Search

Begin New Search Topic Peace Political Geography United States of America

91. FRAMEWORK DEAL: A LONG-TERM PATH TO PEACE IN AFGHANISTAN

Author:
Matthew Hauenstein and Madhav Joshi
Publication Date:
02-2019
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Political Violence @ A Glance
Abstract:
Two weeks ago, the US envoy to Afghanistan announced that American and Taliban negotiators had drafted a negotiation framework to end the 17-year long war in Afghanistan. Though American troops ousted the Taliban government following September 11th, the Taliban initiated a long-running insurgency against the US-backed Afghan government. After more than a decade of fighting, the Afghan government, the United States, and Taliban insurgents each failed to secure victory and, instead, the conflict has reached an unfavorable equilibrium for each of the parties. The framework deal, therefore, is expected to shift the status quo in Afghanistan’s politics and provide an exit strategy for US troops.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Taliban, Negotiation, and Peace
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, South Asia, North America, and United States of America

92. Contentious Politics in Afghanistan and the U.S. Efforts for Peace (2008-2018)

Author:
Rana Eijaz Ahmad
Publication Date:
07-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Political Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
Afghanistan has been a battlefield for big powers for last four decades. In 1979, Russia invaded in Afghanistan and the U.S. fought a proxy war in the region with the help of Pakistan. Russian withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan under Geneva accord in 1988 caused disintegration of the former Soviet Union in 1991. The Taliban government emerged in Afghanistan in 1994 and a regime of contentious politics started in Afghanistan. It allegedly caused terrorism at local as well as international level. The U.S. alienated itself from the region after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. In September 2001, Osama Bin Laden purportedly attacked the U.S. security hub Pentagon and economic hub World Trade Centre. America retaliated with cruise missile and invaded in Afghanistan in 2001. After the U.S. claim for killing Osama in May 2011 in Abbotabad, Pakistan, decided to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan in 2014. The U.S. wishes to sustain peace in the region after its withdrawal. It intends to ensure all the conflicting parties that they should come on table for a peaceful bargaining. The U.S. is rehabilitating Afghanistan with her allies. Afghanistan was destructed during the war on terror. This paper is based on the theory of contentious politics introduced by three American sociologists, Sidney Tarrow, Charles Tilly, and Doug McAdam. The tipping point theory is also used in the backdrop of 9/11 incident. It is explained with primary as well as secondary sources.
Topic:
Politics, History, Afghanistan, and Peace
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, South Asia, North America, and United States of America

93. National Security in the Age of Hybrid War

Author:
Ilhami B. Değirmencioğlu
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Global Political Trends Center (GPoT)
Abstract:
During the course of the past 10 years, the security environment has become more complex due to the blurring of the lines of warfare. Therefore, the ‘gray zone’ between peace and war expanded and became a battlefield of non-conventional warfare such as counterinsurgency, terrorism, cyber-attacks, etc. (Mansoor, 2012: 1). The failed and fragile states in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, as well as non-recognized de facto states in the Caucasus played catalytic role in the expansion of the non-conventional warfare. Moreover, Great Powers inclined to use increasingly the non-conventional warfare in the proxy and delegated wars waged by them. In the recent years, the non-state actors used innovative and complicated tactics against legal authorities in many countries. The prevalence of the new complex threats transformed the classic war concept into a concept called ‘new wars.’ Due to the combined use of the conventional and non-conventional warfare, many scholars and politicians started to call the new model of war as ‘hybrid war.’
Topic:
National Security, Conflict, Peace, and Hybrid Warfare
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, Global Focus, and United States of America

94. “Pax Americana”: the United States and the transformation of the 20th century’s global order

Author:
Patrick O. Cohrs
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (RBPI)
Institution:
Instituto Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (IBRI)
Abstract:
This article seeks to re-appraise the transformation of America’s international role and its influence on the transformation of the 20th century’s global order. It focuses on a re-appraisal of US aspirations to construct a “Pax Americana” and their impact on an unprecedented peace system that was first conceptualised after 1918 but only consolidated after 1945: the cold war’s transatlantic peace order. Yet my analysis also highlights important distinctions between American conceptions and behaviour vis-à-vis Europe and the superpower’s more hierarchical and often neo-imperialist approaches to “global order” and other regions during the cold war, including East Asia and Latin America.
Topic:
Cold War, History, Peace, Transatlantic Relations, International Order, and Pax Americana
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

