Search

Begin New Search Topic International Relations Political Geography Russia

211. A Europe without Divides? The EU-Russia Partnership and the Case of Virtual Borders

Author:
Tarja Cronberg
Publication Date:
01-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies
Abstract:
This paper is about a partnership, the aim of which is to create a Europe without divides. A partnership where the vision is to transcend the divide between membership and non-membership and to create co-operation in trade, in stability and security, and in democracy on all levels. The paper examines the implementation of the EU-Russia partnership and its strategy not only on the rhetorical level but also in a micro-perspective seen from a border region (mostly from the EU-side), from a space where the divides whether economic, social or of any other kind are most clearly manifested. As borders manifest social conflict a study of the implementation of the partnership agreement on this micro-level will make visible not only the taken-for-granted assumptions and practices but also new and emerging divides. As a concrete case the creation of a European information society is studied. Will the partners be united in virtual space without divides? Conclusions are drawn on the nature of the partnership, the relationship between the partners and the perspective of a Europe without divides.
Topic:
International Relations
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe

212. EU-Russian security dimensions

Author:
Dov Lynch
Publication Date:
07-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Union Institute for Security Studies
Abstract:
EU-Russian security cooperation remains nascent, but some important ground has been cleared since 2000. Yet, the dialogue is neither without ambiguity or problems. It is replete with both. This Occasional Paper examines three facets of EU-Russia security relations. The first chapter, by Hiski Haukkala, compares EU and Russian perceptions of the other in security terms. Haukkala traces the evolution of EU thinking on Russia throughout the 1990s, highlighting the obstacles that held up the development of a strategic vision of the 'partnership'. Following an analysis of how Russia views the EU, he concludes that both have different visions of the other which lie at the source of problems of perception and expectation. In the second chapter, Thomas Gomart concentrates on a single aspect of the EU's Common Strategy on Russia (1999), that of preventive diplomacy, examined through the cases of Belarus and Macedonia. Gomart notes the absence of coordination between the EU and Russia in the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, and stresses the need for greater effort. Gomart notes also the danger of blurring the lines between the 'preventive' and the 'pre-emptive', particularly with regard to counter-terrorism. Anaïs Marin concludes this Occasional Paper with an examination of the Northern Dimension. Marin notes the unique utility of the 'dimensionalist' approach to EU- Russian relations, which takes in a wide range of subjects and different types of actors within a flexible framework. In conclusion, she rejects calls for a greater institutionalisation of the Northern Dimension, arguing that flexibility and 'lightness' are its strength.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, and Politics
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe

213. Afghanistan and Regional Geopolitical Dynamics after 11 September

Publication Date:
04-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Abstract:
In April 2002, the National Intelligence Council sponsored a conference that examined the impact of events in Afghanistan since 11 September on a variety of regional actors, including Russia, Iran, Turkey, India, Europe, Pakistan, and the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The conference brought together government and outside experts and consisted of four workshops with presentations from ten academic and regional experts, followed by lengthy discussion sessions. The purpose of the conference was not to arrive at a consensus but to deepen understanding of the complex geopolitical dynamics at work in the region.
Topic:
International Relations, Regional Cooperation, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Russia, Europe, Iran, Turkey, Middle East, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan

214. The Politics of European Enlargement: NATO, the EU and the New U.S.-European Relationship

Author:
Howard J. Wiarda
Publication Date:
02-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Wilson Center
Abstract:
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the end of the Cold War, the main issues in Eastern and Central Europe, and in U.S. and European policy toward the area, have focused on achieving peace and stability, building democracy, accomplishing economic and institutional reform, accelerating growth and modernization, and anchoring and integrating the countries of the area into Europe and its two great “clubs”: the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It could be said that the last three goals listed–democracy, economic and institutional reform, and European integration–were all means to the end of achieving peace and stability in this critical area, not known historically for its stable, peaceful politics, as well as to the end of securing a buffer zone on Europe's eastern frontiers that would also function as a means to hem in and limit any future Russian resurgence. What may have begun in strategic planners' eyes as a means to an end, however, has since then taken on a life of its own.
Topic:
International Relations, NATO, Cold War, and International Organization
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, and North Atlantic

