Search

Begin New Search Political Geography United States Publication Year within 25 Years

6161. Is South Asian Nuclear Politics Different?

Author:
Rajesh Basrur
Publication Date:
05-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Social Science Research Council
Abstract:
The central question before us is whether it is appropriate for South Asians to learn from the US-Soviet experience of the Cold War. This raises other questions: Are the two sets of relationships comparable? Is there in South Asia a "cold war" essentially similar to the Cold War? Should the theoretical lenses we use for both sets be the same? Can we learn from the one about the other? Is the thinking and practice relating to nuclear weapons in the two sets comparable?
Topic:
Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, South Asia, and Soviet Union

6162. Are We Taking China's Future for Granted?

Author:
Joseph C. Folio
Publication Date:
09-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Abstract:
During Fall 2003 the Schlesinger Working Group held two meetings (September 25th and November 3rd) to explore China's estimated political/ economic outlook and to determine what potential challenges might affect its projected future. The purpose of these meetings was not to predict a Chinese stumble or even collapse, but rather to examine events that could trigger a disruption of China's current, impressively successful economic trajectory, and to analyze what form that disruption could take. During the first meeting, participants identified potential disruption scenarios to which China remains vulnerable. The second meeting considered the implications of disruption for both China and the United States, and how these scenarios might affect U.S. policy. Working Group members did not attempt to assign probabilities for the identified potential disruptions or “failures.” Rather, they focused on the hurdles or challenges posed by these disruption scenarios, which the Chinese leadership would need to confront successfully in order to avoid losing control or endangering national cohesion. Participants generally agreed that any major disruption would most likely derive from an external shock that might negatively affect China's economic situation and possibly ignite collateral internal disruption via domestic unrest or leadership division. The group concurred that the Chinese leadership has sufficient strength and cohesion to manage most forms of internal disruption, or at least to adapt quickly and effectively to those that arise.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, and Economics
Political Geography:
United States and China

6163. Intended Consequences of an Expanded U.S. Military Presence in the Muslim World

Author:
Paul G. Frost
Publication Date:
05-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Abstract:
The Schlesinger Working Group on Strategic Surprises in Spring 2003 took on the topic, "The Unintended Consequences of an Expanded U.S. Military Presence in the Muslim World", holding its first meeting March 18, literally on the eve of war against Iraq. Its second meeting was held May 27, after the war ended, and as the difficulties of post-war reconstruction were becoming clearer. Core members and area/subject experts met to examine benefits and drawbacks, as well as scenarios that could stem from an expanded American military presence in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa.
Topic:
Defense Policy
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, America, South Asia, Middle East, Arabia, and North Africa

6164. Democracy and Military Intervention: Challenges and Opportunities

Author:
Daniel Byman
Publication Date:
02-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies
Abstract:
The Bush administration entered office skeptical of using the U.S. military to build democracy. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's National Security Advisor, wrote before the election that: "The President must remember that the military is a special instrument. It is lethal, and it is meant to be. It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society." Despite this skepticism, policing, building a civilian society, and other tasks inherent to democratization were quickly thrust upon the Bush administration. Even before the fall of the Taliban, the United States and its allies began trying to shape a new government to take power in Kabul. And today, as the United States and its allies move to topple Saddam's regime, they are grappling with how to create a stable and democratic future for Iraq.
Topic:
Security, Government, Peace Studies, and Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Taliban, and Kabul

6165. Saudi Arabia's Dubious Denials of Involvement in International Terrorism

Author:
Dore Gold
Publication Date:
10-2003
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Abstract:
Saudi Arabia's past involvement in international terrorism is indisputable. While the Bush administration decided to redact 28 sensitive pages of the Joint Intelligence Report of the U.S. Congress, nonetheless, Saudi involvement in terrorist financing can be documented through materials captured by Israel in Palestinian headquarters in 2002-3. In light of this evidence, Saudi denials about terrorist funding don't hold water. Israel retrieved a document of the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) which detailed the allocation of $280,000 to 14 Hamas charities. IIRO and other suspected global Saudi charities are not NGOs, since their boards of directors are headed by Saudi cabinet members. Prince Salman, a full brother of King Fahd, controls IIRO distributions "with an iron hand," according to former CIA operative Robert Baer. Mahmoud Abbas, in fact, complained, in a handwritten December 2000 letter to Salman, about Saudi funding of Hamas. Defense Minister Prince Sultan has been cited as a major IIRO contributor. It was hoped, after the May 12 triple bombing attack in Riyadh, that Saudi Arabia might halt its support for terrorism. Internally, the Saudi security forces moved against al-Qaeda cells all over the kingdom. But externally, the Saudis were still engaged in terrorist financing, underwriting 60-70 percent of the Hamas budget, in violation of their "roadmap" commitments to President Bush. Additionally, the Saudis back the civilian infrastructure of Hamas with extremist textbooks glorifying jihad and martyrdom that are used by schools and Islamic societies throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Ideological infiltration of Palestinian society by the Saudis in this way is reminiscent of their involvement in the madrassa system of Pakistan during the 1980s, that gave birth to the Taliban and other pro bin-Laden groups.
Topic:
Security, Religion, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Arab Countries, and Saudi Arabia

