Search

Begin New Search Topic Strategic Stability

71. Regional Stability: Brazil and the South American Defense Council

Author:
Vinicius Damasceno Nascimento
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:
Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:
The South American Defense Council and Brazil have regional importance, considering that stability in South America is not guaranteed. This study has the objectives of confirming, in military terms, the condition of Brazil as an important regional protagonist; and analyzing its possible contribution to regional stability
Topic:
Defense Policy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, Regionalism, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
South America

72. Domestic and International (Dis)Order: A Strategic Response

Author:
Aspen Strategy Group
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Aspen Institute
Abstract:
The Aspen Strategy Group recently released Domestic and International (Dis)Order: A Strategic Response bringing together preeminent experts to explore race, democracy, and political divisions on the American home front; the future of U.S.-China relations; the global economy; and U.S. foreign policy priorities for 2021. Contributors include: Madeleine K. Albright, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Zoë Baird, Robert D. Blackwill, Nicholas Burns, Kurt M. Campbell, Diana Farrell, Peter Feaver, Michael J. Green, Naima Green-Riley, Jane Harman, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Wolfgang Ischinger, Aditi Kumar, Anja Manuel, David McCormick, John McLaughlin, Shivshankar Menon, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., David H. Petraeus, Tom Pritzker, Condoleezza Rice, Senator Tim Scott, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Torrey Taussig, and Philip Zelikow.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Economics, International Cooperation, Race, Military Strategy, Democracy, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

73. National Security Strategy of Iran and North Korea

Author:
Muhammad Faisal and Rana Eijaz Ahmad
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Political Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
In the contemporary phase of international politics, national security strategy (NSC) is considered as a primary factor in the process of state-crafting. It addresses the key concerns; such as domestic, regional and global threats. It also focuses on the policy framework for the security of the state. In this age of uncertain geo-political environment, every nation-state has adopted a particular strategy in a certain strategic environment to minimize their strategic threats. Thus, the NSC is very important for enhancing the national security of the state. It also very helpful in maintaining the regional and global strategic balance. Contemporary formation of nation-state has defined some certain parameters for the formation of national security. These parameters are very important for achieving several particular objectives such as global strategic stability, regional hegemony and the survival of the political regime in the domestic political domain. The development of NSC has become more complex in the modern politico-strategic than the past ages. This research article finds the parameters of national security strategy which have been adopted by Iran and North Korea to maintain the strategic balance in the regional and global arena. The article concludes that Iran and North Korea must find an independent decision-making syndrome to accelerate the process of national security in the existing strategic domain.
Topic:
National Security, Geopolitics, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Asia, and North Korea

74. Conflict Dynamics in the Bidibidi Refugee Settlement in Uganda

Author:
Irene Dawa
Publication Date:
02-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Conflict Trends
Institution:
The African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD)
Abstract:
This article presents the results of a study conducted in the Bidibidi Refugee Settlement in the Yumbe District of Uganda between June and August 2018. It examines the conflict trends between refugees and host communities. The aim was to understand the drivers and dynamics of conflicts in the settlement. This article highlights the key findings of the study and some suggestions for conflict transformation for better relationships. The data collection process took 20 days. The methodology used for this research was based on qualitative study design. Qualitative data collection was done through focus group discussions using interview guides, direct observation, and structured and semi-structured interviews with different community-level committees, such as refugee welfare committees (RWCs) and the host population. Non-structured interviews and informal meetings were also held to collect complementary information, especially with the various stakeholders, such as local government officials, the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other implementing partners. Direct observation was used to confirm conflict dynamics reported during interviews, for validity and reliability. This study was inspired by the conflict transformation theory of Lederach. According to Lederach,1 conflict is normal and dynamic within human relationships and can be seen as a catalyst for growth.
Topic:
Refugees, Displacement, Conflict, Humanitarian Crisis, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
Uganda and Africa

75. European Strategic Autonomy: Operationalising a Buzzword

Author:
Pauli Järvenpää
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
European Strategic Autonomy (ESA) is currently the subject of some debate and controversy. While this issue has been on the table since at least the 1990s, it was reinvigorated by the publication of the EU Global Strategy in 2016, itself a response to fundamental developments in European security. In this report, we consider the security and defence aspects of ESA, an area of particular difficulties and one in which in which Europe is presently weak. Even in this very practical area, the ESA concept is ill-defined and the term itself has become a buzzword. To move towards implementation, we discuss ESA in security and defence as the capacity to act in four dimensions: political, institutional, capabilities and industrial. Political autonomy, concerns questions such as to whom the ‘E’ in ESA refers, who is able to lead the development of ESA, and what is the level of ambition for this endeavour. Institutional autonomy refers to the availability of the governance structures required to prepare and administer these priorities, while capabilities autonomy refers to the availability of the military, civilian, financial, operational, and other capabilities to credibly implement priorities and decisions. Industrial autonomy refers to the availability of the industrial and technological base necessary to develop and deliver the required capabilities. In our report, we discuss how ESA might be attained in each of these dimensions and make policy recommendations.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, European Union, Autonomy, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
Europe

76. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Strategic Stability and Nuclear Risk, Volume I, Euro-Atlantic perspectives

