|
June 2006
Arms Control | Foreign Policy |Terrorism | United Nations
Countries/Regions: Afghanistan | Africa | Balkans | China | India |Iran |Iraq | Israel | Middle East | South Korea | Russia | Turkey | Ukraine
A1 - Nunn-Lugar at 15: No Time to Relax Global Threat Reduction Efforts
Walker, Paul F.
Arms Control Today, May 2006, v36, #4, online edition
“The Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which will celebrate its fifteenth birthday later this year, is one of the clear successes of post-Cold War diplomacy. CTR was established in 1991 to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons after the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Since then, the program, also known as Nunn-Lugar, after two of its founders, Senators Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), has deactivated more than 6,800 nuclear warheads and overseen the end of nuclear weapons programs in Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine.” The author points out that “the program still has much more to do, yet is suffering from waning enthusiasm both in Russia and the United States.” Paul F. Walker is Legacy Program Director with Global Green USA, the U.S. affiliate of Mikhail Gorbachev’s Green Cross International. Fulltext
A2 - The Shadow of the Bomb, 2006
Drell, Sidney D.
Policy Review, April/May 2006, #136, pp55-68
According to Drell one of the gravest perils of our time
is “the danger of nuclear weapons and the material that fuels
them falling into very dangerous hands, whether they be those
of state leaders or terrorists, or simply suicidal fanatics unrestrained
by the norms of civilized behavior. The top priority for U.S.
nuclear-weapons policy must be to keep that from happening."
The author urges the United States to endorse the nuclear nonproliferation
regime, i.e. the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, the Proliferation Security Initiative
and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty while asserting that” deterrence
waged with patient and firm diplomacy will be key to keeping the
worst weapons out of the most dangerous hands.” Sidney D.
Drell is Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Professor
Emeritus of theoretical physics at Stanford University. Fulltext
A3 - Cruise Control
Gormley, Dennis M.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April 2006, v62,
#2, pp27-33
Gormley calls attention to recent advances in cruise missiles, which he argues is a considerably greater strategic threat than ballistic missiles. Cruise missiles are cheaper, faster, and better at evading enemy defenses than ever before, says Gormley, as illustrated in recent progress by Pakistan, Taiwan, and Japan in upgrading their arsenals. By overlooking cruise missiles, strategic planners risk developing insufficient missile defense systems, incomplete export control regimes for on weapons components, and in an age where "doctrines of preemption" are becoming more widely accepted, a greater likelihood that adversaries may give into the temptation of using cruise missiles in hopes of rapidly resolving future conflicts.Dennis M. Gormley is Senior Fellow with the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Washington, D.C., and Senior Lecturer in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. Fulltext
A4 -Choosing Among Bad Options. The Pakistani “Loose Nukes” Conundrum
Donnelly, Thomas
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, National Security Outlook, May 2006, online edition, 6p.
“The prospect that a nuclear-capable state may lose control of some of its weapons to terrorists is one of the greatest dangers the United States and its allies face,” warns the Quadrennial Defense Review report. The report states that at its core, the problem is one of “internal instability.” While this sort of language might seem vague and euphemistic, Pentagon planners have a very specific place in mind: Pakistan. Our most strategically immediate proliferation problems are posed by North Korea and Iran, two states that are obviously hostile to the United States. But a more important problem may be that of Pakistan, a crucial ally in the global war on terror and the broader war for the future of the Islamic world. The situation in Pakistan makes any possible military action to deal with future problems associated with its nuclear weapons extremely difficult. It would be hard to know in advance whether American intervention in a Pakistani crisis--whether related to nuclear weapons, materials, or facilities--would make things better or make them worse.” Thomas Donnelly is Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Fulltext
A5 - The Emerging Consensus for Preventive War
Dombrowski, Peter; Payne A., Rodger
Survival, Summer 2006, v48, #2, pp115–136
“After September 2001, the George W. Bush administration declared that the United States had adopted a 'pre-emptive' military doctrine to address new threats posed by terrorists and 'rogue states' armed with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. However, the so-called 'Bush Doctrine' met substantial international opposition when it was proposed - and even more resistance when it was applied to the case of Iraq. Subsequent events in Iraq have not made the idea any more popular. It is somewhat startling, then, that numerous states and international organizations seem now to support the call to revise long-held international understandings about when force might be used. A sizable number agree that the risk of calamitous surprise attacks, especially with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, might justify preventive strikes or wars against terrorists or their state sponsors. A new international norm may thus be under construction, though states continue to disagree about the agents of decision and action.” Peter Dombrowski is Professor at the Naval War College, Strategic Research Department. Rodger A. Payne is Professor of Political Science at the University of Louisville. Order Article
