| August 2006
Arms Control | Diplomacy | Foreign Policy | Intelligence | Terrorism | United Nations |
Countries/Regions: Afghanistan | Balkans |China | Iran | Iraq | Israel | Middle East |Russia |Turkey |
A1 - Securing the Bomb 2006
Bunn, Matthew & Anthony Wier
Project on Managing the Atom, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and Nuclear Threat Initiative, July 2006, 178p
This report “finds that even though the gap between the threat of nuclear terrorism and the response has narrowed in recent years, there remains an unacceptable danger that terrorists might succeed in their quest to get and use a nuclear bomb, turning a modern city into a smoking ruin. Offering concrete steps to confront that danger, the report calls for world leaders to launch a fast-paced global coalition against nuclear terrorism focused on locking down all stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable nuclear materials worldwide as rapidly as possible.” A strong emphasis is put on inadequately protected nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. Matthew Bunn is a Senior Research Associate in the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Anthony Wier is a Research Associate in the Project on Managing the Atom. Fulltext
A2 - Assessing the G8 Global Partnership: From Kananaskis to St. Petersburg
Einhorn, Robert J.; Flournoy, Michèle A.
Strengthening the Global Partnership, Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Nuclear Threat Initiative, July 2006, 28p
”At the 2002 G8 Summit in Kananaskis, Canada, world leaders announced their commitment of $20 billion dollars to a Global Partnership dedicated to preventing catastrophic terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Created in the aftermath of September 11, the Global Partnership was widely hailed as a bold and timely attempt to mobilize broad international support for tackling the world’s most urgent security challenge. […] This assessment is meant to appraise what the Global Partnership countries have achieved in the past three years, take stock of where we are, and spark future action to enrich and reinvigorate the Global Partnership.” The Strengthening the Global Partnership project is a CSIS-led consortium of 24 research institutes in 19 European, Asian, and North American countries. Robert J. Einhorn and Michèle A. Flournoy are Senior Advisors for the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Project Directors of the Global Partnership Initiative. Fulltext
A3 - New Order
Harris, Shane
Government Executive, August 1, 2006, v38, #13, pp31-38
Secretary of State Condolezza Rice’s concept of transformational diplomacy is based on influencing countries to move toward democracy. Diplomats should be good policy analysts but also expert managers of programs to strengthen the rule of law, to start businesses, to improve health and to reform education -- the tools the United States can use to influence countries to move toward democracy. Shane Harris is a staff correspondent at National Journal magazine. Fulltext
A4 - Strategic Fatigue
Fuller, Graham E.
The National Interest, Summer 2006, pp37-42
"This article contends that the Bush administration's vigor for prosecuting the Global War on Terror is slowing, and, more importantly, the zeal for instigating regime change in other countries -- North Korea, Iran, Syria and perhaps Venezuela -- has visibly waned. Has superpower fatigue set in? Clearly so, to judge by the administration's own dwindling energy and its sober acknowledgment that changing the face of the world is a lot tougher than it had hoped. Of course, some degree of wear and tear is normal five years into any administration, regardless of policies. But fatigue emerges in direct proportion to the ambitiousness of the undertaking. From its early days, this administration adopted a strategic vision and peremptory posture whose implementation would prove exhausting under the best of circumstances." Graham E. Fuller is a former vice-chair of the National Intelligence Council at CIA. His latest book is The Future of Political Islam. Fulltext
A5 - Intelligence Dominance
Shultz, Richard Jr.; Godson, Roy
Weekly Standard, July 31, 2006, v11; #43, pp22-27
“ The author asserts the importance of putting intelligence dominance into practice to gain control of territory plagued by armed groups, which means utilizing all the tools in the intelligence toolbox--integrating collection, analysis, covert action, and counter-intelligence instruments--to maximize effectiveness against targets. The operations that flow from intelligence dominance may involve targeted killings of terrorists, as they sometimes have for the Israelis, or the interdiction of arms and money and the denial of safe houses and the occupation of territory, as they did more often for the British fighting the IRA. But there is one common denominator-- those intelligence services of friendly governments that have become dominant started at the local level, working through various types of local intelligence units.” Richard H. Shultz Jr. is director of international security studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and director of research at the Consortium for the Study of Intelligence (CSI). Roy Godson is a professor of government at Georgetown University and president of the National Strategy Information Center. The research for this article was drawn from CSI's Armed Groups Project. Fulltext
A6 - International Terrorism: Threat, Policy, and Response
Perl, Raphael F.
