Search

20751. Enhancing Civilian Protection in Peace Operations: Insights from Africa

Author:
Paul D. Williams
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Abstract:
The protection of civilians is a critical issue in African security. Nearly 600,000 civilians in 27 African countries have been massacred in the past two decades. Tens of millions more have been killed in battles, displaced, or perished from indirect causes of such attacks and the continent's armed conflicts. Not only are civilians the main victims of Africa's wars, but also an increasing number of United Nations (UN) Security Council resolutions have called upon peacekeepers to protect them. For many, civilian protection is the very essence of peacekeeping. This is a driving rationale behind the unanimously endorsed and UN-mandated “responsibility to protect” principle—the idea that governments have a responsibility to prevent and curtail genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing. Civilian protection is also a crucial part of forging durable political settlements because any peace agreement that tolerates continued violence against civilians will not provide a solid foundation on which to build legitimate governance structures.
Topic:
Security, Human Rights, Human Welfare, War, and Peacekeeping
Political Geography:
Africa and United Nations

20752. National Implementation of the United Nations Small Arms Programme of Action and the International Tracing Instrument: An Analysis of Reporting in 2009–10

Author:
Sarah Parker
Publication Date:
06-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Small Arms Survey
Abstract:
This report is divided into three parts. The first part provides a statistical overview of reporting by states from January 2002 to May 2010. It also reports on the findings of a survey conducted by the Small Arms Survey to verify the existence of and contact details for National Points of Contact (NPCs), as well as the status of National Coordination Agencies (NCAs) and National Action Plans (NAPs). The second part provides an overview of states' implementation of the following BMS4 themes: (a) preventing and combating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons across borders; and (b) international cooperation and assistance. Since national reports under review contain almost no specific information on the third theme identified by Ambassador Macedo—strengthening of PoA follow-up mechanisms—consideration of this theme will be included in the final report, pending discussion at BMS4 and the submission of additional national reports that address the issue in detail. The third part of the report is dedicated to states' reporting on the International Tracing Instrument; only information provided by states that made specific reference to the International Tracing Instrument is included and analysed. Key observations and discussion points arising from the analysis of the national reports are included at the end of each section. All cited texts are drawn from relevant 2010 national reports unless otherwise indicated.
Topic:
Political Violence, Arms Control and Proliferation, United Nations, and War

20753. Surveying Europe's Production and Procurement of Small Arms and Light Weapons Ammunition

Author:
Benjamin King(ed.)
Publication Date:
07-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Small Arms Survey
Abstract:
Enumerating a state's demand and supply chains for small arms and light weapons ammunition remains a difficult undertaking. This is largely an outcome of many nations' reluctance to fully disclose information, together with poor accounting practices that hide the value of the data in aggregate totals. This working paper illustrates these challenges by detailing the most comprehensive picture possible of three countries' procurement, production, and exportation of ammunition for small arms and light weapons. Given the variety in transparency and disparate means of disclosure, each researcher took a unique approach towards fact finding. Comprehensive data on procurement, production, and exports was not uncovered in any of the cases, as none of these three countries compiles or publicizes such information. Instead, the best information available was gathered through a compilation of sources from each country.
Topic:
Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, and War
Political Geography:
Europe

20754. The United States and the Rise of China: Implications for the Long Haul

Author:
Robert J. Art
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Political Science Quarterly
Institution:
Academy of Political Science
Abstract:
Today, economically wounded though it is, the United States nonetheless remains the world ʼ s most powerful state when power is measured in terms of economic and military assets. In the future, the U.S. economy will continue to grow, and the United States will remain the most powerful military nation on earth for some time to come. However, America ʼ s economic and military edge relative to the world ʼ s other great powers, will inevitably diminish over the next several decades.
Topic:
Economics
Political Geography:
United States and China

20755. Governance after the Crisis

Author:
Alina Mungiu-Pippidi
Publication Date:
06-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Romanian Journal of Political Science
Institution:
Romanian Academic Society
Abstract:
In this paper, I examine the effectiveness of improvements in political and civil rights for attracting foreign direct investment flows (FDI) into democracies. I contend that advances in the quality of democracy – specifically those concerning civil rights – present positive but decreasing marginal returns in attracting FDI inflows. I empirically prove this proposition by using panel data regressions within the Latin American and Eastern European contexts from periods following their democratization (1991-2003).
Political Geography:
Europe