A6 - The Remaking of a Unipolar World
Jervis, Robert
The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2006,v29,#3, pp7-19
"Common sense and most academic thinking argue that a hegemon’s prime objective should seek to maintain the prevailing international system, but that is not the world in which we live today. Measured in any conceivable way, the United States has a greater share of world power than any other country in history. The irony is that Washington seeks to change the rules of that order. Why? It makes a puzzle of Washington’s current behavior, which is anything but conservative. In the fierce debate over the merits of its post–September 11 foreign policy, insufficient attention has been paid to the odd fact that the United States, with all its power and stake in the system, is behaving more like a revolutionary state than one committed to preserving the arrangements that seem to have suited it well." Robert Jervis is Professor of international politics at Columbia University in New York. Fulltext
A7 - The Struggle for Democracy
Horowitz, Irving Louis
The National Interest, Spring 2006, #83, pp114-121
President George Bush's promotion of democracy has become the unifying and driving principle of his administration's global foreign policy and the stated objective of the costly and controversial military effort in Iraq. The administration has talked about enfranchising individuals in all corners of the world, admittedly with a growing sense of unease, from Venezuela to Zimbabwe to Palestine.”[…] One of the hidden assumptions of the Bush Administration is that democracies develop in a linear and uninterrupted progression. The problem is that the actual course of history contravenes this model. […] The Administration lacks both a coherent definition of democracy and a sense of history when promoting democracy. Such an approach has .consequences. It is fair to say that the president is not always clear as to his intentions with respect to democracy. This is especially true regarding whether democracy is to be imposed by foreign elites or to be freely decided by the masses.” Irving Louis Horowitz is Professor Emeritus at Rutgers University, where he also serves as Chairman of the Board of Transaction Publishers. Fulltext
A8 - Fervor In Foreign Policy
Stokes, Bruce
National Journal, 5/20/2006, v38, #1, pp36-43
United States for a faith-based American foreign policy. In fact, on a range of international issues over the past decade -- from sending troops to Bosnia to invading Iraq -- Americans say that their religious views played an insignificant role in shaping their opinions. […] The research by the Pew Global Attitudes Project and other polls of foreigners suggest that addressing the role that religion does -- and does not -- play in American foreign policy is a primary task for U.S. public diplomacy in its efforts to defuse rising anti-Americanism.” Bruce Stokes is a “National Journal” staff writer.
Fulltext
A9 - Private Jihad; Annals of Terrorism
Wallace-Wells, Benjamin
The New Yorker, May 29, 2006, v82, #15, p28
Since September 11, intelligence gathering is not exclusively the domain of the CIA and NSA anymore. Private organizations, such as the “Search for International Terrorist Entities” (SITE Institute), offer their services to federal and state governments as well as law enforcement. This article features Rita Katz, the head of SITE, and her zeal in performing her work which critics claim leads to the overestimating of threats. “Katz has a very specific vision of the counterterrorism problem, which she shares with most of the other contractors and consultants who do what she does. They believe that the government has failed to appreciate the threat of Islamic extremism, and that its feel for counterterrorism is all wrong. As they see it, the best way to fight terrorists is to go at it not like G-men, with two-year assignments and query letters to the staff attorneys, but the way the terrorists do, with fury and the conviction that history will turn on the decisions you make--as an obsession and as a life style. Worrying about overestimating the threat is beside the point, because underestimating the threat is so much worse. Benjamin Wallace-Wells is a writer and editor of The Washington Monthly. Fulltext
A10 - Tentacles of Jihad: Targeting Transnational Support Networks
Brimley, Shawn
Parameters, Summer 2006, v36, #2, pp30-46
“In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, a disproportionate amount of effort was devoted to targeting and eliminating the sources of terrorist financing to the detriment of other, more critical support mechanisms. While eliminating the terrorist and insurgent leadership cells, waging the ideological war against the Salafist historical narrative, and addressing the root causes of radicalization are critical to success in the war on terrorism, these efforts must be supported by counterterrorism strategies that target the connective tissue between the enemy's strategic desires and their operational or tactical efforts. Transnational support networks are an overlapping feature of both the global jihadist movement and the Iraqi insurgency, and, if properly targeted, they constitute the Achilles' heel of these networks. Efforts at understanding, targeting, and eliminating transnational support networks should be a main effort of counterterrorism strategy. If successful, these efforts will greatly aid the United States and its allies in both prosecuting the war on terror and quelling the insurgency in Iraq.” Shawn Brimley is a Research Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Fulltext
A11 - The UN Looks Next to the East
Hirsch, Steve.
