Number of results to display per page
Search Results
332. This Watershed Moment for the Land(s) between the River and the Sea
- Author:
- Richard Silverstein
- Publication Date:
- 06-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Cairo Review of Global Affairs
- Institution:
- School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
- Abstract:
- The recent war between Israel and Hamas has transformed the moral calculus of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, Hamas, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, and Palestine
333. Locked-in Emissions: The Climate Change Arms Trade
- Author:
- Wendela de Vries
- Publication Date:
- 10-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Cairo Review of Global Affairs
- Institution:
- School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
- Abstract:
- With militaries’ locked-in fossil fuel systems and looming climate chaos, the arms industry continues to take advantage of nefarious profit opportunities.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Military Strategy, Natural Resources, Fossil Fuels, Private Sector, and Defense Industry
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
334. Starr Forum: US, Afghanistan, 9/11: Finished or Unfinished Business?
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Video
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- Chair: Barry Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science, MIT. He studies US grand strategy and national security policy. His most recent book is Restraint: A New Foundation for US Grand Strategy. Panelists: Juan Cole, Richard P Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History, University of Michigan. He is an expert on the modern Middle East, Muslim South Asia, and social and intellectual history. His most recent book is Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires. Carol Saivetz, Senior Advisor, MIT Security Studies Program. She is an expert on Soviet and now Russian foreign policy issues; and on topics ranging from energy politics in the Caspian and Black Sea regions, questions of stability in Central Asia, to Russian policy toward Iran. Vanda Felbab-Brown, Senior Fellow, Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, Brookings. She is the director of the Initiative on Nonstate Armed Actors and the co-director of the Africa Security Initiative. She recently co-authored The fate of women’s rights in Afghanistan. She received her PhD from MIT.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Counter-terrorism, State Building, and Intervention
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
335. Responses to 9-11: The United States, Europe, and the Middle East
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Video
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- Reflections on the One-Year Anniversary of 9/11
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Terrorism, Military Strategy, and Counter-terrorism
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
336. Starr Forum: Israelis and Palestinians: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
- Publication Date:
- 05-2021
- Content Type:
- Video
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- Experts discuss the current conflict between Israelis and Palestinians while also providing the historical context and a potential path forward.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Territorial Disputes, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, and Palestine
337. What Future for the Gaza Strip in the Next Five Years?
- Author:
- Omar Shaban
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Pal-Think For Strategic Studies
- Abstract:
- Since the Palestinian division occurred in June 2007, the Gaza Strip has become a geographical area with a political and legal context different from the West Bank. The Gaza Strip is a small area in size, but a large one in problems. It is under the rule of Hamas, which is not recognized in the Arab world, nor internationally. After Hamas took control of the Strip, Israel imposed a comprehensive blockade and exposed it to four, long, destructive wars and dozens of smaller armed confrontations over 14 years. The policy of the suffocating blockade enforced by Israel, as well as the repeated wars and military attacks, have created an unprecedented humanitarian crisis and resulted in massive destruction of infrastructure and all economic sectors and activities.[1] The Gaza Strip is supposedly part of the territory of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the future state, according to international resolutions and the Oslo Agreement signed between the PLO and Israel. However, as it is not geographically connected to the remaining Palestinian territory, and, since the Palestinian division in 2007 that brought it outside the control of the PA, and the failure of attempts at reconciliation and unity, the question is again raised: ‘What is the future of the Gaza Strip within the next five years?’
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Territorial Disputes, Violent Extremism, Conflict, Hamas, and Humanitarian Crisis
- Political Geography:
- Israel, Palestine, and Gaza
338. Achieving Full Resolution to the Karabakh Conflict
- Author:
- Steven J. Klein
- Publication Date:
- 08-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Baku Dialogues
- Institution:
- ADA University
- Abstract:
- Azerbaijan’s decisive defeat of Armenia in the Second Karabakh War is certainly cause for optimism that any remaining issues between the two countries can be resolved through diplomacy rather than military might. After all, Azerbaijan managed to recover all the territories outside the Karabakh enclave captured and occupied by Armenia since the 1990s—as well as parts of the former Nagorno‑Karabakh Autonomous Oblast itself—in addition to forcing Armenia to withdraw all its troops from sovereign Azerbaijani territory. However, past indisputable successes in other conflicts indicate that Azerbaijan must be careful not to overestimate its capabilities to translate the recent military triumph into full resolution of the Nagorno‑ Karabakh conflict. While it is tempting to declare the conflict over and to talk strictly of post‑conflict construction and development, a handful of countries have painfully learned that such declarations can be premature. For instance, in August 1982 Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin predicted that the imminent defeat of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Lebanon portended 40 years of peace; and in May 2003 U.S. President George W. Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” after ousting Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Both of these declarations came back to haunt the respective countries that had believed they had put behind them the conflict at issue. The crucial element that both of the aforementioned leaders had missed was that they did not control completely the fate of the conflict they chose to treat as being resolved. In Israel’s case, the PLO relocated to Tunis, from where it was able to rebuild its power base and receive support from the Soviet Union, while Hezbollah—which didn’t even exist at the time of the defeat of the PLO in 1982—arose with the support of Iran to become a much more formidable and menacing force in southern Lebanon than the PLO had been. In the case of America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the resulting power vacuum allowed numerous external forces to enter the picture and disrupt the plans of the United States. Moreover, corruption and disorganization within the governments established with American help contributed to the deterioration of stability in the region.
