Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Soviet Union Publication Year within 25 Years

311. Europe and the Middle East: Towards A Substantive Role in the Peace Process?

Author:
Roland Dannreuther
Publication Date:
08-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
The Middle East is the region where Europeans have, arguably, most strongly felt their loss of great power status. During the nineteenth century, European powers encroached upon, occupied and annexed various territories in the Middle East. With the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire after World War 1, Britain, and to a lesser degree France, became the undisputed external actors in the region and in large part created the modern Middle Eastern state system. Although a certain degree of power was devolved to local leaders, Britain and France ensured their prerogatives over foreign and defence issues and assumed responsibility for regional stability. Other powers, such as the Soviet Union and the United States, were not absent from the region but did not essentially challenge the European hegemony. The Soviet Union's power projection had been greatly reduced in the aftermath of revolution, civil war and internal consolidation; the United States deliberately abstained from assuming a political role, with all its tainted colonial connotations, and only demanded an 'open doors' policy in relation to its trade and commercial interests. In this relatively unchallenged strategic environment, Britain had a remarkable freedom to act as the principal regional security actor. In practice, the period of British dominance was to be relatively brief, being characterised by one historian as 'Britain's moment' in the Middle East, and was also increasingly to be frustrated by the growing inter-ethnic conflict in Palestine.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution and Peace Studies
Political Geography:
Britain, Europe, Middle East, France, and Soviet Union

312. Security Factors and Responses in the Emerging Mediterranean Strategic Setting

Author:
Roberto Aliboni
Publication Date:
07-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
During the Cold War, threats coming from across the Mediterranean Sea to Europe and the Western world in general were strictly related to the East-West confrontation. National security was not endangered by possible attacks from the Mediterranean or Middle Eastern countries as such but by the East-West escalation South-South conflict could be able to give way to. In this sense, the Arab-Israeli conflict was a central threat to Western security. What was frightening was not the military power of the regional countries but their alliance with the Soviet Union and the possibility of what at that time was called horizontal escalation (as opposed to East-West direct vertical escalation).
Topic:
Security and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
Europe, Israel, Soviet Union, and North Africa

313. U.S. Policy Toward the Former Yugoslavia

Author:
Steven E. Meyer
Publication Date:
08-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Wilson Center
Abstract:
As long as the Cold War framed the international arena, relations between the United States and Yugoslavia were—for the most part—fairly clear and predictable. Both sides played their assigned roles well in the larger East-West drama. For the U.S., Yugoslavia—after Tito and Stalin split in 1948—was the useful, even reliable, strategically-placed, communist antagonist to the Soviet Union. Certainly, Washington complained at times about Yugoslavia's preference for nonalignment and lamented the fact that it was not part of the Western alliance. The fact that Yugoslavia was indeed a communist state that Moscow could not control, however, more than compensated for these “short comings.” As a reward, the U.S. courted Tito, provided economic aid, and paid virtually no attention to how he ran the country—even his brutal rise to power after World War II was of little consequence.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Cold War, and Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Washington, Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia

314. Europe's New Security Vocation

Author:
Michael Brenner
Publication Date:
03-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The idea of a European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI) has been a feature of the transatlantic security dialogue for a decade. The 1991 Maastricht Treaty foresaw an eventual incorporation of the Western European Union (WEU) as the defense arm of the European Union (EU). Endowing the Union with military capability was a logical extension of the commitment to a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) as stipulated in the treaty. Both ideas, promoted by France and Germany, expressed the general desire of member states to play a more active role in securing the peace and stability of postcommunist Europe. Extending the principle of integration into the foreign policy field served two purposes. It was a means to tighten community bonds in the new, unsettled strategic environment by providing reassurance against the renationalization of defense policies. At the same time, it laid the basis for a collective effort to influence continental affairs consonant with the European venture in an orderly transition to democracy and market economies. The perceived need to add a security building block to the project of "constructing Europe" also reflected apprehension about a possible retreat of the United States from a Europe now free of the Soviet military threat. That possibility added further reason for West Europeans to make contingency plans for an uncertain future.
Topic:
Security and NATO
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, France, Soviet Union, and Germany

315. Divergence and dispersion in the Russian economy

Author:
Per Botolf Maurseth
Publication Date:
12-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
In the Soviet Union, one result of central planning was geographical decentralisation of economic activity to a large set of remote peripheral regions. For Russian post-Soviet regions an important question is whether centripetal market forces may alter the pre-existing industrial location. This paper addresses some aspects of regional economic development in Russia. The Russian economic landscape differs from what is common in market economies. Peripheral regions are generally richer than the average. During the 1990s, differences in gross regional product increased. These developments have also meant less spatial concentration of economic activity. During the last half of the 1990s, economic growth was higher in central regions than in the peripheries. If these trends continue, the Russian economic landscape will alter significantly in the future, with income per capita, total income and population being concentrated in economic central regions.
Topic:
Development, Economics, and Industrial Policy
Political Geography:
Russia and Soviet Union