Congressional Research Service Report, August 9, 2006, online edition, 33p
“This report examines international terrorist actions, threats, U.S. policies and responses. It reviews the nation's use of tools at its disposal to combat terrorism, from diplomacy, international cooperation, and constructive engagement to physical security enhancement, economic sanctions, covert action, and military force. […] As terrorism is a global phenomenon, a major challenge facing policymakers is how to maximize international cooperation and support without unduly compromising important U.S. national security interests and options. Other significant policy challenges include: how to minimize the economic and civil liberties costs of an enhanced/tightened security environment, and how to combat incitement to terrorism, especially in instances where such activity is state sponsored or countenanced.” Raphael F. Perl is a specialist in international affairs with the foreign affairs, defense, and trade division of the Congressional Research Service. Fulltext
A7 - Sustaining Our Resolve
Shultz, George P.
Policy Review; August/September 2006, #138, pp3-17
" The article focuses on effectively dealing with terrorism and is based on a speech given by former U.S. secretary of state George P. Schultz delivered at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University in New Jersey. The author stated that the war on terrorism had already gone through a passive phase, where the United States made no significant response and a reactive phase during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The third phase is to gain broad support at home and abroad.” George P. Shultz is Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Fulltext
A8 - Does the UN Have Intelligence?
Simon Chesterman
Survival 2006, Autumn 2006, v48, #3, pp140-164
"Is collective security possible when evaluating and responding to threats depend on access to intelligence that, by its nature, cannot be shared openly? Debates over whether the United States should share intelligence with and through the United Nations have arisen in every administration and have been won each time by those who showed that it was in the US interest to do so. The question is no longer whether intelligence should be shared, but rather how and to what effect." Simon Chesterman is Executive Director of the Institute of International Law and Justice at New York University School of Law and Director of the Law Schools Singapore Programs. Order Article
Countries/Regions:
A9 - Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy
Katzman, Kenneth
CRS Report, July 27, 2006, online edition, 54p
Afghanistan 's planned political transition was completed with the convening of a parliament in December 2005, but insurgent threats to Afghanistan's government have escalated in 2006 to the point that some experts are questioning whether U.S. stabilization efforts will succeed. This report surveys U.S. stabilization measures in Afghanistan. Measures focus on strengthening the central government and its security forces while combating insurgents.
