Search

You searched for: Content Type Working Paper Remove constraint Content Type: Working Paper Publishing Institution The Geneva Centre for Security Policy Remove constraint Publishing Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy Political Geography Russia Remove constraint Political Geography: Russia Topic Security Remove constraint Topic: Security
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • 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, Weapons of Mass Destruction
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Europe
  • Author: Selbi Hanova
  • Publication Date: 02-2009
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: On 22-23 September 2008, the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Academy, Bishkek, organised a forum for security policy experts from Eurasia, East and South-East Asia, Europe and the United States, to analyse and discuss the continued interaction of key regional security dynamics and functional issues in Central Asia over 2008. A series of panels identified major emergent themes, linkages and trends, and reflected on their strategic impact and security policy implications. The focus included panels on the Afghan factor and Georgian crisis in Central Asian security politics, energy geopolitics, the role of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in the region, as well as US and Russian policies towards Central Asia. The seminar highlighted and analysed some of the key security tendencies and practical aspects of security in the region including emerging trends and themes, their interplay and contradictions as well as their likely strategic influence and consequences.
  • Topic: Conflict Resolution, Security
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Europe, Central Asia, Southeast Asia
  • Author: Miriam Fugfugosh
  • Publication Date: 07-2008
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: The OSCE area is marked by a number of common characteristics that define the overall context for mediation efforts. Some of the main commonalities highlighted during the Consultation were: the significant roles of global and regional actors in the OSCE area, including the United States, the member states of the European Union, Russia, Turkey and Iran; the multiplicity of international and regional organisations active in the area, such as the United Nations (UN), Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Council of Europe (CoE), European Union (EU), and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); and the protracted nature of the so-called 'frozen' conflicts, such as the Transdniestrian, Georgian-Abkhaz, Georgian-Ossetian and Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts. These characteristics pose significant challenges for mediation efforts in the region.
  • Topic: Conflict Resolution, Security, Democratization, Globalization
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Europe, Iran, Turkey
  • Author: Daniil Kobyakov, Vladimir Orlov
  • Publication Date: 06-2005
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: Since the inception of the G8 Global Partnership (GP) program in Kananaskis on June 27 2002, the program has passed through different stages. Initially, it was just a loud political declaration, adopted by the leaders of the G8 following the attacks of 9/11. A Russian participant of the Kananaskis Summit later recalled with some surprise how smoothly and, to some extent, unexpectedly for the Russians involved the "$20 billion" pledge was shaped in that Canadian village. Interviewed on a major European GP-related conference a year after the Kananaskis summit, he was frank to exclaim: "Arriving in Kananaskis, we [Russians] could hardly even expect that this whole giant wave now called Global Partnership would be born from our discussions of non-proliferation and counter-terrorism".
  • Topic: International Relations, Security, Weapons of Mass Destruction
  • Political Geography: Russia
  • Author: Cristina Chuen
  • Publication Date: 04-2005
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: The Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction is nearly three years old. While the initiative—launched on June 27, 2002, at the G8 annual summit in Kananaskis, Canadai—brought new donors to the table and added a new sense of urgency to nonproliferation projects in Russia, to date the programs have yielded mixed results. There is much that remains to be done if the next seven years are going to fulfill the promise of Kananaskis.
  • Topic: International Relations, Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Weapons of Mass Destruction
  • Political Geography: Russia
  • Author: William Hitchcock
  • Publication Date: 08-2000
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: Two years ago, when many of us gathered together in the dramatic Alpine setting of Leukerbad to consider the recent past and the likely future of US-European relations, our group was full of dire prognostications. Russia was headed toward collapse, the EU looked weak after the Yugoslav war, NATO expansion appeared to be dividing Europe; the introduction of the euro looked liked a risky gamble that might worsen trans-Atlantic relations; and most disturbing for me as an American, my government was preoccupied with the Lewinsky scandal and the future of the Clinton presidency seemed at risk. Indeed, one of our colleagues, discussing the crisis over after-dinner drinks, declared that Clinton would resign from the presidency within matter of weeks.
  • Topic: Security, Defense Policy, NATO
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Europe, Asia
  • Author: Anne Deighton
  • Publication Date: 08-2000
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: The 'St Malo process' which has being taking shape since December 1998, will bring a qualitative change in the EU's role as an international institution. Many of the big initiatives that the Union undertakes are not fully understood early on - unexpected, and sometimes unintended consequences can result from the changes that the EU agrees to. It takes time for the institutional implications of major changes to emerge: the Single Act was, in the mid 80s, often seen as the 'elephant that gave birth to a mouse'; and the Maastricht Treaty as at once called too federalist, and too timid. Likewise, the exact configuration of the changes that St Malo may bring will also take time to become clear. 'Militarising' the EU, however, ends one of the last policy taboos of a 'civilian-power' European Union and breaks through the 'glass ceiling' of the EU's self-denying ordinance against the adoption of the instruments of military force which has existed since its inception. This paper assesses how far these changes got by the summer of 2000 and asks whether the last eighteen months are one stage in the messy birth of a post-Cold War pan-European defence and security regime with institutions based around NATO and the EU. Europe's institutional configuration tends to matter more to Europeans than to our transatlantic partners; but institutions are the reality of contemporary European international politics. 'Multilateral institutionalism' too, is inescapable, and how institutions relate to each other has become an increasingly significant question. To accept this does not meant that states do not matter, for states also use institutions, as well as being shaped by institutions.