95. Moving the Markers

Author:
David M. Weinberg
Publication Date:
07-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
The Clinton-Obama parameters haven’t worked – not for 25 years of peacemaking efforts since Oslo. They have lead to deadlock and much suffering. Let’s give the Trump team credit for taking a fresh look at what is safe, wise, fair and realistic in today’s Israeli-Palestinian reality.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Territorial Disputes, Leadership, Borders, and Peace
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America

96. Still Pro-Israel?

Author:
David M. Weinberg
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
Some hard-left Jews are out to sabotage the Birthright program. They are cutting away the limb – love for, and identification with, Israel – upon which all pro-Israel Jewish community activity must be based.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Nationalism, Diaspora, Non State Actors, and Peace
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America

97. The U.S.-Japan-ROK Trilateral: Better at Deterrence than Diplomacy?

Author:
Sheila A. Smith
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
Once more, the United States, South Korea, and Japan have confronted a crisis with North Korea. The pattern is now well established. First, there is a provocation—a missile test, a nuclear test, and even worse, the use of force. Next, the United States and its allies in Northeast Asia muster their forces, strengthen their trilateral policy coordination, and sanction the belligerent Pyongyang. The three nations advocate for the accompanying effort by the United Nations Security Council to condemn North Korea’s behavior. Setting aside their political differences, Seoul and Tokyo intensify their military cooperation and Washington calls for greater trilateral unity in confronting a shared security challenge. In 2017, policymakers in Seoul, Washington, and Tokyo found themselves in a similar cycle but with the threat of war ever more real. The dramatic escalation of tensions between President Donald J. Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un seemed to bring the region to the brink of a second Korean conflict. But today, just as dramatically, an accelerated series of high-level summits suggests that the Korean Peninsula could be on the brink of peace. President Moon Jae-in met with Kim at Panmunjom, and both Kim and Moon stepped across the line of demarcation at the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea. The two leaders have embraced a “new era of peace,” with the promise of ending the state of war on the peninsula. Trump has also said he is willing to meet Kim to discuss denuclearization. CIA director Mike Pompeo visited Pyongyang on April 1 to test out that proposition, and as secretary of state, Pompeo had the lead in setting the stage for a meeting in Singapore. The Moon-Kim meeting set up the premise of a negotiated denuclearization process. Trump and Kim will define the contours of that path forward.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Peace
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, South Korea, North America, Korea, and United States of America

98. The United States and India: Forging an Indispensable Democratic Partnership

Author:
Center for American Progress Task Force on U.S.-India Relations
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The United States and India must forge an indispensable democratic partnership that can serve as a pillar of peace, prosperity, and democracy around the world.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Partnerships, Democracy, Alliance, and Peace
Political Geography:
India, Asia, North America, and United States of America

99. Making Sense of the Trump-Kim Summit

Author:
Michael Fuchs and Abigail Bard
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The upcoming June 12 summit in Singapore between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is truly unprecedented: It will be the first time ever that sitting leaders of the two countries will meet. The 70-year history of U.S.-North Korea relations is one of conflict and mistrust: the Korean War, followed by decades of a cold peace interspersed with violent incidents; no formal diplomatic relations; and numerous attempts at talks and agreements to halt North Korean weapons programs, none of which succeeded.1 The upcoming meeting between the two leaders has engendered a wide variety of reactions, from hope that this diplomatic process can finally end the conflict on the Korean Peninsula to deep skepticism that this is a North Korean ploy to buy time for its nuclear weapons programs, get economic sanctions relief, and gain international prestige. Whatever the truth, the two countries are in uncharted waters.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Leadership, Peace, and Summit
Political Geography:
Asia, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

100. PEACE ENFORCEMENT AND THE GEOGRAPHY OF VIOLENCE AGAINST CIVILIANS

Author:
Jay Benson
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Political Violence @ A Glance
Abstract:
UN peacekeeping is facing significant challenges. The peacekeeping budget has taken significant cuts, and there are likely to be more. Yet, while resources are shrinking, peacekeeping missions are being asked to do more, particularly regarding the use of force to protect civilians. Faced with declining resources and a task as difficult as civilian protection, missions will be forced to do more with less. So how can they begin to address this challenge?
Topic:
United Nations, Counterinsurgency, Peacekeeping, Violence, Peace, Civilians, Protection, and Enforcement
Political Geography:
Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and United States of America