215. US-Russian Lessons for South Asia

Author:
Zia Mia, R. Rajaraman, and Frank von Hippel
Publication Date:
08-2002
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Foreign Policy In Focus
Abstract:
The current South Asian crisis seems to have ebbed, but the underlying dynamic remains. The next crisis will be even more dangerous if South Asia's nuclear confrontation develops in the same direction as the U.S.-Russian standoff, with nuclear missiles on alert, aimed at each other and ready to launch on warning. As Lee Butler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command, has said, the U.S. and Soviet Union survived their crises, "no thanks to deterrence, but only by the grace of God." Will South Asia be so fortunate?
Topic:
International Relations
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, South Asia, and Asia

216. Russia in the International System

Publication Date:
06-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Abstract:
Russia's Foreign Policy Russian foreign policy in the coming years will be characterized by weakness; frustration--primarily with the United States as the world's preeminent power--over Russia's diminished status; generally cautious international behavior; and a drive to resubjugate, though not reintegrate, the other former Soviet states. The international situation affords Russia time to concentrate on domestic reforms because, for the first time in its history, it does not face significant external threats. But rather than use the breathing space for domestic reforms, Putin is as much--if not more--focused on restoring Russia's self-defined rightful role abroad and seeking to mold the CIS into a counterweight to NATO and the European Union. The Outside World's Views of Russia Russia does not have any genuine allies. Some countries are interested in good relations with Russia, but only as a means to another end. For example, China sees Russia as a counterweight to the United States but values more highly its ties with the United States. Some countries see Russia as a vital arms supplier but resent Russia also selling arms to their rivals (China-India, Iran-Iraq). Pro-Russia business lobbies exist in Germany, Italy, Turkey, and Israel (one-fifth of whose population now consists of Soviet émigres), but they do not single-handedly determine national policies. Europe is the only region that would like to integrate Russia into a security system, but it is divided over national priorities and institutional arrangements as well as put off by some Russian behavior. Most CIS governments do not trust their colossal neighbor, which continues to show an unsettling readiness to intervene in their internal affairs, though they know Russia well and are to a considerable degree comfortable in dealing with it. Turkey has developed an improved dialogue and an unprecedented number of economic ties with Russia during the post-Cold War period, but this more positive pattern of relations has not fully taken root, and Ankara remains suspicious of Moscow's intentions. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moscow's role in the Middle East has been reduced, but Israel, Syria, Egypt, Libya, and Iraq all favor good relations with Russia. Mutual interests also override disagreements in Russian-Iranian relations, but Tehran is wary of Russian behavior, particularly toward Saddam Hussein. India still trusts Russia--a sentiment that is perhaps a residue of the genuine friendship of Cold War days--but clearly not in the same way it once did, and New Delhi fears that weakness will propel Russia into doing things that could drive India further away. In East Asia, the most substantial breakthrough has been the resurrected relationship between Russia and China, one that entails significant longer-term risk for Russia. Other countries in the region value their links with Moscow as a means to balance a more powerful China, or as a useful component of their larger political and economic strategies, but Russia's role in East Asia--as elsewhere--remains constrained by the decline in its political, military, and economic power over the last decade. Russia's Weakness Russia's weakness stems from long-term secular trends and from its domestic structure. In essence, the old nomenklatura and a few newcomers have transformed power into property on the basis of personal networks and created an equilibrium resting on insider dealings. These insiders may jockey for position but have a vested interest in preserving the system. The public does not like the system but is resigned to it and gives priority to the preservation of order. As for the economy, it is divided into a profitable, internationally integrated sector run by oligarchs and a much larger, insulated, low-productivity, old-style paternalistic sector that locks Russia into low growth. No solace will be forthcoming from the international business and energy worlds. They do not expect the poor commercial climate to improve greatly and will not increase investments much beyond current levels until it does. Militarily, Russia will also remain weak. Its nuclear arsenal is of little utility, and Moscow has neither the will nor the means to reform and strengthen its conventional forces. Hope for the Future? The best hope for change in Russia lies with the younger generation. Several participants reported that under-25 Russians have much more in common with their US counterparts, including use of the Internet, than with older Soviet generations. But there was some question over whether the new generation would change the system or adapt to it. Others placed some hope in international institutions, for instance the World Trade Organization, eventually forcing Russia to adapt to the modern world. Dissenting Views Some participants dissented from the overall forecast of depressing continuity. The keynote speaker, James Billington, stated that Russia would not be forever weak and that the current confusion would end in a few years either through the adoption of authoritarian nationalism or federated democracy. One scholar felt the Chechen war was feeding ethnic discord in other areas of the Federation to which Moscow would respond with increased authoritarianism, not necessarily successfully. Finally, a historian observed that the patience of Russians is legendary but not infinite, meaning that we should not be overly deterministic.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, and Development
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, Middle East, and Israel

