Number of results to display per page
Search Results
52. Worse, not Better ? Reinvigorating Early Warning for Conflict Prevention in the Post Lisbon European Union
- Author:
- John Brante, Chiara De Franco, Christoph Meyer, and Florian Otto
- Publication Date:
- 06-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- The number and lethality of conflicts has been declining significantly since the end of the Cold War, but five new armed conflicts still break out each year. While costly peace-making, stabilisation and reconstruction efforts have helped to end conflicts, no comparative efforts have gone into preventing them from occurring in the first place. The international community appears stuck in the never-ending travails of managing crises, finding it difficult to act early to prevent new conflicts from escalating. Encouraging signs that this is changing include the United Nations (UN) promotion of the preventive arm of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the United States' efforts to improve its capacity to prevent conflicts and mass atrocities emerging from the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. Similarly, since the launch of the Gothenburg programme in 2001, the European Union (EU) has embraced the case for conflict prevention in policy documents as well as in the Lisbon Treaty itself, making it a hallmark of its approach to international security and conflict in contrast to conventional foreign policy. Yet, it has fallen significantly short in translating these aspirations into institutional practice and success on the ground. It suffers from the 'missing middle' syndrome between long-term structural prevention through instruments such as conditionality for EU accession and development policy, and short-term responses to erupting crisis through military and civilian missions.
- Topic:
- Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Peace Studies, War, Armed Struggle, and Peacekeeping
- Political Geography:
- Europe and United Nations
53. A new Geography of European power?
- Author:
- James Rogers
- Publication Date:
- 01-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- The naval historian and geostrategist, Alfred Thayer Mahan, understood the utility of military power perhaps better than anyone before or since. In an article called The Place of Force in International Relations – penned two years before his death in 1914 – he claimed: 'Force is never more operative then when it is known to exist but is not brandished' (1912). If Mahan's point was valid then, it is perhaps even more pertinent now. The rise of new powers around the world has contributed to the emergence of an increasingly unpredictable and multipolar international system. Making the use of force progressively more dangerous and politically challenging, this phenomenon is merging with a new phase in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, many European governments are increasingly reluctant – perhaps even unable – to intervene militarily in foreign lands. The operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that when armed force is used actively in support of foreign policy, it can go awry; far from re-affirming strength and determination on the part of its beholder, it can actually reveal weakness and a lack of resolve. Half-hearted military operations – of the kind frequently undertaken by democratic European states – tend not to go particularly well, especially when there is little by way of a political strategy or the financial resources needed to support them. A political community's accumulation of a military reputation, which can take decades, if not centuries, can then be rapidly squandered through a series of unsuccessful combat operations, which dent its confidence and give encouragement to its opponents or enemies.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Political Violence, Arms Control and Proliferation, War, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Armed Struggle
- Political Geography:
- Europe
54. Gambit or Endgame? The New State of Arms Control
- Author:
- Alexei Arbatov
- Publication Date:
- 03-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- The pursuit of nuclear arms control has enjoyed something of a renaissance recently, with the signing of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in spring 2010 in Prague. Whether that momentum will dissipate after New START or lead to further nuclear arms control agreements depends on several factors: The new U.S. and Russian nuclear doctrines. While there is always some distance between a state's declared policy and that policy's implementation, both documents show that, behind their more ambitious disarmament rhetoric, the United States and Russia maintain conservative nuclear policies that make radical nuclear disarmament unlikely—to say nothing of a nuclear-weapon-free world. The peculiarities of the recently signed and ratified New START agreement. Among these are the modest cuts stipulated by the treaty relative to its predecessors; the acrimonious ratification debates in both the U.S. and Russian legislatures; and the dim prospects for a follow-on agreement (in sharp contrast to the mood prevailing after past START agreements). The dynamics of obsolescence and modernization of U.S. and Russian strategic offensive forces. The United States should have little problem cutting its forces to get below New START's limits. Russia, however, will have problems, not in reducing its numbers, but in raising them to treaty ceilings, due to their removal of obsolete weapons from service and slow deployment of new systems. Either Russia can negotiate a New START follow-on treaty with even lower ceilings or it can accelerate the development and deployment of new systems. While the former is obviously a more attractive alternative, it would require the United States and Russia to resolve many thorny arms control issues, such as ballistic missile defense, conventional strategic weapons, and tactical nuclear weapons. Ballistic missile defense. President Obama's decision to modify the Bush administration's ballistic missile defense plans in Central Europe opened the way for New START and eased Russian concerns, even if they could never have been allayed entirely. Moscow believes that U.S. ballistic missile defense programs are ultimately designed to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent, and it is far from clear that U.S. proposals to jointly develop such capabilities with Russia would allay those concerns—or that the idea even makes any sense. Russia's perceptions of U.S. conventional strategic weapons. Russian officials are especially concerned about the U.S. Prompt Global Strike concept and do not trust American assurances that such capabilities are only directed at terrorists and rogue states. There has already been some progress made in dealing with these weapons in negotiations, and future progress on this issue will likely depend on legal agreements and confidence-building measures to scale U.S. capabilities in ways that would threaten Russia's (or China's) strategic deterrent. Joint development of ballistic missile defenses with Russia. This issue could seriously complicate Washington's and Moscow's strategic relations with China and India. Officials on both sides would do well to start small and proceed step-by-step, using incremental successes to build the momentum necessary to work through more difficult issues. Non-strategic—that is, tactical—nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, the United States and Europe relied on tactical nuclear weapons to counterbalance Warsaw Pact superiority in conventional forces in Europe; today, the situation is reversed, with Moscow relying on tactical nuclear weapons as a counterbalance not only to NATO conventional superiority but also to U.S. strategic nuclear superiority and long-range precision-guided weapons. No one now knows which weapons systems should be categorized as non-strategic, and how limits across regions could be accounted for and verified. In addition, reviving the moribund Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty is essential to dealing with the issue of tactical nuclear weapons.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, China, Europe, Washington, and Moscow
55. Scraping the Barrel: The Trade in Surplus Ammunition
- Author:
- Pierre Gobinet and Claudio Gramizzi
- Publication Date:
- 04-2011
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Small Arms Survey
- Abstract:
- Small arms and light weapons need ammunition. Government forces and armed groups cannot wage battle or train their troops without a sustained supply of ammunition, and its availability determines the type of weapons used in most of the conflicts around the world.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Terrorism, and Counterinsurgency
- Political Geography:
- Europe
56. Implementing an Arms Trade Treaty: Lessons on Reporting and Monitoring from Existing Mechanisms
- Author:
- Mark Bromley and Paul Holtom
- Publication Date:
- 07-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
- Abstract:
- The aims, scope and coverage of an arms trade treaty (ATT) will determine the format and types of information to be provided to an ATT reporting mechanism. It is expected that one of the obligations under the mechanism will be for states parties to provide information on their arms transfers and transfer control systems. A key consideration when designing an ATT reporting mechanism is its future interaction with existing reporting mechanisms. In this context, voluntary reporting of information on arms transfers to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms (UNROCA) and of information on transfer control systems to the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in A ll Its Aspects (POA) and the UN Exchange of National Legislation on Transfer of Arms, Military Equipment and Dual-use Goods and Technology (UN Legislation Exchange) are particularly relevant. Other UN instruments that provide potential lessons and areas of potential over- lap, include UN Security Council resolutions imposing arms embargoes and UN Security Council Resolution 1540, which obligate states to provide information on aspects of national transfer controls. At the regional level, member states of the European Union (EU), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) are requested to provide information on transfer controls and international arms transfers, while members of the Organization of American States (OAS) are required to provide information on arms acquisitions. It is inevitable that the reporting requirements under an ATT will overlap with some of these instruments, particularly the voluntary UN reporting mechanisms. If an ATT is to increase transparency, then existing obligations should serve as the baseline for reporting under the new treaty.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, United Nations, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Political Geography:
- Europe
57. Future Options for NATO Nuclear Policy
- Author:
- Jeffrey A. Larsen
- Publication Date:
- 08-2011
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Atlantic Council
- Abstract:
- NATO released a new Strategic Concept in November 2010 that maintained its traditional call for continued reliance on nuclear weapons as the ultimate guarantor of its security. But finalizing that document was not easy. Several compromises took place at the Lisbon Summit, including a decision by the Alliance to conduct a Deterrence and Defense Posture Review (DDPR) by 2012. In addition, the allies chose not to repeat some key wording that had remained unchanged since it was introduced in the 1991 Strategic Concept that the Alliance would "maintain adequate sub-strategic nuclear forces based in Europe." This may provide a political opening for the Alliance to eliminate forward-deployed US nuclear weapons in Europe, should it decide to do so. This brief examines options for NATO nuclear deterrence and assurance policy if that occurs.
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Nuclear Weapons
- Political Geography:
- Europe and North America
58. Franco-British military cooperation: a new engine for European defence?
- Author:
- Ben Jones
- Publication Date:
- 02-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- European Union Institute for Security Studies
- Abstract:
- The St. Malo Agreement on European Defence Cooperation of 1998 set out a new approach to defence cooperation in pursuit of a new goal – an autonomous European military capability. By contrast, the Franco-British cooperation launched in November 2010 by Prime Minister Cameron and President Sarkozy is once again a new approach, but it is one that seeks to sustain the status quo – in support of sovereign foreign and defence policies.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Bilateral Relations
- Political Geography:
- United Kingdom, Europe, and France
59. Beyond Geopolitics: Common Challenges, Joint Solutions?
- Author:
- Gustav Lindstrom
- Publication Date:
- 01-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
- Abstract:
- The 2010 Gstaad Process meeting was held in Switzerland from 16-18 September. Entitled “Beyond Geopolitics – Common Challenges, Joint Solutions?”, the event was organised by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) with the financial support of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA). Additional partners and contributors were the James Martin Center for Non-proliferation Studies in Monterey (California) and the PIR Center (Moscow).
- Topic:
- Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Science and Technology, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, and Europe
60. Surveying Europe's Production and Procurement of Small Arms and Light Weapons Ammunition
- Author:
- Benjamin King(ed.)
- Publication Date:
- 07-2010
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Small Arms Survey
- Abstract:
- Enumerating a state's demand and supply chains for small arms and light weapons ammunition remains a difficult undertaking. This is largely an outcome of many nations' reluctance to fully disclose information, together with poor accounting practices that hide the value of the data in aggregate totals. This working paper illustrates these challenges by detailing the most comprehensive picture possible of three countries' procurement, production, and exportation of ammunition for small arms and light weapons. Given the variety in transparency and disparate means of disclosure, each researcher took a unique approach towards fact finding. Comprehensive data on procurement, production, and exports was not uncovered in any of the cases, as none of these three countries compiles or publicizes such information. Instead, the best information available was gathered through a compilation of sources from each country.
- Topic:
- Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, and War
- Political Geography:
- Europe