Kenneth Katzmann is Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs , Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division for the Congressional Research Service. Fulltext
A10 - Serbia and Montenegro: Current Situation and U.S. Policy
Woehrel, Steven
CRS Report, June 21, 2006, online edition, 19p
"The United States and other Western countries have sought to encourage Serbia and Montenegro’s integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions. However, these efforts have been hampered by controversy over the future status of Serbia’s Kosovo province, Serbia’s failure to fully cooperate with the Yugoslavia war crimes tribunal (in particular its failure to arrest former Bosnian Serb army chief Ratko Mladic), and Serbia’s fitful progress in such areas as rule of law and military and security sector reform. Since Milosevic’s downfall, Congress has appropriated significant amounts of aid to Serbia and Montenegro to promote reforms. In each fiscal year from FY2001 through FY2006, Congress conditioned U.S. aid to Serbia on a certification by them, President that a series of conditions had been met by Serbia, above all cooperation with the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal.” Steven Woehrel is a Specialist in European Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division with the Congressional Research Service. Fulltext
China
A11 - U.S. and European Approaches to China
Weinrod, Bruce
Mediterranean Quarterly, Spring 2006, v17, #2, pp17-31
“The rising economic, political, and military power of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) presents a variety of policy challenges to the United States and Europe. How those challenges are met, and whether mutually reinforcing approaches can be crafted, will have a significant impact upon international stability, US and European security interests, and the future of China itself. For a variety of historical, cultural, geopolitical, and economic reasons, Europe and the United States have exhibited divergent attitudes and approaches toward the PRC. Of particular note in this regard are national security matters.” Bruce Weinrod is an attorney and international business advisor and has served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy. Order Article
A12 - Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses
Katzman, Kenneth
CRS Report, updated July 31, 2006, online edition, 48p
“The Bush Administration has pursued several avenues to attempt to contain the potential threat posed by Iran, including supporting a long-term policy of changing Iran's regime. However, the near-term Administration drive to prevent any Iranian nuclear weapons breakthrough has brought diplomatic and economic strategies to the forefront of U.S. policy. As part of that effort, the Bush Administration announced May 31 it would negotiate with Iran in concert with U.S. allies; in past years the Bush Administration had only limited dialogue with Iran on specific regional issues. If diplomacy and sanctions do not succeed, some advocate military action against Iran's nuclear infrastructure rather than acquiescence to a nuclear-armed Iran. Iran's nuclear program is not the only major U.S. concern on Iran. Successive administrations have pointed to the threat posed by Iran's policy in the Near East region, particularly material support to groups that use violence to prevent or complicate Israeli-Arab peace." Kenneth Katzman is a Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division with the Congressional Research Service. Fulltext
A13 - America’s Nemesis
Kitfield, James
National Journal, July 22, 2006, v38, #29, pp18-25
“In focusing on Iraq, the Bush administration argued that secular dictator Saddam Hussein was the central player at the nexus of terrorism, rogue-state support, and weapons of mass destruction. Certainly, more than a decade of United Nations sanctions had weakened and isolated Iraq, and undeniably made Saddam the low-hanging fruit among the ‘axis of evil.’ But was Saddam really the figure most central to the radical Islamic insurgency that struck the United States on September 11, 2001? Was it Iraq, or the mullahs in Tehran, who provided the most ideological and financial succor to Muslim extremists and their cause of establishing an Islamic caliphate? Who was closest to having a nuclear weapon that might one day threaten the United States? Which nation had really engaged in a low-grade, undeclared war against America?” James Kitfield is an award winning defense and foreign affairs correspondent for the National Journal. Fulltext
A14 - When Could Iran Get the Bomb?
Albright, David
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/ August 2006, v62, #4, pp26-33
Assessing Iran’s capabilities of building a nuclear weapon from a purely scientific viewpoint, the author asserts that “Iran is indeed on the verge of mastering a critical step in building and operating a gas centrifuge plant that would be able to produce enriched uranium for either peaceful or military purposes. However, it can be expected to face serious technical hurdles before it can reliably produce large quantities of enriched uranium.” Albright examines several paths Iran could take to produce highly enriched uranium and how long that would take. David Albright is a physicist and the president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington. Fulltext
A15 - Declaring Victory
Fallows, James
Atlantic Monthly, September 2006, #298 #2, pp60-73
In this article, the author interviewed 60 experts on the war on terrorism, al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. From these conversations he concludes that the U.S. is succeeding in the fight against terrorism. The war against terrorism should be declared to have reached an end in order for more effective military and diplomatic efforts can occur. Al-Qaeda's tactics, the U.S. presence in Iraq and attitudes of Americans and Muslim-Americans are discussed. James Fallows is a national correspondent of "The Atlantic". Fulltext
A16 - Post-War Iraq: Foreign Contributions to Training, Peacekeeping, and Reconstruction
Sharp, Jeremy M.; Blanchard, Christopher M.