National Journal, May 27, 2006, v38, #21, p54
“The author discusses the current thinking regarding the
successor to Secretary-General Kofi Annan. There is widespread
agreement that the new secretary-general will come from Asia,
since there hasn't been an Asian in the position since U Thant
in 1971. He quotes a 'source close to the Security Council' as
saying that he is '99 percent sure the next secretary-general
will be Asian.' After listing several declared and undeclared
candidates, Hirsch points out that many of the officials he interviewed
said that they expect a surprise candidate to be selected. The
U.S. administration prefers a secretary-general who is a 'top-notch
manager -- a CEO type who could guide the United Nations through
a period of reform,' but there is growing support for a 'political'
secretary-general who can unite the organization.” Steve Hirsch
is a freelance writer based in Washington, DC. Fulltext
Countries/Regions:
A12 - Remember Afghanistan? A Glass Half Full, On the Titanic
Robichaud, Carl
World Policy Journal, Spring 2006, v23, #1, pp17-24
"Since the Taliban were ousted in 2001, Afghanistan has made substantial progress in refugee repatriation and education, women's rights, and democratic governance. Yet this progress has been wholly contingent upon international aid and security forces--neither of which will persist indefinitely. The nation now has but a brief window of opportunity to achieve self-sufficiency and escape the cycle of poverty and violence that has enveloped it for more than a generation. Discussing the nation's development challenges and accelerating insurgency, Robichaud offers some key issues that the US and other donor nations must focus with in order for Afghanistan not to lapse once more." Carl Robichaud is Program Officer at the Century Foundation, where he directs the Afghanistan Watch Program.Fulltext
A13 - The Roots of African Corruption
Ellis, Stephen
Current History, May 2006, v105, #691, pp203-208
"Corruption is notoriously hard to measure or even to define, and therefore, it is impossible to say for certain whether corruption in Africa is increasing or whether it is worse than in other places. What can be said is that it has become astonishingly brazen in recent years, with seniors officials and even heads of state quite openly flouting their own countries' law and a range of international diplomatic and legal conventions." Stephen Ellis is a researcher at the African Studies Center in Leiden, the Netherlands and a former Director of the international Crisis Group's Africa Program. Order Article
A14 - Divorcing Serbia: The Western Balkans 2006
Judah, Tim
Fletcher Forum of World affairs, Summer 2006, v30, #2, pp.213-220
"16 years after the beginning of the dissolution of Yugoslavia, several key issues remain to be resolved. The most pressing of these questions concern Kosovo and Montenegro. […] Kosovo and Montenegro may gain independence from Serbia this year and the outcome of the status talks in Kosovo and the referendum in Montenegro will be crucial for the whole region. But, Tim Judah asks, will these processes bring much-needed stability, or cause the creation of a "Balkan Ghetto" surrounded by EU member States?" Tim Judah is a journalist and Balkans specialist based in London. Fulltext
China
A15 - Sources and Limits of Chinese "Soft Power”
Gates, Gill; Huang, Yanzhong
Survival, Summer 2006, v48, #2, pp17-35
“In current analysis and debate concerning China's rise, the subject of soft power is either missing or misapplied. Since the 1990s, China has achieved impressive gains both in terms of soft power resources and the ability to convert the resources into desired foreign-policy outcomes. Unlike the former Soviet Union, China appears to be more successful in developing hard and soft power in tandem. Its stepped-up endeavours in expanding its soft power nevertheless continue to be constrained by three factors: imbalance in resources, legitimacy concerns regarding its diplomacy, and a lack of coherent agenda. How Washington and its allies respond to this unique power pattern will shape the future strategic landscape of East Asia and beyond.” Gill Gates holds the Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Center for Strategic & International Studies(CSIS).Yanzhong Huang is an assistant Professor at the John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University.
