO front-line states of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Turkey to assess the perceptions of governmental and nongovernmental experts regarding how NATO should respond to Russian actions, with an emphasis on how nuclear issues should be addressed. Our research also included meetings with experts in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as a thorough review of existing literature in the field on issues such as Russia’s new military approach and US nuclear weapon policies—past, present, and future. It was conducted with the aim of providing analysis and recommendations to NATO states in advance of the July 2016 NATO summit in Warsaw. The following report highlights the key findings of this research, provides analysis on a country-by-country basis, and concludes with recommendations for consideration in Warsaw.
Topic:
NATO, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
Russia, United Kingdom, Europe, North Atlantic, Germany, North America, and United States of America