Congressional Research Service, updated July 7, 2006, online edition, 25p
"Securing and maintaining foreign contributions to the reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq has been a major priority for U.S. policymakers since the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003. This report discusses international efforts to train and equip the new Iraqi security forces and tracks important changes in financial and personnel pledges from foreign governments.. Currently, there are 26 countries with military forces participating in the coalition’s stabilization effort. An additional 14 countries have withdrawn their troops from Iraq due to either the successful completion of their missions, domestic political pressure to withdraw their troops, or, in the case of the Philippines, the demands of terrorist kidnappers who threatened to kill foreign hostages unless their respective countries removed their troops from Iraq." Jeremy M. Sharp and Christopher M. Blanchard, analysts in Middle Eastern Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division with the Congressional Research Service. Fulltext
A17 - Israel: Background and Relations with the United States
Migdalovitz, Carol
Congressional Research Report, Updated July 26, 2006, online edition
This report discusses Israel’s history and relations with the United States. Since 1948, the United States and Israel have developed a close friendship based on common democratic values, religious affinities, and security interests. U.S.-Israeli bilateral relations are multidimensional. The United States is the principal proponent of the Arab-Israeli peace process, but U.S. and Israeli views differ on various peace process issues, such as the fate of the Golan Heights, Jerusalem, and Israeli settlements. Carol Migdalovitz is a Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division with the Congressional Research Service. Fulltext
A18 - Watching Lebanon: Washington’s Interests in Israel’s War
Hersh, Seymour M.
The New Yorker, August 14, 2006, online edition
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh asserts in this controversial article that Israel’s invasion into Lebanon was not primarily a reaction to the kidnappings of its soldiers but a long planned military operation conducted with the consent of the United States. Seymour M. Hersh is a Pulitzer Price winning journalist with The New Yorker. Fulltext
Middle East
A19 - Israeli-Arab Negotiations: Background, Conflicts, and U.S. Policy
Migdalovitz, Carol
Congresssional Research Services, updated July 25, 2006, online edition, 35p
This report outlines the role of the U.S. Congress in the Middle East peace process. Congress is interested in issues related to Middle East peace because of its oversight role in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, its support for Israel, and keen constituent interest. It is especially concerned about U.S. financial and other commitments to the parties. Members have also repeatedly endorsed Jerusalem asthe undivided capital of Israel, although U.S. Administrations have consistently maintained that the fate of the city is the subject of final status negotiations.Carol Migdalovitz is a Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division with the Congressional Research Service. Fulltext
A20 - Preliminary “Lessons” of the Israeli-Hezbollah War
Cordesman, Anthony H.
Center for Strategic & International Studies, August 17, 2006, online edition, 25p “Instant military history is always dangerous and inaccurate. This is particularly true when one goes from an effort to describe the fighting to trying to draw lessons from uncertain and contradictory information. The following analysis is based largely on media reporting, data provided by Israeli and Arab think tanks, and a visit to Israel sponsored by Project Interchange of the American Jewish Committee. This visit made it possible to visit the front and talk with a number of senior Israeli officers and experts, but Israeli officers and experts were among the first to note that the facts were unclear and that it might take weeks or months to establish what had happened.” Anthony H. Cordesman holds the Burke Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Fulltext
A21 - Israel/Palestine/Lebanon: Climbing Out of the Abyss
Middle East Report No 57, International Crisis Group, July 25, 2006, online edition, 38p
“The Middle East is immersed in its worst crisis in years following the capture of three Israeli soldiers by the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and Lebanese Party of God (Hizbollah) in late June 2006 and early July, Israel’s comprehensive offensive throughout the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, and the daily firing of rockets deep into Israel. […] This report pieces together the strands of this multi-headed crisis in Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories, Lebanon and elsewhere, based on talks with officials and others, including Hamas and Hizbollah representatives.” Fulltext