Order Article
India
A16 - U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation: A Strategy for Moving Forward
Council on Foreign Relations, Special Report no.16,
June 2006,online edition, 48p
“The United States has long sought to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to build a relationship with India, a rising power but a nuclear pariah since it first exploded an atomic bomb in 1974. In announcing a sweeping negotiated framework for nuclear cooperation with India on July 18, 2005, followed by an agreement on details on March 2, 2006, the Bush administration has stirred deep passions and put Congress in the seemingly impossible bind of choosing between approving the deal and damaging nuclear nonproliferation, or rejecting the deal and thereby setting back an important strategic relationship. Yet patience and a few simple fixes would address major proliferation concerns while ultimately strengthening the strategic partnership—provided Congress and the administration work together. […] This Council Special Report lays out a plan for getting the deal right.” Michael A. Levi and Charles D. Ferguson are Fellows for Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Fulltext
A17 - U.S. Policy and Iran’s Nuclear
Challenge
Phillips, James
Heritage Lecture #942, The Heritage Foundation, June 2, 2006, online edition, 7p
In this paper the author describes Iran’s nuclear and foreign
policy agenda during the past three years. Especially since Ahmadinejad
came to power, Iran has pursued an increasingly aggressive path
in the handling of its foreign affairs. Phillips argues for a
tough U.S. policy response together with its allies. “The U.S.
should push for the strongest possible sanctions at the U.N. Security
Council. But experience has demonstrated that Washington cannot
rely on the U.N. to halt the Iranian nuclear program. Russia and
China, which have extensive economic, military, and energy ties
to Iran, may veto or dilute any effective resolution. The U.S.
therefore should make contingency plans to work with Britain,
France, Germany, the EU, and Japan to impose sanctions outside
the U.N. framework if necessary.” James Phillips is Research
Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Foundation.
Fulltext
A18 - Reading Ahmadinejad in Washington
Fradkin, Hillel
The Weekly Standard, May 29, 2006, v11, #35, pp17-20
The author analyzes Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush in the context of Muslim and Islamist politics. He argues that the content of the letter is far more significant than the Bush Administration has pronounced it to be and that the intentions the Iranian president voiced have to be taken seriously. “For us, who are ever so prudent and cautious, it would be safer to entertain the possibility that Ahmadinejad is a man who may also find solutions to the obstacles in his way, a man who finds great opportunities to be exploited and has the cunning and the will to do so.” Hillel Fradkin is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. Fulltext
A19 - Three Reasons Not to Bomb Iran – Yet
Luttwak, Edward N.
Commentary, May 2006, v121, #5, pp21-28
“I know of no reputable expert in the United States or in Europe who trusts the constantly repeated promise of Iran's rulers that their nuclear program will be entirely peaceful and is meant only to produce electricity. The question is what to do about this. Faced with the alarming prospect of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, some policy experts favor immediate preventive action, while others, of equal standing, invite us to accept what they consider to be inevitable in any case. […] The greater question, however, is neither military nor diplomatic but rather political and strategic: what, in the end, do we wish to see emerge in Iran? It is in light of that long-term consideration that we need to weigh both our actions and their timing, lest we hinder rather than accelerate the emergence of the future we hope for. We must start by considering the special character of American relations with the country and people of Iran.” Edward N. Luttwark is Senior Advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Fulltext
A20 - Zarqawi’s Death: Temporary “Victory” or Lasting Impact
Cordesman, Anthony H.
Center for Strategic and International Studies, June 8, 2006, online edition, 14p.
“There is no doubt that the Iraqi government and US forces
in Iraq have scored a major political and propaganda victory by
killing Abu Musab al Zarqawi. What is less clear that this victory
will have a major impact over time. Its lasting importance depends
on two things. The overall resilience of the insurgency in Iraq
and how well the new Iraqi government can follow up with actions
that a build a national consensus and defeat and undermine all
the elements of the insurgency.” This paper examines policy options
and the development of the insurgency in Iraq after Zarqawi’s
death. Anthony Cordesman holds the Strategy Chair at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies. In addition he is a well-known
author, serves as national security analyst for ABC News, and
has had a distinguished career in government and academia. Fulltext
A21 - Three Views on Iraq, Three Years Later
Young, Michael; Hadar, Leon; Palmer, Tom G.
