« Previous |
1 - 10 of 101
|
Next »
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. European defence core groups
- Author:
- Margriet Drent, Anne Bakker, and Dick Zandee
- Publication Date:
- 11-2016
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
- Abstract:
- The why, what & how of permanent structured cooperation The deteriorating security situation around Europe and the burgeoning messages from Washington that Europe has to take more responsibility for its own security call for a step change in European defence cooperation. So far, progress has been too slow. This policy brief argues that permanent structured cooperation (Pesco) offers the option to take a more ambitious and more productive route by member states willing to move forward more quickly, set more demanding objectives and commit themselves more strongly. This would end the well-known ‘voluntary basis’ which has often been used as an excuse for doing little or nothing at all.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Terrorism, International Security, International Affairs, and Political and institutional effectiveness
- Political Geography:
- America and European Union
3. Thomas H. Henriksen. America and the Rogue States. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
- Publication Date:
- 03-2015
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
- Institution:
- Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies
- Abstract:
- In America and the Rogue States, Thomas Henriksen lays out the relationships that exist, and have existed, between America and the states that made up George W. Bush's 'Axis of Evil.' Henriksen outlines the history of the interactions between the United States and North Korea, pre-invasion Iraq, and Iran, and through this draws out a number of themes. He also shows that the ways the relationships have played out are highly situational and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. In the last chapter, Henriksen explores American relationships with a number of states that were either once considered rogue or could become rogue, like Libya, Syria, and Cuba, referring to them as either “lesser rogues” or “troublesome states.” These states have remained “a puzzle for US foreign policy” (1) and are characterized by three things: autocratic governance, sponsorship of terrorism, and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). There is no clear definition provided by Henriksen for what can be considered a rogue state, making it difficult to judge what other states, if any, could be considered rogue. Henriksen seems to arbitrarily decide who is rogue and who is not: Cuba is a rogue state, while Myanmar is merely troublesome. Instead of synthesizing a clear definition of the term, something that could then be applied to other states in order to judge their 'rogueness,' Henriksen uses the Bush administration's criteria (the term itself was coined by President Bill Clinton in a 1994 speech in Brussels), which was outlined in the National Security Strategy of 2002 (NSS-2002). These were “brutality toward their own people; contempt for international law; determination to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD); advanced military technology; sponsorship of terrorism; rejection of human rights values; and hatred for the United States and 'everything it stands for'”. The use of the NSS-2002 definition allows for the 'Axis of Evil' to fit neatly into the term, which constitutes a problem of tautology, at least for the Bush administration. Further compounding this was that, according to Henriksen at least, the administration was set on going to war in Iraq prior to assuming office. This creates a situation in which it is hard to determine whether the idea of rogue states was created to justify this desire, or it informed the desire prior to the administration taking office.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy and Terrorism
- Political Geography:
- United States, America, North Korea, and Libya
4. Americans Say Threat of Terrorism at Lowest Level in Twenty Years
- Author:
- Dina Smeltz, Craig Kafura, and Liz Deadrick
- Publication Date:
- 09-2014
- Content Type:
- Research Paper
- Institution:
- Chicago Council on Global Affairs
- Abstract:
- As President Obama prepares to address the nation tomorrow night regarding the threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Chicago Council Survey results from May 2014 show that the Americans remain concerned about the threat of international terrorism, though less intensely now than in the past. Still, combating terrorism remains a top foreign policy goal for the US public, and one of the few situations where majorities of Americans say they are willing to support the use of US troops. That support is reflected in recent polls from CNN/ORC International and ABC News/Washington Post, which find majorities of Americans in favor of conducting airstrikes against ISIS.