A22 - Roll Back
Ross, Dennis
New Republic, July 31, 2006, v265, #5, pp17-18
Ross argues that Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel have exposed Iran’s strive for regional dominance in the Middle East: ”In the end, this conflict is not about Israel. True, Israel may be a foil, but Iran has bigger fish to fry. Hezbollah and Hamas are tools in the Iranian game of self-promotion, furthering an Islamist agenda, and undoing Western influence in the area.” The author argues that the Bush administration should make use of the skepticism that other countries in the region have toward Iran to end conflict in the region. Former Ambassador Dennis Ross, Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Fulltext
Russia
A23 - The United States and Russia: Ideologies, Policies, and Relations
Aron, Leon
AEI Russian Outlook, June 29, 2006, online edition, 9p
"Charles de Gaulle famously said that countries have no friends, only interests. [...] The relations between the United States and Russia today are no exception. No cabal, plot, or personal ill-will is to blame for the fact that their ties have deteriorated markedly in the past three years and are likely to continue to get worse before they improve. Instead, the current state of affairs is the result of each side’s pursuit of its ideologically determined strategic agendas and of its perceptions of each other’s reaction to the implementation of these agendas." Leon Aron is director of Russian studies at AEI. Fulltext
A24 -
The "Soft War" For Europe's East
Jackson, Bruce P.
Policy Review, June/July 2006, #137; pp3-15
“The future of Eurasian security is resting on a "soft power" competition among the United States, Europe, and Russia for the future of the Black Sea region. The author calls upon policymakers to dispense with the delusion that Putin's Russia can be a constructive security partner in the area, given its efforts to sustain "frozen conflicts" in Moldova and Georgia, its blatant meddling in Ukrainian politics, and its willingness to use its energy largesse to exert pressure on its neighbors. He stresses that this does not constitute a return to the Cold War, nor does it mean an end to partnership on other security issues like terrorism and proliferation, but it means confrontation nonetheless. Instead, the West must strongly advocate for an energy strategy that breaks Russia's transit monopoly in the region, provides support and incentives for democratization, especially for Ukraine and Georgia, provides an "open door" to European institutions for states who succeed in democratic reforms, and allows Western institutions and investment into the region." Bruce P. Jackson is President of the Project on Transitional Democracies. Fulltext
A25 - Putin and Russia's Middle East Eastern Policy
Bourtman, Ilya
The Middle East Review of International Affairs, June 2006, v10, #2, online edition
"Russian President Vladimir Putin is currently pursuing a two track policy towards the Middle East, allowing Russia to develop friendly ties with Israel while simultaneously nurturing alternative, sometimes competing, interests with Arab countries. This non-ideological policy has allowed Russia to reclaim a part of the economic and strategic leverage it lost following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Thus far, Russia has successfully signed diplomatic, military, and energy deals and developed ties with both Israel and its Arab neighbors without significantly alienating one or the other. Whether Putin's embrace of Hamas in March 2006 or his continued armament of Iran will damage Russia's relations with Israel is still an open question." Ilya Bourtman is an expert on Russia and has worked with the American Enterprise Institute, the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Fulltext
Turkey
A26 - Turkey and the European Union
Payne, Donald M.
Mediterranean Quarterly, Spring 2006, v17, #2, pp1-6
Payne offers an assessment of the negotiations with Turkey about the country’s entry into the European Union. “The assumption still is that NATO is critical for the defense of Western interests, and since almost all EU members are also NATO members, a case can be made that Turkey's entry into EU could enhance the value of both. Even though many are willing to broaden the concept "Europe" beyond its geographic borders, for political reasons and with unexplained encouragement from London and Washington, Ankara seems determined to exaggerate its role and geographic significance and routinely seeks to alter the conditions under which it was invited to join an already existing entity. But there is no wiggle room or opportunity for bluffing for any aspiring members; they either accept all conditions for accession or don't bother to apply..” Donald M. Payne is a member of the US House of Representatives and is a senior member of the International Relations Committee. He is the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations. Order Article
|