Author:
Dr Vincent Boulanin, S. M. Amadae, Jean-Marc Rickli, Shahar Avin, Frank Sauer, John Borrie, Dimitri Scheftelowitsch, Justin Bronk, Page O. Stoutland, Magnus Hagström, Petr Topychkanov, Michael Horowitz, Anja Kaspersen, and Chris King
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
Abstract:
This edited volume focuses on the impact on artificial intelligence (AI) on nuclear strategy. It is the first instalment of a trilogy that explores regional perspectives and trends related to the impact that recent advances in AI could have nuclear weapons and doctrines, strategic stability and nuclear risk. It assembles the views of 14 experts from the Euro-Atlantic community on why and how machine learning and autonomy might become the focus of an armed race among nuclear-armed states; and how the adoption of these technologies might impact their calculation of strategic stability and nuclear risk at the regional level and trans-regional level.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Cybersecurity, Risk, Artificial Intelligence, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America

77. Is Egypt Coming Back?

Author:
Joshua Krasna
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
Egypt may be beginning to emerge from its self-imposed strategic seclusion.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Strategic Stability, Strategic Interests, and Regional Power
Political Geography:
Africa and Egypt

78. Political Instability Equals Strategic Danger

Author:
David M. Weinberg
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
Israel’s strategic situation doesn’t brook inertia.
Topic:
Governance, Leadership, Political stability, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
Middle East and Israel

79. Pursuing Effective and Conflict- Aware Stabilization: Framing and Constructing a Roadmap

Author:
Melissa Dalton
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
Like it or not, countries beset by instability from terrorist organizations or contested by state-based adversaries will continue to pose national security challenges to the United States. In the face of these challenges and given political and budgetary constraints at home, the United States must be more selective in how it scopes and executes efforts to consolidate gains after military operations and build institutional resiliency against adversaries. The Trump administration released its Stabilization Assistance Review (SAR) framework on June 19, 2018, which is a strategic document to guide U.S. government efforts to maximize the effectiveness of stabilizing conflict-affected areas. Following the large-scale reconstruction efforts of the early 2000s in Iraq and Afghanistan, the SAR recognizes changing geopolitical realities and U.S. domestic political and budgetary constraints that will shape future stabilization efforts. This interagency framework, co-produced by the Department of State (DoS), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Department of Defense (DoD) provided the first-ever U.S. government unified definition of stabilization, recognized as an “inherently political endeavor involving an integrated civilian-military process to create conditions where locally legitimate authorities and systems can peaceably manage conflict and prevent a resurgence of violence.”2 The SAR defined roles for the key agencies involved in providing stabilization assistance to foreign countries. DoS is designated as the overall lead for stabilization efforts, formulating the political strategy. USAID is intended to be the lead implementor for non-security stabilization assistance, bringing considerable technical expertise. The SAR specifies that DoD is a supporting element in providing security-related stabilization assistance in support of civilian-led efforts. Other U.S. government departments and agencies may also play roles in stabilization under this organizational rubric. The SAR also highlighted the intended short-term nature of stabilization efforts, typically lasting between one to five years, agile, and adaptive to host country needs. Furthermore, the SAR underscored the need to coordinate and burden-share with allies and multilateral institutions in bolstering support for locally legitimate actors on the ground. The SAR rightly responds to U.S. taxpayer fatigue regarding previous U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan by focusing on cost-effectiveness and allied support for future U.S. foreign assistance programs. However, stabilization efforts should also be placed in a broader context. Conflict in the twenty-first century has become increasingly localized in nature and often results in longer, more violent clashes between state and non-state actors. It is also characterized by state-based competitors, which can exploit localized conflict and undermine the institutions of allies and partners. Indeed, given the emphasis the Trump administration has placed on prioritizing great power competition in both the U.S. National Security and Defense Strategies, future stabilization policies also need to account for competition with U.S. adversaries such as Russia and China.3 Traditional conflict phases are also melding together, such that stabilization operations may well take place during active conflict than following a ceasefire or temporary cessation of hostilities and share strong characteristics with preventive activities. Planning for stabilization should be required at the outset of any military operation, reevaluated as the environment shifts during operations, and deployed in parallel as conditions permit.
Topic:
Political stability, Conflict, Peace, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

80. Pursuing Effective and Conflict-Aware Stabilization: Partnering for Success

Author:
Erol Yayboke, Melissa Dalton, MacKenzie Hammond, and Hijab Shah
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
The U.S. government has an opportunity to pursue effective and conflict-aware stabilization, building upon the U.S. Stabilization Assistance Review (SAR) framework signed in June 2018.1 The SAR clarified roles and streamlined priorities for stabilization assistance, though “implementation will require sustained leadership, an interagency roadmap, new processes, bureaucratic incentives, and a review of authorities and resources.”2 The SAR includes a unified U.S. government definition of stabilization that recognizes stabilization as an “inherently political endeavor involving an integrated civilian-military process to create conditions where locally legitimate authorities and systems can peaceably manage conflict and prevent a resurgence of violence.”3 CSIS has embarked on a study to examine how to operationalize and build upon the SAR framework. This brief serves as a companion to a brief published in January 2019 which called for a clearer and contextualized definition of stabilization success and well-delineated roles, goals, and leadership structures in the U.S. interagency. It emphasized the importance of local actors and called for a process-based approached to assessment, monitoring, and evaluation (AM&E).4 This brief builds on the first by focusing on the lessons learned from past stabilization efforts and by addressing a key element of successful SAR implementation: partnerships. Success requires deeper interagency coordination and substantive partnerships with international partners. Lastly, this brief addresses a fundamental challenge to SAR implementation: updating the U.S. government’s tools, authorities, and resourcing to increase chances of success.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Humanitarian Crisis, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
Global Focus