316. Politics from the Barrel of a Gun: Small Arms Proliferation and Conflict in the Republic of Georgia

Author:
Spyros Demetriou
Publication Date:
11-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Small Arms Survey
Abstract:
Over ten years have elapsed since the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991. Radical transitions from one political system to another are by definition conflict-prone, involving fierce competition between differing visions, fluid political affiliations, social activism, power vacuums, and severe economic crises—if not collapse. In such contexts of instability and uncertainty, the recourse to armed violence—as a form of expression and an instrument of power—is an attractive option. The collapse of the USSR engendered a radical transition culminating in the creation of 15 internationally recognized states. Although for the most part surprisingly peaceful, the transition to independence in four states—Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova, and Georgia—was marked by widespread violence.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Arms Control and Proliferation, and War
Political Geography:
Moldova, Soviet Union, and Georgia

317. Potential Sources of Financing for U.S. Ventures in Russia

Author:
Askar Askarov, Katharine Reed, and Linn E. Schulte-Sasse
Publication Date:
12-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Stanford University
Abstract:
Following the end of the Cold War, the United States and its allies recognized that it was in their vital security interests to promote stable transitions in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the New Independent States (NIS) of the former Soviet Union. For the most part, such transitions would depend on the efforts of the states in transition themselves, including many that had been newly formed. However, one way in which the Western nations could help was by economic assistance -- both financial and technical.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance and Political Economy
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, and Soviet Union

318. Two Reluctant Regionalizers? The European Union and Russia in Europe's North

Author:
Hiski Haukkala
Publication Date:
01-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
It has become something of a cliché to argue that the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in dramatic changes in the unfolding of political space in the 1990s. Yet this was especially true in the case of the then European Community (EC) and its relations with the Soviet Union/Russian Federation. During the Cold War, the relations between the EC and the USSR were practically non-existent. The ascension of Mikhail Gorbachev and the period of perestroika and glasnost resulted, however, in a gradual rapprochement between the two parties. The creation of these new ties was formalized in the signing of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) between the EC and the USSR, which was, however, in effect signed with an already crumbling Soviet Union as it took place as late as 21 December 1989.
Topic:
Democratization, Development, Economics, and Regional Cooperation
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Asia, and Soviet Union

319. Russian Policy toward the Korean Peninsula, 1991-2001

Author:
Jane Shapiro Zacek
Publication Date:
09-2001
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
In July of 2000, Russian Federation (RF) President Vladimir Putin spent two days in Pyongyang, North Korea, the first Russian (or Soviet) head of state ever to visit that country. Newly elected President in his own right in March 2000, Putin wasted no time promoting his East Asia foreign policy agenda, including presidential visits to South Korea, China, and elsewhere in the region within the past year.
Political Geography:
Russia, China, East Asia, South Korea, North Korea, Soviet Union, Korea, Sinai Peninsula, and Pyongyang

320. The South Korean Military and the Korean War

Author:
Chang-Il Ohn
Publication Date:
03-2001
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
Immediately before the Japanese surrender in the Pacific War (1941-5), there was one Korea, though it had been under Japanese colonial rule for 36 years. The 38th parallel, which the American policymakers hastily picked out as the operational boundary between U.S. and Soviet troops in the Far East at the last stage of the Pacific War, divided one Korea into the two, North and South.1 Soviet troops occupied North Korea, Americans entered the South, and the two sides began military occupation in the two Koreas. The latitude, which Washington policymakers conceived to be a temporary line to halt the further southward advance of Soviet troops and thereby physically eliminate the possibility of Soviet participation in the Japanese occupation, and to facilitate the process of establishing a Korean government "in due course," however, began to embrace new political and military connotations. The two Koreas, even on a temporary basis, thus appeared. The status of and situations in the two Koreas were almost the same at the beginning of the military occupations. In both parts of Korea, people were very poor mainly because of the harsh Japanese mobilization for conducting the Pacific War. There were neither major factories, nor organized indigenous troops, nor influential political groups except the strong popular desire to establish a Korean government right away. Almost every well-informed Korean had a distinctive idea about the future of Korea and the nature of its government. As a result, "too many" political organizations and parties were formed, and, especially, the American military government judged that the Koreans were "too much" politicized. All in all, the situations in the two parts of Korea were almost identical as much as the status of being the occupied. The policies and strategies of the two occupiers—the United States and the Soviet Union—toward Korea, however, were different. Despite the wartime agreement with the United States that Korea should be independent "in due course," which meant that a Korean government should be established after the period of multinational trusteeship, the Soviet Union was not enthusiastic about the idea of multi-tutorship for Korea. Instead, the Soviet authority was busy in communizing the northern half of Korea, trying to make it a stronghold for securing the entire Korean peninsula. The Chief Soviet Delegate, Colonel General T. F. Shtykov, made it clear, at the Joint Commission convened in Seoul on March 20, 1946, that Korea should be "loyal to the Soviet Union, so that it will not become a base for an attack on the Soviet Union" in the future.2 This Soviet position was directly contrary to the primary objective of the United States in Korea, that is, "to prevent Russian domination of Korea."3 Unable to find a compromised solution on Korea through the Joint Commission, the United States internationalized the Korean issue by turning it over to the United Nations. The Soviet Union, however, did not accept the U.N. resolution that a Korean government would be established through holding a general election throughout Korea, and the Soviet authority in North Korea rejected the entry of U.N. representatives. As a result, the two Korean governments were created, one in the South blessed by the United Nations and the other in the North brewed by the Soviet Union, in August and September 1948 respectively.
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, America, Washington, South Korea, North Korea, Soviet Union, and Korea