Number of results to display per page
Search Results
702. Strengthening Oversight of the Security Sector
- Author:
- Erik Sportel (ed) and Vasili Tchkoidze (ed)
- Publication Date:
- 10-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Centre for European Security Studies
- Abstract:
- Since the 2003 Rose Revolution, Georgia has undertaken serious reforms, moving the country towards becoming a democracy and a market economy. Instead of proceeding at a steady pace, Georgia has chosen to take an accelerated path to reform. Since coming to office, the Saakashvili administration has underlined its ambition to bring Georgia into Euro-Atlantic structures. After an energetic start, Georgia ran into difficulties in late 2007 and 2008. During this period, the democratic credential s of the Saakashvili government were put to the test for the first time. The government was faced with massive public demonstrations, to which it res ponded in a heavy-handed fashion. The security forces attacked protesters, and the government declared a state of emergency, blaming the unrest on Russia. M any domestic and foreign observers feared that Georgia was abandoning the road to democracy. However, the state of emergency was soon lifted, and the government called an early presidential election. International observer s judged the election to be largely democratic, despite some irregularities, but opposition forces claimed that the president's results had been boosted by fraud. Mr Saakashvili won an absolute majority in the first round of polling. The subsequent parliamentary elections in the spring of 2008 gave the ruling United National Movement party a landslide victory. With 119 out of 150 seats, the party currently holds a two-thirds majority in parliament. The two major opposition parties (winning 17 and six seats respectively) refused to take their seats in parliament.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Democratization, and Non-Governmental Organization
- Political Geography:
- Europe and Caucasus
703. NATO's Fight Against Terrorism: Where Do We stand?
- Author:
- Claudia Bernasconi
- Publication Date:
- 04-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- NATO Defense College
- Abstract:
- Terrorism has played a major role in shaping the global security landscape over the last decade, one important manifestation of this being its consequences for NATO. The 9/11 attacks resulted in a considerable and unexpected commitment for the Alliance, which subsequently experienced a reorientation towards new challenges; within a very short time, terrorism reached the very top of NATO's agenda. A decade after 9/11 - and with the Alliance nourished by the lifeblood of the New Strategic Concept - it is time for a critical assessment. What has NATO done? What are the shortcomings of its actions? What is left to do? The role played by the Alliance, together with the goals thus achieved, will be brought into focus in the first part of this study. Following this, an investigation into the real limits NATO encounters in combating terrorism will lead us to ponder the efforts which are still to be undertaken, highlighting potential future recommendations.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Terrorism, International Security, and Reform
704. Building a new military? The NATO Training Mission-Iraq
- Author:
- Florence Gaub
- Publication Date:
- 04-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- NATO Defense College
- Abstract:
- The military is the cradle of the state - simply because security precedes any social or economic development. In the 1990s, this consideration led to the advent of Security Sector Reform, essentially the consequence of the perception that building up strong and viable security institutions under civilian control is a precondition of state consolidation. The multiple defense reforms NATO assisted in many former Warsaw Pact member states, and the NATO Training Cooperation Initiative launched in 2006, are part of the consequent logic of military development aid, which is not entirely altruistic. Security is an intertwined construct, and the Alliance relies on stability and security in other states in order to ensure its own. In this context, NATO's Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-I) is just a logical step - although surprising to some, given that it was Iraq that caused the Alliance a "near-death experience." Four years later it was followed by a sister mission in Afghanistan, indicating a trend in security force assistance that is likely to grow.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Iraq, and Middle East
705. NATO's Nuclear Posture Review: Nuclear Sharing Instead of Nuclear Stationing
- Author:
- Karl-Heinz Kamp
- Publication Date:
- 05-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- NATO Defense College
- Abstract:
- On January 25, 2011 the first meeting of NATO's "Deterrence and Defense Posture Review" (DDPR) took place. This acronym describes a new Committee consisting of the Deputy Permanent Representatives of all NATO member countries, chaired by the NATO Deputy Secretary General Claudio Bisogniero. Its task is no less than to find a new Alliance consensus on the role of nuclear weapons in NATO's overall deterrence and defense posture. DDPR is set to address the crux of the nuclear question - in other words, "how to deter whom with what?"
