Survival Summary - Vol 46, No 4 - Winter 2004-2005

 

America is divided at home and bitterly resented abroad. This is not the position that even a global military hegemon can afford to be in as it confronts terrorist movement with an apocalyptic streak and finds itself in a difficult counter-insurgency battle in Iraq. The re-election of President George W. Bush does not, obviously, offer the kind of fresh start that American allies were hoping for. In the United States itself, the Republicans’ convincing electoral win hardly masks the anxiety and recriminations among policy elites and a large minority of the general public. Still, the US and its allies need to find enough common ground to deal realistically with the realities that face them. These include the consequences of a quagmire in Iraq and dire relations with the Islamic world.
Buy this article online

 

The ‘War on Terror’: Good Cause, Wrong Concept
Gilles Andréani

War has come to be a central feature of the political reactions, as well as of the strategy and legal concepts, employed by the United States to wage the global struggle against international terrorism. Calling the fight against terrorism a ‘war’ entails some major drawbacks. First, the use ofthe word ‘war’ gives unwarranted status and legitimacy to the adversary. Second, it exaggerates the role of military operations in fighting global terrorism. Third, the United States bent both its internal judicial rules and international law to accommodate the concept of war on terror. Fourth, the connection drawn by the Americans between the war on terrorism and the concept of preventive war has worried the United States’ partners and undermined the anti-terrorist coalition. Fifth, the linkage with the war against Iraq has aggravated the problem, while heightening anti-Western and anti-American feeling in the Middle East and the Islamic world. Finally, the ‘war on terror’ has detracted from the consideration of some urgent political problems that fuel Middle East terrorism.
Buy this article online

 

The Islamic Republic is immersed in an intense debate regarding the direction of its nuclear programme. What Iran will do is likely to depend on the type of relationship it has with the United States, the emerging security architecture in the Persian Gulf and the evolving nature of its domestic politics. As constituencies and alliances shift, and policies and positions alter within the corridors of clerical power, Washington has an opportunity to influence the direction of Iran’s nuclear deliberations before decisive steps are taken in the wrong direction. Through a bilateral arrangement involving mutual concessions from both sides, the US could empower those within the clerical estate calling for nuclear restraint. In dealing with Iran’s nuclear crisis, US leadership and active engagement are indispensable.
Buy this article online

 

Just as nuclear energy seems poised for a global comeback, nuclear weapon threats grow in Iran and North Korea. The security risk from expanding nuclear energy programmes could potentially be contained by the commercial provision of nuclear-fuel services. Countries that already possess uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing facilities could guarantee client countries with cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel services. The guarantee, backed by governmental or international entities, could persuade governments to abstain from building their own fuel-cycle facilities. Decisions to reject such an arrangement, which provides direct economic benefit and relieves waste management challenges, would spotlight a government’s intentions and invite a coordinated international response. Iran and Brazil present crucial early tests.
Buy this article online

 

The UN’s Role in Nation-building: From the Belgian Congo to Iraq
James Dobbins

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States and the United Nations have both been heavily engaged in nation-building and have developed their own distinct approaches to the conduct of such missions. In the aftermath of its early and widely publicised failures in Somalia and Yugoslavia, the UN’s reputation for competent nationbuilding was seriously damaged, and demand for its services fell off noticeably. More recently, the US reputation for competence in the field has suffered as a result of setbacks in Afghanistan and Iraq. A new study by the RAND corporation indicates that UN-led operations tended to be smaller, shorter, less expensive and, on average, more successful than those led by the United States. This divergence in performance can be explained in part by the greater inherent difficulty of some of the US-led operations, but is also a product of the UN’s greater success in learning from experience.
Buy this article online

 

The Travails of Union: The American Experience and its Implications for Europe
Charles A. Kupchan

The early history of the United States makes clear that political unions take shape in incremental fashion and not without setbacks. In these terms, Europe’s ongoing integration is proceeding apace and of considerable geopolitical consequence. Europe’s mounting geopolitical weight, although contributing to the turmoil that has beset Atlantic relations, need not come at the expense of its link to the United States. On the contrary, the emergence of a more unified and muscular Europe has the potential to salvage a transatlantic alliance that is currently strained to the breaking point.
Buy this article online

 

European integration has in general proceeded by virtue of ‘constructive ambiguity’, a combination of open-ended commitments and ambivalent formulations. The current enlargement, which concluded in April and May 2004 with the near-simultaneous entry into NATO and the EU of a group of Central European countries, was quite typical. From now on, however, addressing the issue of the foreseeable borders of the enlarged Union (and NATO too, for that matter) is crucial for shaping a credible, coherent and effective menu for action not only in and around Europe itself, but also – hopefully – in the wider world. The central European newcomers can play a crucial role in this process, especially if they actively contribute to formulating policies that may be broadly acceptable to all EU members.
Buy this article online

 

The Paradox of Israeli Power
Uri Bar-Joseph
Israel’s national security doctrine has become obsolete. While Israel enjoys unprecedented military superiority over its enemies, the security of Israelis is at an all-time low, and a nuclear threat, primarily from Iran is on the rise. This paradoxical situation stems from a failure to adjust Israel’s security doctrine to regional, global and technological changes since the mid-1970s. Four major components of this doctrine in particular are inadequate to contemporary challenges: the traditional strategic triumvirate of deterrence, strategic warning and swift battlefield decision; the concept of the Israeli Defense Force as the ‘people’s army’; Israel’s nuclear policy; and the correlation between diplomacy and use of force as a means to reduce threats.
Buy this article online

 

In 2004, the Gaza Strip and West Bank deteriorated into intra-Palestinian violence on several occasions. This violence escalated demands across Palestinian society that the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat surrender ome of his powers and reform a judicial system riddled with inefficiency nd corruption. An examination of past nation-building efforts in ountries such as East Timor and Bosnia illustrates a number of steps the Palestinians and interested international players can take to improve hese deficiencies.
Buy this article online