Although the House of Saud, Saudi Arabia's royal family, has long leaned toward the West, it is a corrupt totalitarian regime at sharp variance with America's most cherished values. Despite the well-publicized ties between the two governments, Saudi Arabia has seldom aided, and often hamstrung, U.S. attempts to combat terrorism.
Topic:
Defense Policy
Political Geography:
United States, America, Middle East, Arabia, and Saudi Arabia
Control of space is at the crux of the debate about the future of U.S. military space policy. The question is not about militarizing space. Clearly, we have been using and will continue to use space for military purposes. But, whereas we are currently using space assets to support terrestrial (ground, sea, and air) military operations, what Sen. Robert C. Smith (R-N.H.), the Space Commission (which was chaired by current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld), and others have proposed is that the United States move toward “weaponizing” space for space control.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, and Science and Technology
For months the Bush administration has been preparing the country for war with Iraq. The administration has argued that only a forcible regime change can neutralize the threat that Saddam Hussein is said to pose. But the assumptions that underlie the administration's policy range from cautiously pessimistic to outright fallacious. First, there is a prevalent belief that if Iraq is able to obtain nuclear weapons it will inevitably use them. Second, there is a notion that Hussein is totally irrational and cannot be trusted to act in a predictable manner; and, because of that, his leadership creates a substantial risk of instability in the Middle East. Finally, many people in the United States have come to believe that war in Iraq may be the only means of nullifying the threat posed by Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs.
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, several commentators have advanced the idea of security through empire. They claim that the best way to protect the United States in the 21st century is to emulate the British, Roman, and other empires of the past. The logic behind the idea is that if the United States can consolidate the international system under its enlightened hegemony, America will be both safer and more prosperous. Although the word “empire” is not used, the Bush administration's ambitious new National Security Strategy seems to embrace the notion of neoimperialism.
The United States has made common cause with an assortment of dubious regimes around the world to wage the war on drugs. Perhaps the most shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies.
Topic:
International Cooperation
Political Geography:
United States, South America, Latin America, Central America, and Caribbean
Argentina's currency crisis and economic depression have been caused by the bad policies of its government—not by banks, speculators, the International Monetary Fund (despite the bad advice it has given), or other scapegoats. The De la Rúa and Duhalde governments have made several gigantic blunders, namely, increasing tax rates, freezing bank deposits, devaluing the peso, and forcibly converting dollar bank deposits and contracts into pesos (“pesofication”).
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) was created in 1934 as an independent federal agency operating under a renewable congressional charter. That charter most recently expired on September 30, 2001. Since then, the Ex-Im Bank has been operating under a series of continuing resolutions set to expire on March 31, 2002.
Department of Social Sciences at West Point, United States Military Academy
Abstract:
This paper examines the current state of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India. While the dispute has been relegated to the back burner by the United States and deemed unsolvable, it could be resolved if the United States invested the resources and energy required. The Northern Ireland dispute serves as a model. Both countries would have to agree to postpone final resolution of the status of Kashmir, while demobilizing armed forces, ending terrorism, establishing a credible human rights regime, and opening the Line of Control to enable free contact by Kashmiris.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
Pakistan, United States, South Asia, India, Kashmir, and North Ireland
National unity in ordinary times is a preposterous ambition—at least according to some of the shrewdest leaders history has produced. “Only peril can bring the French together,” said Charles de Gaulle. “One can't impose unity...on a country that has 265 different kinds of cheese.” Anyone watching the United States after September 11, 2001 knows there is truth in de Gaulle's quip: External threat is always the surest route to solidarity. The need to survive often breaks down barriers of class, race, sex, faith, ideology, ethnicity, and more.
At the close of their discussions, the participants in the 100th American Assembly on "Art, Technology, and Intellectual Property," at Arden House, Harriman, New York, February 7-10, 2002, reviewed as a group the following statement. While the statement represents general agreement, no one was asked to sign it. Furthermore, it should be understood that not everyone agreed with all of it, and some vigorously disagreed with some of it.