Search

Begin New Search Topic Military Strategy Publication Year within 25 Years

1501. Missile Defense System Negotiations: Washington-Warsaw-Moscow Triangle

Author:
Richard Rousseau
Publication Date:
06-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
When in March 1983 Ronald Reagan announced the initial plans to build a missile defense system purported to be able to “intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our [U.S.] own soil or that of our allies,” he in reality proclaimed the end of the deterrence and so called “balance of terror” doctrines which had formed the basis of the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union during what is known as the Cold War. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), more commonly known at the time as "Star Wars," reformulated the power equation that had underpinned the “détente" period (1971-80). This project was abandoned with the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in1991, which marked the end of the Cold War. However, more than ten years later, President George W. Bush reactivated it, signing bilateral agreements with the Czech Republic and Poland for the deployment of a radar system and advanced land based missile interceptors. With the election of President Barack Obama, the missile defense system was transformed from a bilateral project to a multilateral one, directly involving European allies and the very structure of the NATO alliance. The Kremlin strongly opposed the Euro-American missile deployment project, first in the 1980s and again into the 21th Century. Today as in the past, Russia’s complaints and rhetoric remain basically unchanged. It claims that the shield would compromise the effectiveness of the Russian long-range nuclear arsenal, thus drastically alter the balance of power with the West. A turning point seemed to have taken place at the NATO summit in Lisbon in November 2010. Following a lively debate among diplomats, the European allies unanimously signed an agreement for the deployment of a missile defense system, which would provide “full coverage” of the Alliance area by 2020. More importantly, the final declaration of the summit heralded the birth of “cooperation with Russia in a spirit of reciprocity, maximum transparency and mutual confidence.” However, such good intentions and noble sentiments are regarded as mere words by some, as there is no serious likelihood that both sides will cooperate on a joint defense project of this nature.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Missile Defense
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Poland, North America, and United States of America

1502. From Washington to Seoul: Advancing Nuclear Security Objectives

Author:
Olexander Motsyk
Publication Date:
05-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
lexander Motsyk is Ambassador of Ukraine to the U.S. Being a career diplomat, Mr. Motsyk has worked for more than 30 years in the field of foreign relations. Prior to his assignment in the U.S. he served as Ambassador of Ukraine to Turkey and Poland. His diplomatic career also includes such positions as First Deputy Foreign Minister as well as Foreign Policy Advisor to the President of Ukraine. His work was marked by the Commander Cross and Star of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland (2010), The Order of Merit, II Degree (2006) and The Order of Justice, I Degree, of the World Jurist Association (2005). In this op-ed Mr. Motsyk discusses Ukraine’s contribution to global nuclear safety and security and importance of international cooperation to make the world a safer place to live in.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Nuclear Safety
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1503. What a Tangled Web: India Caught Between U.S. and Iranian Interests

Author:
Felix Imonti
Publication Date:
06-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
India is caught between the consequences of provoking a United States driven by its fixation upon the Iranian nuclear program and by an Iran that is a major supplier of oil, providing India with access to its vital interests in Afghanistan. The best that the Ind
Topic:
Diplomacy, Energy Policy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, India, Asia, North America, and United States of America

1504. Storm Clouds on the Horizon: A Possible New Cold War With China

Author:
Paul Nash
Publication Date:
06-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
“Red China’s sub fleet can prove a major threat to American ships,” wrote Albert Ravenholt for the Chicago Daily News Service in 1964, referring to Mao’s underwater menace to American naval forces assembling in the South China Sea off the coast of Vietnam. The communist submarines, supplied by the Russians, were stationed on Hainan Island, at the southernmost tip of the Chinese mainland, across the Gulf of Tonkin. At the time, China was estimated to have between 30 and 40 in operation, the fourth largest fleet after the U.S.S.R, the United States and Great Britain. Nearly 48 years on, much has changed and yet much continues on the same trajectory. When Ravenholt, who set about becoming a reporter in Shanghai in the 1940s during the Second Sino-Japanese war, died at the age of 90 in 2010, China remained Red, even though its ideological hue had turned arguably more nationalistic after three decades of rising prosperity. China has modernized its military in tandem with its economic growth. It has committed itself to significant military spending, endeavouring to catch up to the West’s technological prowess by building advanced precision-guided munitions, anti-satellite and cyber-warfare capabilities. Last year, it unveiled the Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter jet, which is expected to go into service in 2017-19. It has also set up a land-based anti-ship missile system to limit the ability of other nations to navigate freely in regional waters, including those around the disputed Paracel and Spratly Islands, which it estimates may contain the world’s fourth largest reserve of oil and natural gas.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Science and Technology, Military Strategy, and Conflict
Political Geography:
United States, China, Asia, and North America