Reason, June 2006, v38, #2, pp26-35
In three different articles, the experts examine the developments
in Iraq three years after U.S. President Bush declared victory
over Saddam Hussein. They analyze U.S. foreign policy and the
prospect of stability, peace and democracy in Iraq. They all come
to the conclusion that the future of Iraq is contingent on numerous
variables and, therefore, is impossible to predict. Michael
Young is Contributing Editor to Reason and Opinion Editor of the
Daily Star in Lebanon. Leon Hadar and Tom Palmer are Research
Fellows at the Cato Institute. Fulltext
A22 - A Plan for Victory in Iraq. Defeat the Insurgents
Militarily – Here’s How
Kagan, Frederick W.
The Weekly Standard, May 29, 2006, v11, #35, pp21-29
According to Kagan, the main security problem and obstacle
to U.S. troops leaving Iraq in the foreseeable future is the Sunni
Arab insurgency. In this paper he argues for multi-phased military
operation against the insurgents relying on armored and mechanized
forces as opposed to light infantry, which has proven to be an
easy target for attacks on U.S. troops. The author outlines a
detailed plan involving 7 brigades and 12-18 months of combat.
Frederick Kagan is a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute. Fulltext
A23 - Dual Dilemmas: U.S. Policy Options for the Israeli-Palestinian Predicament
Indyk, Martin S. & Tamara Cofman Wittes
Saban Center Middle East Memo #9, The Brookings Institution, May 19, 2006, online edition
“The recent Palestinian and Israeli elections have produced a uniquely complicated environment for U.S. policy-makers as they contemplate what to do about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Bush Administration's final years. […] This Middle East Memo presents recommendations generated by the seventh Daniel Abraham Israeli-Palestinian Workshop, held April 24-26, 2006 at the Saban Center at Brookings. In this Workshop, a group of senior Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, European Union, and American experts and officials held an off-the-record discussion of the current stalemate, the stakes for all sides, and the choices facing the major actors in the coming months.” Martin S. Indyk is Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at The Brookings Institution. Tamara Cofman Wittes is Research Fellow and Director of the Saban Center's Arab Democracy and Development Project at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at The Brookings Institution. Fulltext
A24 - Israel’s New Strategy
Rubin, Barry
Foreign Affairs, July/ August 2006, v85, #4, pp111-125
“Israeli politics and policy are undergoing a revolutionary transformation -- one of the most important developments in the nation's history. As dramatic as recent events have been, equally important is the emergence of a new strategic paradigm that reverses 30 years of debate and practice and overturns some of Israelis' most basic assumptions. […] The emerging new policy is based on a broad Israeli recognition that holding on to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is simply not in Israel's interest, despite the fact that the Palestinian leadership has been uninterested in and incapable of making peace and that both Fatah and Hamas will use that land to try to launch attacks on Israel. The territories no longer serve a strategic function for Israel, given the unlikelihood of a conventional attack by Arab state armies, and Israel could better defend its citizens by creating a strong defensive line rather than by dispersing its forces. Moreover, because a comprehensive peace deal is not likely to be reached for many years, the territories are no longer of value as bargaining chips.” Professor Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research for International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and a Professor at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Israel. Fulltext
A25 - On the Peace Process in the Middle East
Quandt, William B.