- Topic:
- Conflict Resolution, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Asia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan
339. Georgia After the Second Karabakh War
- Author:
- Mamuka Tsereteli
- Publication Date:
- 08-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Baku Dialogues
- Institution:
- ADA University
- Abstract:
- The outcome of the Second Karabakh War between Azerbaijan and Armenia significantly transformed the geopolitical reality in the South Caucasus, with implications for the wider Black Sea‑Caspian region. The unsettled political geography of the South Caucasus and the ethno‑political separatism fueled by external actors since the early 1990s left bleeding wounds on the bodies of the newly re‑emerged sovereign states of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. These conflicts have determined the trajectory of the geopolitical developments of the region for the last 30 years, including on the foreign policy orientations of these new states. The conflicts in the South Caucasus were the primary challenge for transforming the strategic assets of this region into greater political and economic success. Three major conflict areas in the South Caucasus were former autonomous regions, created in the early Soviet period: Nagorno‑Karabakh, Abkhazia, and the Tskhinvali region, what was called South Ossetia. (Briefly: the latter term was introduced by the Soviets in the 1920s as a name for the newly created autonomous area in Georgia, populated by Ossetians alongside ethnic Georgians. The historic homeland of Ossetians is located to the north of the Greater Caucasus mountains. Following the Soviet tradition of planting ethno‑political time bombs, Ossetia proper—located in the Russian Federation—was named North Ossetia, while the Tskhinvali region of Georgia—with the Ossetian population at the time concentrated in the border areas with Russia—was named South Ossetia.) As of today, all three of these areas are self‑proclaimed independent states, are formally ruled by de facto governments, and saw fierce military confrontation in the early 1990s. In 2008, the Tskhinvali region became the battleground between Russian and Georgian forces. In 2020, Azerbaijan regained through a combination of military action and diplomatic brinksmanship all seven regions outside of Nagorno‑ Karabakh that had been occupied by Armenia, as well as one‑third of the former Nagorno‑Karabakh region. In the case of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, as of mid‑2021, these territories remain, in reality, governed by Russian occupational forces. The Russian military influence was inserted into Karabakh after the war that ended on November 10th, 2020, with Russian peacekeepers playing an increasing role in the governance of the region. In terms of geopolitical orientation, Armenia willingly allowed Russian troops onto its territory, seeing them as a security guarantee and deterrent against Azerbaijan. Georgia aligned itself with the Western powers, determined to join NATO and the EU. The conflicts on Georgian territory are seen as punishment from Russia for Georgia’s pro‑Western focus. As a result, there has been a heavy Russian military presence in the separatist areas of Georgia since the Russian invasion to Georgia in 2008.
- Topic:
- Security, Economics, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Asia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia
340. What role for NATO in the Sahel?
- Author:
- Chloe Berger
- Publication Date:
- 12-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- NATO Defense College
- Abstract:
- Since the collapse of the Libyan regime in 2011, the Sahel region has gradually gained significance within the NATO environment. The chaos in Lib- ya has accelerated the interconnection of North African and Sahelian dynamics, creating a complex environment with serious implications for both the stability of North Africa and the Mediterranean Basin. The Sahel region suffers from a paradoxical situation. In view of the multiple national (Sahel armed forces), regional (African Union (AU), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)) and internation- al actors (United Nations, European Union, and also non-African states) present on the ground, the situation is often dubbed a “security traffic jam”. Some NATO Allies who have traditionally wielded influence in this region, have also invested in regional stabilization and development efforts for a long time. For the first time at the June 2021 NATO Summit, Al- lies have explicitly voiced their concerns over the “dete- riorating situation in the Sahel region”.1 As the “newest addition” in this already “crowded” environment, and at a time of review of its Strategic Concept, the Alli- ance must demonstrate its added value; identify “niche” areas where it can complement and strengthen existing efforts; while considering the Sahelian countries’ aspira- tions and specific needs.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Africa, Europe, North America, and Sahel