6166. Trends in the Incidence of International Terror Attacks on Americans After the Cold War

Author:
Charles Knight and Melissa Murphy
Publication Date:
06-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
This briefing memo addresses trends in the incidence of terror in the post-Cold War period by comparing the number of international terror attacks on American interests with the overall number of terror attacks worldwide. We present the data year by year and as three year moving averages. We use data from the U.S. Department of State which is frequently cited as authoritative and usefully summarizes annual statistics.
Topic:
Security and Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States

6167. The U.S. - Korea Alliance: Past, Present and Future

Author:
Hakjoon Kim
Publication Date:
03-2003
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
Half a century has passed since the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the United States concluded a mutual defense treaty. Despite occasional disharmonies and even conflicts, cooperation as well as friendship has prevailed in their bilateral relations, and the alliance has proved to be one of the most successful ones in the post World War II period. However, since the advent of the George W. Bush administration in January 2001, the rift between the two allies has become highlighted to the extent that the alliance is seen as being seriously weakened or even irrevocably damaged.
Political Geography:
United States and Korea

6168. Chinese-North Korean Relations at a Crossroads

Author:
Samuel S. Kim
Publication Date:
03-2003
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
At the locus of the "last glacier of the Cold War," there is a double paradox at work on the Korean peninsula, structured and symbolized by two competing alliances forged during the heyday of the Cold War: North Korea with China (1961) and South Korea with the United States (1954). The peninsula is currently experiencing an unprecedented crisis of alliance maintenance, even survival. For better or worse, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), or North Korea, is the only country with which the People's Republic of China (PRC) "maintains"—whether in name or in practice—its 1961 Cold-War pact. Yet amidst Chinese worries that the U.S.-DPRK nuclear confrontation may spiral out of control, in March 2003 Beijing established a leading Group on the North Korean Crisis (LGNKC), headed by President Hu Jintao. The LGNKC's mission is to improve assessment of the intelligence "black hole" over Pyongyang's nuclear capabilities and intentions and to formulate a cost-effective conflict management strategy.
Political Geography:
United States, China, Beijing, North Korea, and Korea

6169. Nuclear Issues in U.S.-Korea Relations: An Uncertain Security Future

Author:
Young Whan Kihl
Publication Date:
03-2003
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
The security dynamics on the Korean peninsula are changing with the uncertain future associated with the North Korean claim that it now has nuclear weapons and an active program of building a "powerful deterrence force". This dramatic reversal of Pyongyang's nuclear stance, which is more than rhetorical but action-driven, followed its announced withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty early in 2003 and its nullification of the 1992 North-South Korean non-nuclear agreement.
Political Geography:
United States, South Korea, Korea, and Pyongyang

6170. Brain Drain and Economic Development in the Context of U.S.-Korea Alliance

Author:
Sunwoong Kim and Ju-Ho Lee
Publication Date:
03-2003
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
Most people would acknowledge that the military and economic alliance between the U.S. and South Korea (Korea hereafter) has played a very important role in shaping the modern history in Korea. Among other things, many have pointed out that Korea's savings in military spending in order to deal with the North Korean threat since the Korean War is one of the major benefits of the strong alliance, because the savings that should have been diverted to military expense could be invested for improved economic development. Also, under this security arrangement, Korea has successfully implemented the strategy of export-as-anengine- for-economic-growth by borrowing heavily from the international financial market. Without the U.S.'s security guarantee, international borrowing would have been much more costly. Another important aspect of the strong alliance is that the U.S. has been the major market for Korean exports for several decades.
Political Geography:
United States, South Korea, North Korea, and Korea