217. Thinking Beyond the Stalemate in U.S. - Iranian Relations, Volume I - Policy Review

Author:
Brent Scowcroft, C. Richard Nelson, Lee H. Hamilton, and James Shlesinger
Publication Date:
05-2001
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The current stalemate between the United States and Iran, while emotionally satisfying to many Americans, does not serve overall U.S. interests well. It hinders the achievement of several key U.S. geopolitical interests, especially over the longer term. These interests include, but are not limited to, regional stability, energy security, and the broader and evolving geopolitical relationships between the United States and China and Russia in the Persian Gulf and Caspian basin. Furthermore, the leading industrial countries are moving to improve relations with Iran.
Topic:
International Relations and Foreign Policy
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, and Middle East

218. HIV/AIDS as a Security Issue

Publication Date:
06-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
It is projected that, at current rates, more than 100 million people worldwide will have been infected with HIV by 2005. Where the epidemic has hit hardest, Sub-Saharan Africa, experts believe AIDS will eventually kill one in four adults. Seven countries already have adult prevalence rates above 20 per cent of the population.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, International Relations, Security, and Human Welfare
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, China, Europe, India, Asia, and Southeast Asia

219. Special Policy Forum Report; Imagining A Likud Foreign Policy

Author:
Dore Gold
Publication Date:
01-2001
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
February marks ten years since the end of the Gulf War. The situation in the Middle East today is vastly more dangerous than in 1991. The favorable regional conditions in 1991 that allowed the current peace process to begin have been reversed. Three key trends are the following: After Iraq's defeat in the Gulf War, it was placed under UN monitoring and extensive sanctions, thereby removing a major threat from Israel's calculus. Today, the situation is drastically different, with the absence of UN inspections for more than two years and the deterioration of sanctions against Iraq. In 1991, Iran was still recovering from its exhaustive war with Iraq and could not fully participate in regional, specifically Arab–Israeli, affairs. By contrast, Iran is currently testing intermediate-range missiles and is expressing its strategic weight in places like Lebanon, where it has increased its support to Hizballah. In 1991, the USSR was crumbling before its eventual collapse and was no longer in a position to offer strategic and military support to the enemies of Israel, while its successor — the Russian Federation — has more or less acquiesced to U.S. positions on the Middle East. Since 1996, however, Russia has taken a contrary approach to many U.S. policies and leadership in the region, in particular with regard to Iraqi sanctions and weapons inspections and the transfer of missile technology to Iran.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, International Relations, Foreign Policy, Peace Studies, and United Nations
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Iraq, Middle East, Israel, Arabia, and Lebanon

220. Turkey And The Bush Administration: The Question Marks

Author:
Alan Makovsky
Publication Date:
03-2001
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Turkey's economic crisis is naturally the leading issue in bilateral U.S.-Turkish relations, and it is almost certainly topping the agenda of today's meetings of Foreign Minister Ismail Cem with Vice President Richard Cheney and other senior officials. Of course, these meetings pose the difficult question of how much Washington should do, if anything, to bail out its strategically vital ally. But this is only one of several uncertainties characterizing U.S.-Turkish relations in the early days of the Bush administration. Because so much of Turkey's importance to the United States derives from its critical strategic location, bilateral relations are greatly affected by U.S. policies toward other states in Turkey's region. Of most concern to Turkey will be the evolution of Bush administration policy toward Iraq, Iran, and Russia, and also toward Europe's nascent bid to develop an autonomous security capacity.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Defense Policy, Economics, and Energy Policy
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Iraq, Europe, Iran, Washington, Turkey, and Middle East