1505. Congress Considers New Sanctions on Iran - But Why

Author:
Paul Nadeau
Publication Date:
07-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
It is not surprising that Congress can take a more aggressive stance on foreign policy issues than the Executive: Congress rarely bears the loss in foreign policy mistakes (consider where foreign policy issues rank on voters’ lists of priorities) and that consequently gives Congress an opportunity to demonstrate leadership, since high profile issues in most other issue areas carry considerably more risk. The result is that Congress will often take a position that is contrary to that of the Executive, most frequently by adopting a more extreme position, and then either assailing the Executive for a lack of leadership when the Executive does not follow or by taking credit when the Executive adopts Congress’s position. The most recent example is the issue of Iran’s nuclear program—which is likely the only current issue where there is genuine bipartisan support, famously evidenced in the Senate’s December 2011 100-0 passage of legislation sanctioning Iran’s financial sector. So far, international sanctions, and particularly the European Union’s sanctions of Iran’s oil sector, seem to have succeeded in damaging Iran’s economy and possibly even encouraging them to negotiate, though a breakthrough has been elusive. The problem is that while the sanctions may have succeeded in crippling Iran’s (already weak) economy so far, the goal of the sanctions program is supposed to have been to convince Iran to terminate its nuclear program. On that score, it’s unclear that additional sanctions may help the American cause and it might even undermine it.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Sanctions
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

1506. Drones in Our World, Part IV: Adapting a Warfighter

Author:
Whitney Grespin
Publication Date:
08-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
Aerial surveillance and remote sensing are nothing new in the world of combat reconnaissance, but they are new tools in the arsenal of the humanitarian relief and development communities. And they are rapidly evolving. Complex, disaster, and rapidly evolving environments all require the capability to promptly collect, analyze, and disseminate critical information that UAVs can gather and exploit in ways and quantities that other resources cannot rival.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Military Strategy, Drones, Humanitarian Intervention, and Conflict
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

1507. The New U.S. Defense Strategic Guidance and Its Implications for South Korean Security

Author:
Young Ho Kim
Publication Date:
02-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
On January 5, 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama paid a rare visit to the Pentagon and unveiled his guidelines for the Department of Defense to set the goals and priorities of its defense strategy for the next ten years. The resulting eight-page-long guidelines, entitled Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense (hereafter DSG), contain the administration’s assessment of changing global security conditions and propose the roles and shape of the U.S. armed forces for the coming decade. Prepared through “unprecedentedly” close consultations between the President himself and senior leaders in the U.S. defense department and military including both service chiefs and combatant commanders, the DSG defines the present as a historic “inflection point” and envisions the future U.S. military as “smaller and leaner, but agile, flexible, ready and technologically advanced.” Moreover, in accordance with the DSG the U.S. defense budget will be cut by $487 billion and the sizes of the Army and Marine Corps will shrink by 80,000 and 14,000 respectively over the next ten years. While a more detailed picture will be revealed next month with the administration’s FY2013 budget request to Congress, the DSG reflects the Obama administration’s arduous effort to rebalance and redirect its defense priorities and spending under severe fiscal austerity. Because of the unusual timing of its publication and the magnitude of the reduction in defense spending, the DSG has generated controversy and concern domestically in the United States as well as internationally. In the United States, particularly people in the conservative wing of the Republican Party have been prompted to criticize the guidelines for putting the nation’s security in danger, whereas some people on the liberal side have advocated seeking deeper and bolder cuts in defense spending. Internationally, China was understandably the first to respond negatively to the DSG. For example, rebutting the DSG’s portrayal of Beijing’s military policy as lacking transparency as “groundless and untrustworthy,” Liu Weimin, a spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, stressed that Beijing was committed to peaceful development and “defensive” policy. What then are the implications of the DSG for South Korean security? Will there be any changes in U.S. defense policy or posture in the region under the DSG that may affect security conditions in South Korea significantly and, if so, require new measures or scrutiny by the South Korean government or the military? In fact, there have been largely four issues raised by the news media in South Korea. I will examine these four issues, and then discuss more challenging concerns that will require closer attention by South Korean foreign and security policy-makers.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