  • Topic: Security, Defense Policy, NATO
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Europe, Asia, Switzerland
  • Author: John Lewis Gaddis
  • Publication Date: 08-2000
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization stands at a crossroads. Critical choices lie ahead that will determine its future. I begin my paper this way because it is customary to begin pronouncements on NATO with this kind of statement. Indeed papers and speeches on NATO have been beginning this way through the half-century of the alliance's existence - and yet NATO never quite reaches whatever crisis the speaker or writer has in mind. NATO seems to have a life of its own, which is remarkably detached from the shocks and surprises that dominate most of history, certainly Cold War history. And NATO's members, both actual and aspiring, seem bent on keeping it that way. So what is a crossroad anyway in historical terms? Most of my colleagues, I think, would say that it's a turning point: a moment at which it becomes clear that the status quo can no longer sustain itself, at which decisions have to be made about new courses of action, at which the results of those decisions shape what happens for years to come. The Cold War was full of such moments: the Korean War, Khrushchev's de-Stalinization speech, the Hungarian and Suez crises, the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Six Day War, the Tet offensive, Nixon's trip to China, the invasion of Afghanistan, the reunification of Germany, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War itself. What strikes me as a historian, though, is how little impact these turning points had on NATO's history - even General deGaulle, who tried to turn himself personally into a turning point. The structure and purposes of the alliance today are not greatly different from what they were when NATO was founded. Which is to say that NATO's history, compared to that of most other Cold War institutions, is uneventful, bland, and even (let us be frank) a little dull. That very uneventfulness, though, is turning out to be one of the more significant aspects of Cold War history. It surprised the historians, who have been able to cite no other example of a multi-national alliance that has had the robustness, the durability, the continuity, some might say the apparent immortality, of this one. It has also surprised the international relations theorists, for it is a fundamental principle of their discipline that alliances form when nations balance against threats. It follows, then, that as threats dissipate, alliances should also - and yet this one shows no signs of doing so. An instrument of statecraft, which is what an alliance normally is, has in this instance come to be regarded as a fundamental interest of statecraft. That requires explanation, which is what I should like to attempt here.
  • Topic: Security, Defense Policy, NATO
  • Political Geography: Afghanistan, Russia, United States, China, Europe, Asia, Soviet Union, Germany, Berlin
  • Author: Pal Dunay
  • Publication Date: 08-2000
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: The current phase and the prospects of U.S. - EU relations can be analysed from different vantage points. The most logical is to deal with the position of the main actors, the United States or the European Union. This paper makes an attempt to analyse the prospects of U.S. - EU relations in light of two major developments: the beginning of the third phase of the economic and monetary union, symbolised by the introduction of the Euro and the verbal (re-)establishment of European defence. The paper makes an attempt to pay attention to the arguments of the United States, though the emphasis is on the European perception of the possible complications of the new phase of evolution that European integration may generate in the relations between the two entities.
  • Topic: Security, Defense Policy, NATO
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Europe, Asia
  • Author: S. Neil MacFarlane
  • Publication Date: 08-2000
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: In 1996, ex-NATO Defence College fellow Dmitrii Trenin wrote that "in spite of the numerous public declarations of intention by Russia and the United States, Russia and NATO, and Russia and the European Union, so far no reliable foundation for partnership has been laid." Although the remark is four years old, there is little to argue with here. The proposition remains equally valid today. Four years ago, one might have asked: so what? Given the state of affairs in Russia, it didn't matter much anyway. However, things are changing. For the first time in ten years, secessionist wars, submarine disasters and fires in television towers notwithstanding, NATO and the West face a pivotal moment in the effort to normalize the relationship with Russia. The executive has secured reasonable control over the legislature. It is moving towards the reestablishment of central authority vis-à-vis the regions. The government is restoring a disciplined and reasonably orderly approach to foreign and security policy. There is increasingly strong evidence of sustained Russian economic recovery. This is a moment, consequently, of both opportunity and risk in the West's relations with Russia. It is an appropriate time to review where we have been, where we are, where we want to be, and what the role of NATO is in getting us there.
  • Topic: Security, Defense Policy, NATO
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Europe, Asia