20756. Out of Order: Strengthening the Political-Military Relationship

Author:
Matthew Moten
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Foreign Affairs
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
In June, U.S. President Barack Obama acted swiftly and wisely in relieving General Stanley McChrystal of command of the war in Afghanistan. In removing McChrystal for making disparaging comments about civilian leaders in a Rolling Stone article, the president reasserted the constitutional principle of civilian control of the military. He also immediately appointed General David Petraeus as the new commanding general in Afghanistan, with the U.S. mission continuing as before. Republicans did not try to exploit the situation for political advantage. There was no crisis, no rending of the fabric of political-military relations, and no threat to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the current state of relations between the United States' highest civilian and military leaders is quite good. This is a welcome change, and it began with the tenure of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who changed the climate at the Pentagon from one of suspicion to one of collaboration. Gates has established an atmosphere of trust and respect, combined with an unflinching demand for accountability. Although Donald Rumsfeld had a reputation for leading by fear and intimidation, in his six years as secretary of defense, he fired only one service secretary, Army Secretary Thomas White -- largely over personal differences -- and no flag officers (the hundreds of generals and admirals who compose the country's senior military leadership). In contrast, Gates has dismissed two service secretaries, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the air force chief of staff, the commanding admiral of Central Command, two commanding generals in Afghanistan, and the surgeon general of the army. Yet Gates and Obama have also shown forbearance. Last October, in the midst of the administration's review of the country's Afghanistan policy, McChrystal publicly warned of "mission failure" if a significant infusion of U.S. troops was not made. But instead of removing McChrystal, who had become commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan less than three months earlier, Gates and Obama gave McChrystal a clear message about his place in the political-military partnership. Obama had a private chat with the general on Air Force One, and Gates delivered a highly publicized speech in which he reminded his listeners that "it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations -- civilian and military alike -- provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately."
Topic:
War
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and United States

20757. Smaller is Safer: A New Plan for Nuclear Postures

Author:
Bruce Blair, Valery Yarynich, Matthew McKinzie, Victor Esin, and Pavel Zolotarev
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Foreign Affairs
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
On April 8, sitting beside each other in Prague Castle, U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). Just two days earlier, the Obama administration had issued its Nuclear Posture Review, only the third such comprehensive assessment of the United States' nuclear strategy. And in May, as a gesture of openness at the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York, the U.S. government took the remarkable step of making public the size of its nuclear stockpile, which as of September 2009 totaled 5,113 warheads. For proponents of eliminating nuclear weapons, these events elicited both a nod and a sigh. On the one hand, they represented renewed engagement by Washington and Moscow on arms control, a step toward, as the treaty put it, "the historic goal of freeing humanity from the nuclear threat." On the other hand, they stopped short of fundamentally changing the Cold War face of deterrence. The New START agreement did not reduce the amount of "overkill" in either country's arsenal. Nor did it alter another important characteristic of the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals: their launch-ready alert postures. The two countries' nuclear command, control, and communication systems, and sizable portions of their weapon systems, will still be poised for "launch on warning" -- ready to execute a mass firing of missiles before the quickest of potential enemy attacks could be carried out. This rapid-fire posture carries with it the risk of a launch in response to a false alarm resulting from human or technical error or even a malicious, unauthorized launch. Thus, under the New START treaty, the United States and Russia remain ready to inflict apocalyptic devastation in a nuclear exchange that would cause millions of casualties and wreak unfathomable environmental ruin. In the next round of arms control negotiations, Washington and Moscow need to pursue much deeper cuts in their nuclear stockpiles and agree to a lower level of launch readiness. These steps would help put the world on a path to the elimination of nuclear weapons -- "global zero." And they can be taken while still maintaining a stable relationship of mutual deterrence between the United States and Russia, based on a credible threat of retaliation, and while allowing limited but adequate missile defenses against nuclear proliferators such as Iran and North Korea.
Topic:
Cold War and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Washington, North Korea, and Moscow

20758. Beyond Moderates and Militants: How Obama Can Chart a New Course in the Middle East

Author:
Robert Malley and Peter Harling
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Foreign Affairs
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
In the Middle East, U.S. President Barack Obama has spent the first year and a half of his presidency seeking to undo the damage wrought by his predecessor. He has made up some ground. But given how slowly U.S. policy has shifted, his administration runs the risk of implementing ideas that might have worked if President George W. Bush had pursued them a decade ago. The region, meanwhile, will have moved on. It is a familiar pattern. For decades, the West has been playing catch-up with a region it pictures as stagnant. Yet the Middle East evolves faster and less predictably than Western policymakers imagine. As a rule, U.S. and European governments eventually grasp their missteps, yet by the time their belated realizations typically occur, their ensuing policy adjustments end up being hopelessly out of date and ineffective. In the wake of the colonial era, as Arab nationalist movements emerged and took power across the Middle East, Europe either ignored the challenge they posed or treated them as Soviet-inspired irritants. By the time the West understood the significance and popularity of these movements, Europe's power had long since faded, and its reputation in the region was irreparably tarnished by the stain of neocolonialism. Likewise, the United States only became fully conscious of the jihadist threat in the aftermath of 9/11, after Washington had fueled its rise by backing Islamist militant groups in Afghanistan during the 1980s. And Washington only endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state in 2000 -- just when, as a result of developments on the ground and in both the Israeli and the Palestinian polities, the achievement of a two-state solution was becoming increasingly elusive. The West's tendency to adopt Middle East policies that have already outlived their local political shelf lives is occurring once again today: despite its laudable attempt to rectify the Bush administration's missteps, the Obama administration is hamstrung by flawed assumptions about the regional balance of power. Washington still sees the Middle East as cleanly divided between two camps: a moderate, pro-American camp that ought to be bolstered and a militant, pro-Iranian one that needs to be contained. That conception is wholly divorced from reality.
Political Geography:
Europe and Middle East

20759. Bringing Israel's Bomb Out of the Basement

Author:
Avner Cohen and Marvin Miller
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Foreign Affairs
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
No abstract is available.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
Israel