Daedalus, Spring 2006, v135, #2, pp133-135
The author outlines the developments in the Middle East peace process since 2001 and President George W. Bush’s approach to the two-state-solution. Although the Middle East peace process has gained importance on the President’s foreign policy agenda, Quandt argues, Bush is not likely to be successful because the situation in the Middle East is not conducive to a peace brokered by the United States. William B. Quandt is a Fellow of the American Academy, a member of the National Security Council staff and a Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia. Fulltext
A26 - Religion and State
Etzioni, Amitai
Harvard International Review, Spring 2006, v28, #1, pp14-18
“Should the US government and the international community actively promote religion overseas, especially in the Islamic world? Such an approach may seem wrong on many grounds. Religion is a major force driving jihadists in the Middle East, and separation of state and religion is one of the cornerstones of US democracy and the type of regime the United States promotes abroad. […] The case of religious education in the Islamic world suggests, however, that all these assumptions are erroneous and that the United States should actively promote religion overseas, albeit not in any and every form. The United States is involved in changing schooling in several Islamic countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. One may oppose such an active US role, but as long as that role exists, the question remains: how should the US government affect the religious content of education overseas?” The authors advocate for a differentiated approach to education- one that pays tribute to a country’s tradition and its need for religious education. Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at George Washington University. Fulltext
A27 - When the Shiites Rise
Nasr, Vali
Foreign Affairs, July/ August 2006, v85, #4, pp58ff
“The war in Iraq has profoundly changed the Middle East, although not in the ways that Washington had anticipated. When the U.S. government toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, it thought regime change would help bring democracy to Iraq and then to the rest of the region. The Bush administration thought of politics as the relationship between individuals and the state, and so it failed to recognize that people in the Middle East see politics also as the balance of power among communities. Rather than viewing the fall of Saddam as an occasion to create a liberal democracy, therefore, many Iraqis viewed it as an opportunity to redress injustices in the distribution of power among the country's major communities. By liberating and empowering Iraq's Shiite majority, the Bush administration helped launch a broad Shiite revival that will upset the sectarian balance in Iraq and the Middle East for years to come. Vali Nasr is a Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in California. He earned his PhD from MIT. Fulltext
A28 - The Cause of Strife in the U.S.-ROK Alliance
Kang, David C.
Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Summer 2006, v30,#2, pp23-31
"The days of unquestioned U.S. leadership in East Asia have ended and the ensuing divergence of long-term strategic concerns in Washington and Seoul has caused a rift in their traditional alliance. Yet the two countries also share nonmilitary ties—and they now face the challenge of modifying their relationship in light of changed realities." David C. Kang is Associate Professor of Government, Adjunct Associate Professor, and Research Director at the Center for International Business at the Tuck Scholl of Business at Dartmouth College. Order article
A29 - Bucking the Trend
Frye, Timothy
Harvard International Review, Spring 2006, v28, #1, pp54-59
"At the start of transition from communist rule, skepticism reigned about the possibility of introducing markets and democracy simultaneously. This essay reviews the relationship between democracy and the economy in the former Soviet Union in the last 15 years. A high correlation between democracy and economic reform reveals little about the extent of the impact of democracy on economic reform. What is important is the extent of the increase in economic reform for a given increase in democracy. Economic reform is a central component of the post-communist transformation, but ultimately economic growth is what directly affects the lives of people. The weak direct relationship between democracy and economic growth in the post-communist world should not be too surprising. Despite the predictions of many observers at the start of the transformation, democracy has helped to promote economic reform in the former Soviet Union." Timothy Frye is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University. Fulltext
A30- Turkey on the Brink
Gordon, Philip; Taspinar, Omer
The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2006, vol.29, #2, pp57-70
“Who lost Turkey?” A complacent West could be forced to confront this previously unthinkable question within the next few years. This risk has little to do with Turkey’s alleged Islamic turn. On the contrary, the moderately Islamic Justice and Development Party (known by the Turkish acronym AKP) has done much more than previous Turkish governments to improve the country’s chances of joining the European Union. Today, the problem Turkey faces is not Islamization but rather a growing nationalist frustration with the United States and Europe. A majority of Turks still want to see their country firmly anchored in the West, but because of what they perceive as European double standards and the United States’ neglect of Turkish national security interests, their patience is wearing thin." Philip Gordon is Senior Fellow in foreign policy studies and Director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. Omer Taspinar is Research Fellow and Director of the Turkey program at Brookings. Fulltext
Ukraine
A31 - Is Ukraine Part of Europe's Future?
Kuzio, Taras
The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2006, vol.29, #2, pp.89-108
This article discusses why the EU continues to refuse to open its doors to membership to a Ukraine that, for the first time, is truly committed to "European values", as demonstrated in the March 2006 election. Brussels cannot indefinitely insist that Kiev pursue reforms to prove its commitments to European values without an offer of future EU membership. Thus far, only Nato has offered Ukraine a safe heaven in the West. The EU will only be able to put off a decision until 2008. Taras Kuzio is a visiting Professor at the Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at George Washington University. Fulltext
|