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, NATO, Nuclear Weapons, and Nuclear Power
- Political Geography:
- Europe and Germany
706. Japan’s National Defense Program Guidelines 2010 and Its Implication to South Korean Security Policies
- Author:
- Young-June Park
- Publication Date:
- 01-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- On December 17, 2010, the government of Japan updated its most strategically important document entitled “National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG), FY 2011-” following confirmation from both the Security Council and the Cabinet. The new defense plan released along with the “Mid-Term Defense Program for FY2011-2015” addresses the objectives and the methods of the Japanese Self Defense Forces. Moreover, the plan also outlines Japan’s future military strategies as well as the fundamental tenets of its defense policy. Whereas in the United States, the White House, Pentagon, and Joint Chiefs all release new guidelines each time a new administration comes to power, Japan does not have such a regular format for its defense plan. This makes the National Defense Program Guidelines a comprehensive strategic document that covers every aspect of Japan’s military defense. First introduced in 1976, the Guidelines has only been updated twice in 1995 and 2004. The NDPG in 1976 reflected Japan’s security and military strategy during the Cold War, while the 1995 and the 2004 guidelines reflected strategies for the post-Cold War era and the beginning of 21st century after 9/11, respectively. What then do these updated guidelines in 2010 signify? And in what context should this defense plan be seen? Firstly, the structural changes that have occurred in the security environment of East Asia should be taken into consideration. North Korea conducted nuclear tests twice in 2006 and 2009. In 2010, it displayed new levels of provocation by sinking the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan and shelling Yeonpyeong Island. These actions not only threaten the Korean Peninsula but also the entire region. Added to that, China surpassed Japan as the second largest economy after the United States and has become more assertive over maritime disputes with Japan. How all these military and economic changes are projected in the document deserves close analysis. Secondly, unlike previous NDPGs that were written during the long years under the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), the 2010 Guidelines are part of the first strategic document that reflects the strategic outlook and security approach of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). Since the DPJ assumed power, it has long tried to differentiate itself from LDP in its decision making procedures and actual policies. Such tendencies are naturally reflected in its security policies as well. How do these guidelines differ from the NDPGs issued under the LDP? In short, the National Defense Program Guidelines 2010 is the best resource with which to understand how Japan perceives the changed security environment, and what strategic concepts and military capability it is preparing for in face of future security challenges.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Missile Defense
- Political Geography:
- Japan and Asia
707. Ambivalence toward North Korea: South Korean Public Perceptions Following the Attack on Yeonpyeong Island
- Author:
- Nae-Young Lee and Han-Wool Jeong
- Publication Date:
- 01-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- In 2010 there were two major North Korean provocations against South Korea as tensions mounted on the Korean Peninsula and in the broader region. Following both the sinking of the ROK Navy corvette Cheonan and the artillery attack on Yeonpyeong Island, there has been a process within South Korean society to clarify where the responsibility lies and to find an appropriate direction for coping with a more aggressive North Korea. The way that politicians and the media have analyzed the situation has mostly been based upon a dichotomy of ‘war vs. peace.’ Public opinion on the other hand has displayed ambivalent attitudes toward war or peace, preferring to allow for both concepts to exist rather than choosing one over the other. The South Korean public does not support either appeasement policies that hold back from retaliation or hard line policies that could lead to a full-scale war. In the short term, the public shows mixed views toward improving inter-Korean relations. For the long term, however, the majority of the public favors that the government redirects its tough stance against North Korea toward more dialogue and cooperation. However, it should be noted that there is a growing opinion for maintaining hard-line policies against North Korea even for the long term. The EAI and Hankook Research, as part of its monthly Public Opinion Barometer, surveyed eight hundred people from around South Korea on November 27, 2010, four days after the attack on Yeonpyeong Island. The results of the November Public Opinion Barometer survey formed the basis of the EAI Issue Briefing on Public Opinion entitled “The Impact of North Korea’s Artillery Strike on Public Opinion in South Korea” which summed up the characteristics of public opinion after the incident . This Issue Briefing will use the results from that survey to provide analysis of the shifting public perceptions on policies toward North Korea.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Public Opinion, Conflict, and Survey
- Political Geography:
- Asia, South Korea, and North Korea
708. North Korea’s Hedging Strategy and South Korea’s Proactive Strategy
- Author:
- Kyung-Young Chung
- Publication Date:
- 06-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- The year 2010 saw heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula triggered by North Korea, as shown by the sinking of the Cheonan warship and the artillery attack against Yeonpyeong Island. Some experts, even some within the intelligence community, estimated that through these efforts Kim Jong-eun was attempting to strengthen his power in the succession struggle. North Korea’s provocative actions, however, while internally motivated, repeatedly force South Korea to pay a ransom to support three generations of succession within the royal Kim family, and create an almost insurmountable problem for the South. Defining the Yeonpyeong Island incident is critical to the national security posture of the Republic of Korea (ROK). Conducting an exercise of artillery fire against a specific target is one thing, but attacking South Korean territory is a different thing altogether. The latter implies an invasive action, a deliberate attack to secure a series of strategic objectives waged by limited warfare. In the context of North Korea’s provocation, the conflicting, competitive, yet also cooperative relationship between the United States and China had both a direct and an indirect impact on the Korean Peninsula. The ROK's weak, vacillating reaction against the North Korean provocation clearly revealed the ROK military's limitations in countering the North Korean threat. Since dealing with a provocative scenario has a tremendous impact on how the ROK responds, a comprehensive reassessment of the North Korean threat is imperative. Taking account of the complexity of power politics as well as North Korea's provocations, this briefing will explore a potential provocative scenario, which will be developed on the basis of Pyongyang’s intent, its capability to inflict threat using asymmetric war-fighting assets, and the North Korean perception of South Korea's political, social, economic, and military vulnerability. Finally, the briefing will make policy recommendations in terms of security and defense posture, international cooperation to deter North Korean provocation, and examine how to promptly and effectively deal with future crises in the event of any further military action from the North against the ROK.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Missile Defense
- Political Geography:
- Asia, South Korea, and North Korea
709. Blame Game under Fire: Parsing South Korean Debate on North Korea Policy
- Author:
- Dong Sun Lee
- Publication Date:
- 07-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- In late 2009, a North Korean warship attacked South Korean naval vessels near Daecheong Island. The following year witnessed a further elevation of North Korean aggression expressed in attacks on the South Korean corvette Cheonan and Yeonpyeong Island. These shocking developments have sparked a heated debate in the South, inter alia, on whether and how Seoul’s North Korea policy has increased Pyongyang’s belligerence. This paper aims to critically evaluate key arguments pervading the debate and offer an alternative perspective. (I limit my scope to examining how Seoul’s policy has affected Pyongyang’s recent aggressiveness, instead of offering a more comprehensive account of the provocations or a theory of North Korean behavior.) I argue that all conventional wisdom (which either denies the significance of North Korea policy or views the level of engagement as mainly shaping Pyongyang’s behavior) has only weak empirical support, but remains salient because it serves parochial political interests in the partisan blame game. In reality, Seoul’s policy toward Pyongyang has significantly amplified North Korean belligerence primarily because it has been partisan in nature—not because inter-Korean engagement has been excessive or insufficient. Resolving this problem requires promoting post-partisanship, to which independent scholars and institutions can contribute significantly.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Asia, South Korea, and North Korea
710. Japan’s National Defense Program Guidelines 2010 and Its Implication to South Korean Security Policies
- Author:
- Young-June Park
- Publication Date:
- 01-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- On December 17, 2010, the government of Japan updated its most strategically important document entitled “National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG), FY 2011-” following confirmation from both the Security Council and the Cabinet. The new defense plan released along with the “Mid-Term Defense Program for FY2011-2015” addresses the objectives and the methods of the Japanese Self Defense Forces. Moreover, the plan also outlines Japan’s future military strategies as well as the fundamental tenets of its defense policy. Whereas in the United States, the White House, Pentagon, and Joint Chiefs all release new guidelines each time a new administration comes to power, Japan does not have such a regular format for its defense plan. This makes the National Defense Program Guidelines a comprehensive strategic document that covers every aspect of Japan’s military defense. First introduced in 1976, the Guidelines has only been updated twice in 1995 and 2004. The NDPG in 1976 reflected Japan’s security and military strategy during the Cold War, while the 1995 and the 2004 guidelines reflected strategies for the post-Cold War era and the beginning of 21st century after 9/11, respectively. What then do these updated guidelines in 2010 signify? And in what context should this defense plan be seen? Firstly, the structural changes that have occurred in the security environment of East Asia should be taken into consideration. North Korea conducted nuclear tests twice in 2006 and 2009. In 2010, it displayed new levels of provocation by sinking the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan and shelling Yeonpyeong Island. These actions not only threaten the Korean Peninsula but also the entire region. Added to that, China surpassed Japan as the second largest economy after the United States and has become more assertive over maritime disputes with Japan. How all these military and economic changes are projected in the document deserves close analysis. Secondly, unlike previous NDPGs that were written during the long years under the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), the 2010 Guidelines are part of the first strategic document that reflects the strategic outlook and security approach of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). Since the DPJ assumed power, it has long tried to differentiate itself from LDP in its decision making procedures and actual policies. Such tendencies are naturally reflected in its security policies as well. How do these guidelines differ from the NDPGs issued under the LDP? In short, the National Defense Program Guidelines 2010 is the best resource with which to understand how Japan perceives the changed security environment, and what strategic concepts and military capability it is preparing for in face of future security challenges.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, Military Spending, and Missile Defense
- Political Geography:
- Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea