Few topics in international relations consistently attract as much academic and policy interest as nuclear proliferation. The literature on the subject tends to focus on four central questions: Why do states seek nuclear weapons? How do they acquire the components necessary to build them? What are the consequences of proliferation? And how can nuclear weapons be kept out of the hands of nonstate actors? These issues will remain salient in the years to come, as the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs advance, the threat of nuclear terrorism persists, and the full implications of the type of nuclear entrepreneurship practiced by such intermediaries as A. Q. Khan are revealed. One fact is clear: going nuclear has never been easier.
BRADLEY A. THAYER, Professor of Political Science at Baylor University.
These words really do describe topic at best.
Here is the link.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
What to read on Middle East Peace Process?
One of the most complicated conflicts around the world is worthy to be reviewed in thousands of articles and books. But not all of them are able to provide us with a clear, objective, science-based information on this problem. Foreign Affairs specialists offer their annotated literature list, which contains the most useful books, depicting the Middle East Peace Process at best. This books are perfect attempts of explanation of the involvement of the three main participants of the Process - Israeli, Arabs and Americans.
Here is the link.
Here is the link.
What to read on Israeli Politics?
Foreign Affairs syllabus on Israeli politics.
Israel as a stronghold of democracy in the Middle East is tightly connected with the United States in their common strive of middle-eastern rebuilding. Understanding of Israeli policy gives us a key to understanding of the whole process up there.
Here is the link.
Israel as a stronghold of democracy in the Middle East is tightly connected with the United States in their common strive of middle-eastern rebuilding. Understanding of Israeli policy gives us a key to understanding of the whole process up there.
Here is the link.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Interview with James Peterson, PhD.
Dr. Peterson is a Head of Political Science Department of Valdosta State University, professor of political science, PhD. He is a specialist in comparative politics, American foreign policy, and public administration. Mr. Peterson agreed to answer my questions about US foreign affairs to help me to deepen my understanding of US foreign policy establishment and appliance.
Q: What is your understanding of a term "foreign affairs doctrine"?
A: A foreign affairs doctrine would be a general approach to the problems of the time
that serves as a guide to policy. Examples could include:
a. Isolationism from 1789 to 1941;
b. Containment of Communism from 1949-91;
c. Engagement and Enlargement from 1993-2001 (link up with nations that build
democracy, human rights, and capitalism);
d. Counter-Terrorism after 9/11;
Q: Does it make sense to distinguish "foreign policy course" from "foreign affairs
doctrine"?
A: A foreign policy course would be a policy decision taken within the framework of
the doctrine. Parallel examples include:
a. Reluctant and late entry into World War I (1917);
b. Blockade against Cuba in October 1962;
c. Including Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary in NATO in 1999;
d. Surge in Afghanistan to defeat al Qaeda in 2009-10;
Q: What is the scientific background of a doctrine?
A: The doctrine emerges from a mix of academics and political leaders, and it is a
response to specific events.
a. Isolationism from President Washington’s Farewell Address and later
preoccupation of the nation with expanding west, fighting the civil war,
and building economic strength;
b. Containment came from diplomat George Kennan’s long cable and “Mr. X”
article in "Foreign Affairs"in the late 1940s, and the outlook of the
Truman Administration;
c. President Clinton and National Security Advisor Anthony Lake came up
with the doctrine of Engagement and Enlargement;
d. The Bush Administration and Neo-Cons adopted the strategy of counter-
terrorism and applied it to both Iraq and Afghanistan;
Q: What are your ideas about pressure groups inside the US government, that affect
the process of doctrine creation?
A: Grass-roots based interest groups can have an impact on specific policies
like trade, energy, or human rights but not so much on doctrine.
Q: What groups, in your opinion (for example, military advisors, National Security
Council, CIA etc.) are affecting the USA foreign affairs more then others?
A: The CIA really carries out policy but does not initiate much, while the
Joint Chiefs of Staff has a big impact during war, switching from
counter-terrorism to counter-insurgency in Afghanistan in 2009. The NSC is
supposed to coordinate advice but often has a big impact on doctrine, if you
consider Anthony Lake, Brzezinski and Kissinger. Probably, the President and his
inner circle have the largest impact on doctrine, with the Secretaries of
Defense and State playing an occasional role. Consider also the role of think
tanks like the Heritage Foundation and Brookings.
Q: How important is a personality of a president in implementing of different types
of foreign policy?
A: Some writers like James David Barber put much emphasis on personality. He argues
that an Active Positive like Obama or Kennedy will have more foreign policy
successes than an Active Negative like George Bush or Lyndon Johnson. But the
situation often is determinative. Would Al Gore have handled 9/11 differently
than did Bush, on Afghanistan?
Q: What are your ideas about a role of neoconservators in foreign affairs nowadays
(through Obama's presidency)?
A: Neocons were clearly strong under President Bush, and their forebears were under
Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush. I do not see them having much impact
now, as their support for American unilateralism led to Iraq and so much discontent.
Q: Can we say, that Obama is modernizating US foreign affairs? Or does he continue
Bush's style of making diplomacy?
A: Obama talks more about multilateralism instead of unilateralism, so he engages
with Russia and Egypt. He cancelled Bush’s missile shield program, and that is a
new sign of a willingness to reach out to Russia and search for new options.
Q: What are the prospects for returning of previous style of policy making (I mean
the Bush's foreign affairs)?
A: At the moment, Obama is on a roll, with health care passed, with the upcoming
Prague signing of the arms reduction agreement with Russia, and with the big
upswing in troops for Afghanistan and some success. So, I think the mid-term
congressional elections in late 2010 will not be too shocking. Those who want
to change back to Bush are mainly thinking about domestic policy.
Q: What is the main tool in foreign affairs of US during Obama's period - weapons &
sanctions or diplomacy?
A: I think Obama’s preference is for a blend of diplomacy and sanctions. There is
more outreach to the Islamic world and stiffening of sanctions against both Iraq
and North Korea. He has upgraded the military/weapons presence in Afghanistan
but has a deadline for getting US troops out in 2011. We will also see reduction
of forces dramatically in Iraq after their election. I would say that he keeps
the weapons behind his back but uses them for great effect when the need arises.
Like Theodore Roosevelt, “Walk softly but carry a big stick.”
Q: What are your thoughts about counter-terrorist doctrine? Was it initiated by
Ex-president Bush, or he was just a person, who had been trying to make it work?
Or creation of this doctrine was initiated on the basis of National Security
Council activity and army influence?
A: I think that it was mainly the work of Bush after 9/11, as he had campaigned in
2000 with the objective of being less involved in Balkan problems like Kosovo and
Bosnia. I don’t think that the NSC played much of a motivating role in
development of this doctrine. The NSC Advisor for 2001-05 was Condoleezza Rice,
and she was kind of a soul mate of President Bush. She went along with the
reasoning about Afghanistan but was not an initiator like Vice President Cheney.
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz in the Department of Defense were much more
involved in development of the doctrine, so you could say that the civilian
leadership of the military was an initiator. Military people themselves were
much more cautious, especially about Iraq. On the other hand, the roots of the
counter-terrorist doctrine lie in the 1990s. President Clinton did need to deal
with the attack on the USS Cole as well as with the attacks on two American
embassies in Africa (Kenya and Tanzania). It would also be possible to say that
Clinton’s concern about rogue leaders like Milosevic was based on the terrorism
they committed against their own and neighboring populations. However, the Bush
Administration pulled the threads together and developed a counter-terrorism
doctrine that included a preemptive strategy, two wars, and long-term troop
commitments to the region that spawned 9/11.
Q: So, we can draw two parallel lines: Reagan doctrine was created on the basis of
Truman doctrine (and following courses). Regan "pulled the threads together"
and - here we go, a doctrine is ready. So, can we say, that Bush did the same,
basing on the pre-doctrine activity of Clinton? And nowadays, can we speak about
Obama's foreign policy as about a course within the framework of the
counter-terrorist doctrine?
A: Yes, that sounds plausible to me, although it is too early to define a doctrine
for Obama. We might say that he has switched strategies within the basic
doctrine, at least in Afghanistan, from counter-terrorism to counter-insurgency.
Q: What is your understanding of a term "foreign affairs doctrine"?
A: A foreign affairs doctrine would be a general approach to the problems of the time
that serves as a guide to policy. Examples could include:
a. Isolationism from 1789 to 1941;
b. Containment of Communism from 1949-91;
c. Engagement and Enlargement from 1993-2001 (link up with nations that build
democracy, human rights, and capitalism);
d. Counter-Terrorism after 9/11;
Q: Does it make sense to distinguish "foreign policy course" from "foreign affairs
doctrine"?
A: A foreign policy course would be a policy decision taken within the framework of
the doctrine. Parallel examples include:
a. Reluctant and late entry into World War I (1917);
b. Blockade against Cuba in October 1962;
c. Including Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary in NATO in 1999;
d. Surge in Afghanistan to defeat al Qaeda in 2009-10;
Q: What is the scientific background of a doctrine?
A: The doctrine emerges from a mix of academics and political leaders, and it is a
response to specific events.
a. Isolationism from President Washington’s Farewell Address and later
preoccupation of the nation with expanding west, fighting the civil war,
and building economic strength;
b. Containment came from diplomat George Kennan’s long cable and “Mr. X”
article in "Foreign Affairs"in the late 1940s, and the outlook of the
Truman Administration;
c. President Clinton and National Security Advisor Anthony Lake came up
with the doctrine of Engagement and Enlargement;
d. The Bush Administration and Neo-Cons adopted the strategy of counter-
terrorism and applied it to both Iraq and Afghanistan;
Q: What are your ideas about pressure groups inside the US government, that affect
the process of doctrine creation?
A: Grass-roots based interest groups can have an impact on specific policies
like trade, energy, or human rights but not so much on doctrine.
Q: What groups, in your opinion (for example, military advisors, National Security
Council, CIA etc.) are affecting the USA foreign affairs more then others?
A: The CIA really carries out policy but does not initiate much, while the
Joint Chiefs of Staff has a big impact during war, switching from
counter-terrorism to counter-insurgency in Afghanistan in 2009. The NSC is
supposed to coordinate advice but often has a big impact on doctrine, if you
consider Anthony Lake, Brzezinski and Kissinger. Probably, the President and his
inner circle have the largest impact on doctrine, with the Secretaries of
Defense and State playing an occasional role. Consider also the role of think
tanks like the Heritage Foundation and Brookings.
Q: How important is a personality of a president in implementing of different types
of foreign policy?
A: Some writers like James David Barber put much emphasis on personality. He argues
that an Active Positive like Obama or Kennedy will have more foreign policy
successes than an Active Negative like George Bush or Lyndon Johnson. But the
situation often is determinative. Would Al Gore have handled 9/11 differently
than did Bush, on Afghanistan?
Q: What are your ideas about a role of neoconservators in foreign affairs nowadays
(through Obama's presidency)?
A: Neocons were clearly strong under President Bush, and their forebears were under
Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush. I do not see them having much impact
now, as their support for American unilateralism led to Iraq and so much discontent.
Q: Can we say, that Obama is modernizating US foreign affairs? Or does he continue
Bush's style of making diplomacy?
A: Obama talks more about multilateralism instead of unilateralism, so he engages
with Russia and Egypt. He cancelled Bush’s missile shield program, and that is a
new sign of a willingness to reach out to Russia and search for new options.