1508. The Nuclear Security Summit and South Korea’s Growing International Role

Author:
Sang-Hyun Lee
Publication Date:
04-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
On March 26-27, 2012, South Korea successfully held the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit. This was the largest diplomatic gathering ever held in South Korea with fifty-three countries and four international non-governmental organizations participating. Alongside the summit, President Lee Myung-bak held twenty-seven bilateral talks which helped to elevate South Korea’s international role. The Seoul Summit has been judged to have produced a more concrete outcome that has strongly supported the achievements made at the Washington Summit in 2010. The result is the Seoul Communiqué, which states that nuclear disarmament, nuclear nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy are the shared goals of humanity while also reconfirming the commitment to seeking a safer world for all and sharing the objective of nuclear security. Moreover, the communiqué stresses the fundamental responsibility of all countries, consistent with their respective national and international obligations, to maintain effective security of all nuclear material, which includes nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities under their control, as well as to prevent non-state actors from acquiring such materials and from obtaining information or technology required to use them for malicious purposes. The communiqué further reaffirms that measures to strengthen nuclear security will not hamper the rights of states to develop and utilize nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. With North Korea’s nuclear threat still overshadowing the Korean Peninsula, the summit had some meaningful implications. South Korea will have undoubtedly enhanced its national image from passive recipient to an active rule-maker in international norms. In preparing for the summit, the South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MOFAT) focused on comprehensive and action-oriented measures under the belief that by only transforming political commitments from the Washington Summit into action would guarantee the success of the summit. As a result, the Seoul Summit has demonstrated that the promises from the 2010 Washington Summit have now advanced to fruitful outcomes. The seventy-two commitments from that summit have now been almost realized with only a few still to be finalized. In addition, the Seoul Summit has proven itself to be the transition point for global nuclear security moving from political declaration to concrete implementation. The summit itself has also widened its agenda including nuclear safety, the safe use of nuclear energy and radioactive materials, therefore able to address some of the key issues raised following the Fukushima accident. Despite the achievements, some limitations are evident when looking at the preparations for the summit and its aftermath. In the build-up to the summit in South Korea, there were problems in communication between state and people. While the summit is dedicated to preventing nuclear terrorism, some questioned why South Korea was hosting a summit that did not address issues closer to home such as the North Korean nuclear issue or the U.S.-Korea nuclear energy agreement controversy. Such criticism required strong justification of why South Korea was hosting the summit. Another area of difficulty was that nuclear security itself actually lacks a clear definition even among experts. To cope with such questions, MOFAT sought for advice and creative ideas by hosting advisory board meetings during the preparation for the summit.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Summit
Political Geography:
Asia and South Korea

1509. Türkiye’nin İsrail ile İlişkilerinin Değişen Dinamikleri: Bir ‘Güvenlikleştirme’ Analizi* | The Changing Dynamics of Turkey’s Relations with Israel: An Analysis of ‘Securitization’

Author:
Ali Balcı and Tuncay Kardaş
Publication Date:
12-2012
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Sakarya University (SAU)
Abstract:
Bu çalışmanın amacı şu sorulara cevap aramaktır: Ortadoğu’da düşük profilli bir politika izleyen Türkiye’nin 1990’larda İsrail devleti ile güçlü bir stratejik ittifak ilişkisi kurması nasıl mümkün olmuştur? Sonrasında bunun tersine iki ülke arasında 1990’lardaki benzersiz ve pozitif ilişkilerin yerini 2000’lerde neden düşmanca bir ortam almıştır? 1990’lar ile 2000’lerdeki ilişkilerin arasındaki bu fark nasıl açıklanabilir? Bu soruları cevaplamak için makale Kopenhag Okulu’nun “güvenlikleştirme” kavramını kullanmaktadır. Bu yaklaşım sadece Türkiye-İsrail ilişkilerindeki farklı dönemlerin özelliklerini resmetmeye yardımcı olmamakta, aynı zamanda politik anlamda sivil-asker ilişkilerinin dış politika yapımındaki etkisini vurgulamaya da imkân sağlamaktadır. | The present study seeks to answer the following questions: How was it possible that a state such as Turkey, which had until then pursued a low-profile policy in the Middle East, has able to forge a bold strategic alliance with the state of Israel in the 1990s? Conversely then, why was the unparalleled and positive nature of relations in the 1990s replaced by a hostile and toxic nature in the first decade of the 2000s? How can this difference in the relations between the 1990s and 2000s be explained? To answer such questions, this article uses the Copenhagen School’s theory of securitization. This approach not only helps to illustrate the characteristics of different periods in Turkish-Israeli relations, it also helps to highlight the specificity of the politics of civilmilitary relations in foreign policy making.
Topic:
Security, Government, Military Strategy, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
Turkey, Middle East, and Israel

1510. Explaining the Pentagon’s Defense Strategy

Author:
Julie Zelnick and Mieke Eoyang
Publication Date:
05-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
The purpose of this paper is to translate the long and technical national security strategic directive the Obama Administration laid out on January 5, 2012 into plain language and provide policymakers with guidance on how to make the case for the President’s plan. The directive has four over-arching goals, which are reflected in the budget
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Imperialism, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
United States, North America, and Global Focus