Search

Begin New Search Topic Civil-Military Relations Political Geography Middle East

1. Sudan’s Uprising: The Fall of a Dictator

Author:
Mai Hassan and Ahmed Kodouda
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Democracy
Institution:
National Endowment for Democracy
Abstract:
This article traces the reign and downfall of Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s longtime autocrat. Like other autocrats, al-Bashir attempted to prevent coups against his rule by crafting a personalistic regime that weakened important political actors and tied their fates to his own. But Sudan’s 2018–19 popular uprising, which resulted in al-Bashir’s ousting by his own security forces, suggests that, under pressure, personalistic regimes may quickly evolve in a way that strengthens alternative power centers. In Sudan, the renewed strength of the security forces continues to threaten the nascent democratization process ushered in by the popular uprising.
Topic:
Gender Issues, Military Affairs, Authoritarianism, Democracy, Protests, Transition, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:
Africa, Sudan, Middle East, and North Africa

2. The U.S. in Afghanistan: From Military-Political Euphoria to the Dilemma of Troop Withdrawal

Author:
M. Konarovsky
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
East View Information Services
Abstract:
The seizure of power in Afghanistan by the Mujahiddin (“war- riors of faith”), in 1992, opened a new but certainly not peaceful chapter in the modern history of the country. The new bosses in Kabul, who were linked at one point only by the common interest of overthrowing the pro- communist regime, were now not only unable to consolidate power, but could not get around an almost open split in their leadership. The result- ing wobbly system of rotating leadership was bound to be unable to sat- isfy everyone’s wants. The inability of the Mujahiddin to achieve consensus led to the col- lapse of their hopes to unify even in the face of a direct challenge from the Taliban in the early 1990s. In 1996, in the wake of the popular disappointment with the rule of these “warriors of faith” (with whom the Taliban were connected not only by an ideological umbilical cord, but by some active participants), the Taliban seized Kabul and usurped power with direct support from Pakistan. They pushed supporters of President Burhanuddin Rabbani out to northern regions along the borders with the former Soviet Central Asian republics.
Topic:
Military Affairs, Taliban, Leadership, Secularism, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and Middle East

3. National Home Front Exercise "Solid Stand": Doubts concerning Civilian Preparedness for an Emergency

Author:
Meir Elran and Carmit Padan
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:
"Solid Stand," the annual nation-wide exercise conducted by the Home Front Command, was held in the framework of the large IDF general staff exercise. Since the home front participation was part of a classified military exercise, the involvement of civilian parties and the general public became less relevant. As a result, the ability of the civilian organs, which play a key role in the management of any emergency, to take part in the drill was limited. This article presents a number of primary gaps in the realm of state and military readiness that must be addressed in order to improve the civilian population's preparedness for what is believed to be a high risk scenario in the next conflict.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Military Affairs, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:
Middle East and Israel

4. Who Will Make the Decision?

Author:
Gal Perl Finkel and Gilead Sher
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:
The Knesset has recently amended the “Basic Law: The Government,” with respect to "authority to declare war or conduct a significant military operation." Under the previous legislation, this authority was given to the government, but the new law grants the authority to the Ministerial Committee for National Security (the Security Cabinet). However, the final version of the new law goes even further, and concludes: "Under extreme circumstances and for reasons that will be noted…the prime minister and the minister of defense are authorized to make the decision in a more restricted legal quorum." Such a law has almost no equivalent in Western democracies. It lacks the checks and balances essential to a democratic regime and is bound to undermine the principle that war is an act requiring maximum domestic and international legitimacy. Yet in view of the new legislation, the Security Cabinet's work should be improved so that it will be fully familiar with the strategic matters on the agenda. In addition, both for the sake of checks and balances and the prevention of an overconcentration of authority in the hands of individuals and so that more than two elected representatives of the people bear responsibility for cardinal policy measure such as war and peace, at least the entire Security Cabinet should participate in the decision. The tactical decisions can and should be made in restricted forums, but it is best for such a momentous decision as a declaration of war to be taken in a broad forum that bears the burden of the responsibility.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Military Affairs, Democracy, Conflict, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:
Middle East and Israel

5. Nuclear Governance and Legislation in Four Nuclear-Armed Democracies

Author:
Avner Cohen and Brandon Mok
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Abstract:
The report presents a set of comparative raw data on the question of how four Western democratic nuclear-weapon states— the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Israel—handle the essential tension between nuclear weapons (which require secrecy) and liberal democracy. The initial intent of this work was to assist Dr. Cohen in his preparations for an unprecedented hearing at the Israeli High Court of Justice in September 2017, whereby the Court would hear a petition, signed by over 100 Israeli citizens, calling for regulation and oversight of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission. The petitioners cited the legal lacuna under which Israel’s nuclear activities operate, devoid of oversight and beyond the realm of law, in violation of fundamental democratic principles. In particular, the study assesses the comprehensiveness—the breadth and depth—of the legislative, regulatory, scientific, and policy mechanisms that each of these four democratic states have created to govern its nuclear affairs in the following categories or parameters: legislation, organizations (directly responsible for either civilian and military applications of nuclear materials or both), regulation, oversight, secrecy, and policy making. Such material has never before been publicly available in a condensed form in one location, making this study of use to anyone interested in the problem of governing the atom. It will be updated as structures and policy change.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Military Affairs, Democracy, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, Middle East, Israel, France, North America, and United States of America