- Topic:
- Terrorism and Geopolitics
- Political Geography:
- America and Global Focus
5. America the Vulnerable: Our Military Problems And How To Fix Them
- Author:
- John F. Lehman (ed) and Harvey Sicherman (ed)
- Publication Date:
- 10-2014
- Content Type:
- Book
- Institution:
- Foreign Policy Research Institute
- Abstract:
- A decade has passed since the end of the Cold War. The demise of the Soviet Union concluded the most vulnerable period in American history, a time when the possibility of nuclear attack threatened the very existence of the United States. No wonder then that Americans heaved a mighty sigh of relief, having survived to watch the fall of their country's most powerful enemy.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Terrorism
- Political Geography:
- United States and America
6. Targeted Killing of Terrorists
- Author:
- Nicholas Rostow
- Publication Date:
- 03-2014
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Abstract:
- The struggle against terrorism—more specifically, the effort to prevent terrorist attacks—has raised difficult legal and policy issues including so-called targeted killing, or the killing of specific individuals because of their involvement in terrorist organizations and operations. As we shall see, this form of targeted killing involves domestic and international legal authorities and policy and prudential issues. A substantial number of countries confronting what they consider to be terrorist attacks and threats engage in targeted killings. Each has to resolve questions about authorities and prudence because, while terrorists are always criminals, they also may be lawful military targets. The dual character of terrorists leads to the conclusion that, as a matter of policy, a state should weigh the totality of the circumstances and conclude that no other action is reasonable to prevent a terrorist attack before engaging in the targeted killing. Careful analysis in advance may preempt problems later.
- Topic:
- International Law, Terrorism, and Counterinsurgency
- Political Geography:
- America
7. Underestimating Risk in the Surveillance Debate
- Author:
- James Andrew Lewis
- Publication Date:
- 12-2014
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- Americans are reluctant to accept terrorism is part of their daily lives, but attacks have been planned or attempted against American targets (usually airliners or urban areas) almost every year since 9/11. Europe faces even greater risk, given the thousands of EU citizens who will return hardened and radicalized from fighting in Syria and Iraq.
- Topic:
- Intelligence, Terrorism, Counterinsurgency, and Governance
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, America, Europe, and Syria
8. A call for a new Japanese foreign policy: the dilemmas of a stakeholder state
- Author:
- Takashi Inoguchi
- Publication Date:
- 07-2014
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Institution:
- Chatham House
- Abstract:
- The world was different in 2002 when Henry Kissinger published a book entitled Does America need a foreign policy?, and Le Monde came out in support of the United States after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 by proclaiming: 'We are all American.' In many ways, this was the high point of the American global era—the era of unipolar American power. In 2014 the world has moved on. The United States is still the leading global power with unique capabilities and responsibilities for global leadership. But other states—particularly in Asia and the non-western developing world—are on the rise. The world is more fragmented and decentralized. States are rising and falling. The terms of global governance are more contested and uncertain. This article addresses the foreign policy of Japan and the choices that Japan faces in this shifting global context.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy and Terrorism
- Political Geography:
- United States, Japan, America, Asia, and North America
9. Making the Case: What is America's Best Bad Option in Syria?
- Author:
- Mieke Eoyang and Aki Peritz
- Publication Date:
- 05-2013
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- President Obama drew a "red line" for Syria: if the Assad regime used its chemical weapons, such a move would "change [the] calculus" for an American response. As the UN and others investigate whether Assad has indeed crossed that red line, the U.S. must consider its options—because a failure to act could undermine our credibility. But "further action" is a broad category in the Syrian conflict. Our options range from increasing non-lethal aid to deploying troops in Syria. In this guide to the debate, we provide answers to six key questions: What are America's security interests in Syria? Which rebel groups should we support? What are Syria's military capabilities? What is the status of Syria's chemical weapons? What are the international community's options? What are America's options?
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Political Geography:
- America, Middle East, Syria, and North America
10. Making the Case: Dismissing the Major Critiques of Syria's Chemical Weapons Destruction
- Author:
- Mieke Eoyang, Ben Freeman, Aki Peritz, and Faris Alikhan
- Publication Date:
- 09-2013
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- Our deal with Russia to destroy Syrian chemical weapons (CW) is a huge win for the United States because it will help keep those arms out of the hands of terrorists. Nevertheless, skeptics claim: We can't trust the Russians or the Syrians—despite America's history of reaching arms reduction deals with the Soviets and the Russians; We can't eliminate CW during a civil war—despite our experience with CW destruction; We will pay too much to implement this plan—even though it is far less than what we would spend on strikes. So far, the skeptics are wrong. While the destruction of Syria's CW will be a challenge, it is one that we can and should meet.
- Topic:
- Civil War, Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, International Security, and Armed Struggle
- Political Geography:
- America and Middle East