Q: What are the prospects for returning of previous style of policy making (I mean
the Bush's foreign affairs)?
A: At the moment, Obama is on a roll, with health care passed, with the upcoming
Prague signing of the arms reduction agreement with Russia, and with the big
upswing in troops for Afghanistan and some success. So, I think the mid-term
congressional elections in late 2010 will not be too shocking. Those who want
to change back to Bush are mainly thinking about domestic policy.
Q: What is the main tool in foreign affairs of US during Obama's period - weapons &
sanctions or diplomacy?
A: I think Obama’s preference is for a blend of diplomacy and sanctions. There is
more outreach to the Islamic world and stiffening of sanctions against both Iraq
and North Korea. He has upgraded the military/weapons presence in Afghanistan
but has a deadline for getting US troops out in 2011. We will also see reduction
of forces dramatically in Iraq after their election. I would say that he keeps
the weapons behind his back but uses them for great effect when the need arises.
Like Theodore Roosevelt, “Walk softly but carry a big stick.”
Q: What are your thoughts about counter-terrorist doctrine? Was it initiated by
Ex-president Bush, or he was just a person, who had been trying to make it work?
Or creation of this doctrine was initiated on the basis of National Security
Council activity and army influence?
A: I think that it was mainly the work of Bush after 9/11, as he had campaigned in
2000 with the objective of being less involved in Balkan problems like Kosovo and
Bosnia. I don’t think that the NSC played much of a motivating role in
development of this doctrine. The NSC Advisor for 2001-05 was Condoleezza Rice,
and she was kind of a soul mate of President Bush. She went along with the
reasoning about Afghanistan but was not an initiator like Vice President Cheney.
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz in the Department of Defense were much more
involved in development of the doctrine, so you could say that the civilian
leadership of the military was an initiator. Military people themselves were
much more cautious, especially about Iraq. On the other hand, the roots of the
counter-terrorist doctrine lie in the 1990s. President Clinton did need to deal
with the attack on the USS Cole as well as with the attacks on two American
embassies in Africa (Kenya and Tanzania). It would also be possible to say that
Clinton’s concern about rogue leaders like Milosevic was based on the terrorism
they committed against their own and neighboring populations. However, the Bush
Administration pulled the threads together and developed a counter-terrorism
doctrine that included a preemptive strategy, two wars, and long-term troop
commitments to the region that spawned 9/11.
Q: So, we can draw two parallel lines: Reagan doctrine was created on the basis of
Truman doctrine (and following courses). Regan "pulled the threads together"
and - here we go, a doctrine is ready. So, can we say, that Bush did the same,
basing on the pre-doctrine activity of Clinton? And nowadays, can we speak about
Obama's foreign policy as about a course within the framework of the
counter-terrorist doctrine?
A: Yes, that sounds plausible to me, although it is too early to define a doctrine
for Obama. We might say that he has switched strategies within the basic
doctrine, at least in Afghanistan, from counter-terrorism to counter-insurgency.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Iran. Prospects of containment.
United States foreign policy nowadays is a course, implemented within the framework of "counter-terrorist" doctrine. But during the Ex - President Bush's term the US war against terrorism turned into a frontal collision with the Islamic world.
President Obama has a job to do - to contain terrorism from spreading in Middle East, but he has to do it without any new contradictions with the Islamic world. But the question still remains - how?
To make matter worse, Iran's intention to create a nuclear weapon is endangering this situation.
About the prospect's of "defusing the Iran bomb" - extremely interesting and usefull article by James M. Lindsay & Ray Takeyh.
Link to the article
President Obama has a job to do - to contain terrorism from spreading in Middle East, but he has to do it without any new contradictions with the Islamic world. But the question still remains - how?
To make matter worse, Iran's intention to create a nuclear weapon is endangering this situation.
About the prospect's of "defusing the Iran bomb" - extremely interesting and usefull article by James M. Lindsay & Ray Takeyh.
Link to the article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)