Search

Begin New Search Journal All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace Publishing Institution Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research

111. The Politics of Effective Aid and Interstate Conflict

Author:
Ömer F. Örsün
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
The link between foreign aid and military conflict has received little attention in both aid effectiveness and interstate conflict research. This study provides a first-cut analysis of the impact of foreign aid on interstate conflict among recipient countries. In doing so, it opens the black box of state and builds on the previous research in the aid effectiveness literature and on the signaling processes in the conflict literature. Previous research indicates that the effectiveness of aid in improving citizen welfare is conditional on the presence of democratic institutions. This study shows that this conditional relationship has a detrimental effect on crisis bargaining outcomes. Foreign aid, on the one hand, increases citizen welfare in democratic regimes; hence, also governments’ ex- ante re-election prospects. On the other hand, foreign aid retards government ability to generate audience costs and to send informative signals to their opponents. Analyzing all dyads from 1961 to 2001 yields robust support for this view. As aid inflows increase, targets’ resistance propensity against threats issued by democratic governments becomes statistically indistinguishable from threats issued by autocratic governments. Moreover, democratic states are not significantly more peaceful to each other than non-democratic pairs once we take into account the amount of foreign aid they receive.
Topic:
Foreign Aid, Democracy, Conflict, and Aid Effectiveness
Political Geography:
Global Focus

112. Ideology, Political Agenda, and Conflict: A Comparison of American, European, and Turkish Legislatures’ Discourses on Kurdish Question

Author:
Akın Ünver
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
Combining discourse analysis with quantitative methods, this article compares how the legislatures of Turkey, the US, and the EU discursively constructed Turkey’s Kurdish question. An examination of the legislative-political discourse through 1990 to 1999 suggests that a country suffering from a domestic secessionist conflict perceives and verbalizes the problem differently than outside observers and external stakeholders do. Host countries of conflicts perceive their problems through a more security-oriented lens, and those who observe these conflicts at a distance focus more on the humanitarian aspects. As regards Turkey, this study tests politicians’ perceptions of conflicts and the influence of these perceptions on their pre-existing political agendas for the Kurdish question, and offers a new model for studying political discourse on intra-state conflicts. The article suggests that a political agenda emerges as the prevalent dynamic in conservative politicians’ approaches to the Kurdish question, whereas ideology plays a greater role for liberal/pro-emancipation politicians. Data shows that politically conservative politicians have greater variance in their definitions, based on material factors such as financial, electoral, or alliance-building constraints, whereas liberal and/or left-wing politicians choose ideologically confined discursive frameworks such as human rights and democracy.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Politics, European Union, Conflict, Legislation, and Kurds
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, and United States of America

113. Influence and Hegemony: Shifting Patterns of Material and Social Power in World Politics

Author:
Simon Reich and Richard Ned Lebow
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
Throughout the postwar era, many realists and liberals have maintained the fiction of American hegemony. They have described it as the keystone to global political and economic stability.1 They have also worried that US hegemony was in decline. In the 1970s, these fears were triggered by the resurgence of Germany and Japan, and in the last decade, by the remarkable rise of China. We contend that US hegemony, to the extent it ever existed, was a shortlived postwar phenomenon; that the US frequently behaved in ways that has threatened the order it is allegedly committed to upholding; that hegemony is unnecessary – perhaps inimical – to global stability; and that the functions associated with hegemony have in practice become increasingly diffused among the great powers. Conceptually, the commitment to hegemony stands in the way of our understanding of contemporary international relations. Substantively, it offers an inappropriate and unrealistic role model for American policymakers.
Topic:
Hegemony, Realism, Liberalism, Power, Influence, Sponsorship, and Collaboration
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

114. Center-Periphery Relations: What Kind of Rule, and Does It Matter?

Author:
Nicholas Onuf
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
In proposing ‘a structural theory of imperialism’ nearly half a century ago, Johan Galtung made center-periphery relations central to peace research theory and more generally to the way scholars from the periphery see international relations. Galtung took an imperialist system to be a special case of a ‘dominance system’; any such system enforces an unequal distribution of privilege and material well-being through mechanisms of direct, structural and cultural violence. I propose to re-write Galtung’s structural theory by taking rules and rule to perform the function that he assigned to violence. I conclude that today’s global imperialist system is ruled through a functionally segmented hegemony, supported by hierarchical coercion against a heteronomous backdrop.
Topic:
International Relations, Hegemony, Periphery, International System, and Center
Political Geography:
Global Focus

115. Hard Power versus Soft Power or a Balance between the Two?

Author:
Peter Volten
Publication Date:
07-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
Many things have changed in Turkey within the last decade, but also in Brussels as to the political practises. This commentary seeks to answer whether Turkey and the EU can find and maintain a sensible balance between toughness and empathy, between considerations of hard power and soft power. Turkey is obviously an essential, regional player both economically and militarily. Geopolitics may not appear high on the agenda of the EU, but the situation in the Middle-East simply could not and cannot be ignored as a geopolitical challenge, one that might beg for acting in concert with Turkey. On the other side, Europe represents an attraction and example based on a long history and struggle for material wealth, technological and scientific progress as well as for the accomplished degree of democracy and the rule of law. More recently, however, EU soft power suffers a number of setbacks. We disown our most basic values of soft power and will lose impact in promoting a just, democratic order in the world. If the EU and its member states fail to recover from this set-back, we risk to fall back in the hard power game, also with potential and aspiring states.
Topic:
Politics, European Union, Democracy, Geopolitics, Rule of Law, and Soft Power
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Middle East, and Mediterranean

116. Why Does The International Drug-Control System Fail?

Author:
Behsat Ekici
Publication Date:
07-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
The international community has been building a drug-control system for over a century. The UN-led initiatives drafted very detailed conventions, political declarations, and plans of action. International institutions and governments have been allocating vast resources for national, regional, and global counter narcotics initiatives. Law-enforcement agents, judicial officers, diplomats, and demand-reduction experts devote enormous efforts to global drug-control efforts. However, the latest field studies clearly indicate that the global war on drugs has been lost on virtually every front. Drug consumption and drugrelated deaths have increased over the past three decades. Every year, many new psychoactive substances appear on the market. Precursor chemicals are not efficiently controlled. The drug supply consistently shifts to areas where law enforcement is weak and corrupt. Drug money has allowed the dark networks to exert an increasing influence on the governments in Latin America, Southwest Asia, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and West Africa. The drug trade undermines global security by financing terrorism and insurgency. In this context, the United Nations’ goal of a “drug-free world” is far from being reached. This paper provides an insight as to why the international efforts to control the drug supply, drug demand, and drug-driven money have failed dramatically.
Topic:
Crime, United Nations, Narcotics Trafficking, International Community, Drugs, and International Crime
Political Geography:
Global Focus

117. Violence and Security Concerns in Post-Conflict Northern Ireland

Author:
Imren Borsuk
Publication Date:
07-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
Eighteen years after the Good Friday Agreement, Northern Ireland struggles with a lingering sense of insecurity. This article discusses the underlying reasons for a sense of insecurity and vulnerability in this post-conflict context. First, ongoing sporadic communal violence reactivates communal divisions and the psychological burden of “the Troubles.” The activities of spoiler paramilitary groups and sporadic communal troubles still fuel people’s anxiety about the possibility of renewed violence, as the history of political violence proves how these influences can be a destabilizing factor in inter-communal relations. Second, the unchanging patterns of political mobilization, based on the historical division of unionism and nationalism, reinforce the previous cleavages and continue to inform the boundaries of the communal divide. The political arena is still plagued by ethnic outbidding and intransigent party politicking, both of which pit communities against each other and keep the zero-sum bias between the groups alive. Third, the working-class communities that constituted the backbone of the political violence carry on the legacy of war with their continued paramilitary presence and legacy of sectarianism. The social vulnerabilities of working-class areas, such as continuing paramilitary presence, the legacy of sectarianism in segregated neighborhoods, persistent mistrust toward the police, and growing youth unemployment, need to be addressed in order to generate a long-term social infrastructure for peace.
Topic:
Security, Violence, and Post-Conflict
Political Geography:
Northern Ireland

118. Reconciliation-oriented Leadership: Nelson Mandela and South Africa

Author:
Havva Kök Arslan and Yunus Turhan
Publication Date:
07-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
Heroic leaders advocating for reconciliation has become particularly significant in the process of conflict resolution. This article analyses the case of South Africa’s national reconciliation experiences and Mandela’s iconic role in this process. It is claimed that Mandela’s reconciliation-oriented leadership, his personality, and endeavours have directly affected the promotion of intergroup reconciliation in South Africa in a positive way. The article’s analytic framework is built on Galtung’s Conflict Triangle and applied to reconciliation initiatives employed by Nelson Mandela in South Africa. The research question that this study focused on can be expressed as follows: What is the role of leaders in the process of national reconciliation? From this perspective, Mandela’s extraordinary efforts to strengthen national reconciliation in South Africa are examined by looking into his normative statements, symbolic acts, and judicial actions. The method proposed in this article contributes to the study of reconciliation at the national level, dealing with the normative statements and behaviours of those in power. In the final analysis, it was determined that there is a close relationship between the prospective success of the reconciliation process and a leader’s contribution to bringing about reconciliation in a society
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Leadership, Reconciliation, and Nelson Mandela
Political Geography:
Africa and South Africa

119. The Paradox of Power Asymmetry: When and Why Do Weaker States Challenge US Hegemony?

Author:
Hong-Cheol Kim
Publication Date:
07-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
Little is known about how, among weaker states, incentives to challenge the status quo are related to the expected response of the US as the system’s hegemon. In contrast to conventional wisdom that suggests militarized punishment can deter potential challengers, it is argued that weak but strongly motivated challengers can interpret the hegemon’s military intervention against adversaries as a window of opportunity to launch their own actions. Empirical results using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) and binary time-seriescross-section (BTSCS) models reveal that weaker states possess incentives to challenge the international status quo when the hegemon is preoccupied with prior foreign policy commitments, most notably war. In other words, weaker states dissatisfied with the status quo are more likely to challenge the hegemon when it is preoccupied with prior military commitments. They do so because war involvement distracts the hegemon, drains its capabilities and resolve, and opens up a window of opportunity for weaker states to issue challenges. In addition, weaker states that have an alliance portfolio dissimilar to that of the hegemon are more likely than others to initiate Militarized Interstate Disputes. Theoretically, this paper provides microfoundations to answer the question of why weaker parties instigate asymmetric conflicts when it might seem irrational to do so.
Topic:
International Relations, Hegemony, Conflict, Power, and Asymmetric Relations
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

120. Conflict Resolution Revisited: Peaceful Resolution, Mediation and Responsibility to Protect

Author:
Seán O'Regan
Publication Date:
01-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
Alan Tidwell, the author of Conflict Resolved? A Critical Assessment of Conflict Resolution,[1] wrote in the preface “Not all conflicts can or should be resolved; frankly there are some conflicts I do not wish to resolve – I want to win them.”[2] This is a real challenge to every person who aspires to be a peacemaker, and challenges, as Tidwell intended, the notion of peace at whatever cost. Tidwell argues that that while morally inspired positive peacemaking is a “good thing,”[3] it can lack a sense of proportion, ignoring justice, right and wrong and deep-seated reasons for grievance. Similarly, evangelical theorists “propagate the value of conflict resolution at all costs”[4] and in the process lose a sense of reality about what can realistically be achieved. The increased adoption by states of early warning, conflict prevention and conflict resolution policies is often based on notions of positive peacemaking and inspired by evangelical theorists. Latterly mediation has been added to the arsenal of state-led conflict resolution tools. This commentary will explore the limitations of mediation in relations between states, consider the implications for conflict resolution practice and advocate a principled international response to conflicts, including, if necessary, the need to win them.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Mediation
Political Geography:
Global Focus