Search

Begin New Search Topic Security Political Geography United States

341. 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

342. On-line Theft of Intellectual Property Threatens National Security

Author:
Andy Purdy and Nick Hopkinson
Publication Date:
03-2011
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
European Affairs
Institution:
The European Institute
Abstract:
Much of the public discussion about threats in cyberspace has focused on cyber war, crime and short-term malicious activity for economic, political, or public relations gain. Too often each threat is seen as a discrete problem that is approached in a reactive manner geared to the intended targets. Instead, the problem should be viewed as a larger, interconnected issue – really, a continuum of malicious activity -- that requires a strategic and proactive approach by key government and private-sector stakeholders working together, both nationally and internationally.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States

343. The 'New Turkey' and American-Turkish Relations

Author:
F. Stephen Larrabee
Publication Date:
02-2011
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Insight Turkey
Institution:
SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research
Abstract:
The United States has to deal with a very different Turkey today than the Turkey during the Cold War. The disappearance of the Soviet threat has reduced Turkey's dependence on the United States for its security and deprived the U.S.-Turkish security partnership of a clear unifying purpose. At the same time, Turkey's geographic role and interests have expanded. Turkey now has interests and stakes in various regions it did not have two decades ago. It is thus less willing to automatically follow the U.S.'s lead on many issues, especially when U.S. policy conflicts with Turkey's own interests. This does not mean that Turkey is turning its back on the West or the United States. Turkey still wants—and needs—strong ties with the United States. But the terms of engagement have changed. Ankara is a rising regional power and is no longer content to play the role of junior partner.
Topic:
Security and Cold War
Political Geography:
United States, America, and Turkey

344. Turkey-GCC Relations: Is There a Future?

Author:
Birol Baskan
Publication Date:
02-2011
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Insight Turkey
Institution:
SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research
Abstract:
The historical solution to the security problem in the Persian/ Arabian Gulf, that is, the active military protection of a super power, is no longer sustainable as the unipolar world gives way to a multipolar one and the credibility of the United States to provide military security is being increasingly questioned. This paper addresses a question neglected by both international and regional analysts: can Turkey play any role in the future Gulf security architecture? The paper argues that Turkey can help the GCC states develop effective state institutions and build regional institutional mechanisms to solve potential crises and alleviate the security dilemma in the Gulf. It can deliver this public good to the region precisely because Turkey has strong economic and political interests to have good relations with all sides concerned with the Gulf security.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States and Turkey

345. Russia's strategies in Afghanistan and their consequences for NATO

Author:
Marlène Laruelle
Publication Date:
11-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
In July 2011, the first U.S. troops started to leave Afghanistan - a powerful symbol of Western determination to let the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) gradually take over responsibility for national security. This is also an important element in the strategy of Hamid Karzai's government, which seeks to appear not as a pawn of Washington but as an autonomous actor in negotiations with the so-called moderate Taliban. With withdrawal to be completed by 2014, the regionalization of the "Afghan issue" will grow. The regional powers will gain autonomy in their relationship with Kabul, and will implement strategies of both competition and collaboration. In the context of this regionalization, Russia occupies an important position.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Russia, and United States

346. The President's Dilemma: Deficits, Debt, and US Defense Spending

Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
The Obama administration's DoD budget plans lock into place the unprecedented rise in defense spending – 90% – that began in the late-1990s, consolidating a return to Reagan-era budget levels (when corrected for inflation).
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and War
Political Geography:
United States

347. The Best Defense?

Author:
Abraham D. Sofaer
Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Foreign Affairs
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
After 9/11, U.S. President George W. Bush announced his determination to do whatever was necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States. Following the lead of several countries that had recently come to similar conclusions after their own bitter experiences -- including India, Israel, Japan, Russia, Spain, and the United Kingdom -- the United States tightened its immigration laws; increased the protection of its borders, ports, and infrastructure; criminalized providing "material support" for terrorist groups; and tore down the wall between the intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies, which had crippled counterterrorist efforts for decades. Washington did not authorize preventive detention, as other countries had, but it used other measures to hold persons against whom criminal charges could not be brought -- thereby preventing terrorist attacks. The U.S. government also led or joined various international efforts aimed at warding off new dangers, such as the Proliferation Security Initiative, through which over 70 states cooperate to interdict the movement of nuclear materials across international borders. But the Bush administration's call for preventive action went further: it endorsed using force against states that supported terrorism or failed to prevent it. This was a particularly controversial position, since using (or threatening to use) preventive force across international borders is generally considered to be a violation of international law: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and most international legal authorities currently construe the United Nations Charter as prohibiting any use of force not sanctioned by the UN Security Council, with the exception of actions taken in self-defense against an actual or imminent state-sponsored "armed attack."
Topic:
Security and United Nations
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Japan, United Kingdom, Washington, Israel, and Spain

348. An Undisciplined Defense: Understanding the $2 Trillion Surge in US Defense Spending

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
The rise in US defense spending since 1998 has no precedent in all the years since the Korean war. It most readily compares with two earlier, but lesser spending surges: the 1958-1968 surge of 43% and the 1975-1985 surge of 57%. The post-Cold War retrenchment of the US military reached its limit in 1998 with DoD's budget settling at an ebb point of $361.5 billion (2010 USD). If we treat the 1998 budget level as a “baseline” and project it forward to 2010 (adjusting for inflation), we find that the total amount of funds that have been given to DoD above this level during the years 1999-2010 is $2.15 trillion (in 2010 dollars). This figure constitutes what we call the post-1998 spending surge. (All told, DoD budget authority for the period was $6.5 trillion in 2010 dollars).
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and War
Political Geography:
United States

349. The Future of NATO

Author:
Whitney Shepardson
Publication Date:
02-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
If the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) did not exist today, the United States would not seek to create it. In 1949, it made sense in the face of a potential Soviet invasion to forge a bond in the North Atlantic area among the United States, Canada, and the west European states. Today, if the United States were starting from scratch in a world of transnational threats, the debate would be over whether to follow liberal and neoconservative calls for an alliance of democracies without regard to geography or to develop a great power concert envisioned by the realists to uphold the current order.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, NATO, International Cooperation, International Organization, and International Security
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Canada, and Soviet Union

350. Strengthening the IAEA: How the Nuclear Watchdog Can Regain Its Bark

Author:
Gregory L. Schulte
Publication Date:
03-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The United States has a great interest in the success of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), given the important role it can play in reducing the risks of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. Stalled investigations of Iran and Syria have put the credibility of the IAEA at stake. The agency detected neither Iran’s hidden uranium enrichment facility near Qom nor the reactor being constructed by Syria near al Kibar. These examples underscore the importance of strengthening the agency’s verification capability, by both increasing its authority and sharing more information. The IAEA can also help shape the global growth of nuclear power, ensuring the highest levels of safety and security, while discouraging the spread of sensitive technologies that can be misused to build nuclear weapons. The IAEA Board of Governors’ recent decision to establish a nuclear fuel bank in Russia is a step in the right direction. Success requires a new “Spirit of Vienna”—a willingness of delegates to work toward consensus on even difficult topics—surrounding the agency’s important role in nonproliferation. It also requires a conscious effort by the new Director General to remove the politics from IAEA business and return the agency to its technical mandate.
Topic:
Security, Nuclear Weapons, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Iran, Syria, and Vienna