DOCSLIB.ORG

Enduring NATO, Rising Brazil: Managing International Security In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Enduring NATO, Rising Brazil Managing International Security in a Recalibrating Global Order Foreword by Stephen R. Covington Strategic and International Affairs Advisor to NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) Edited by Brooke A. Smith-Windsor NATO DEFENSE COLLEGE NATO Defense College Cataloguing in Publication-Data: “Enduring NATO, Rising Brazil Managing International Security in a Recalibrating Global Order” (NATO Defense College “NDC Forum Papers Series”) Forum Paper edited by Dr. Brooke Smith-Windsor Copy-editing: Mary Di Martino ISBN: 978-88-96898-10-9 The views expressed in this NDC Forum Paper are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the NATO Defense College, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, the Getulio Vargas Foundation, or any of the institutions represented by the contributors. The Research Division (RD) of the NATO Defense College provides NATO’s senior leaders with sound and timely analyses and recommendations on current issues of particular concern for the Alliance. Papers produced by the Research Division convey NATO’s positions to the wider audience of the international strategic community and contribute to strengthening the Transatlantic Link. The RD’s civil and military researchers come from a variety of disciplines and interests covering a broad spectrum of security-related issues. They conduct research on topics which are of interest to the political and military decision-making bodies of the Alliance and its member states. Portions of this NDC Forum Paper may be quoted or reprinted without special permission for academic purposes, provided that a standard source credit line is included. © NDC 2015 all rights reserved Limited copies of this NDC Forum Paper are available and may be obtained directly from NATO Defense College, Research Division Via Giorgio Pelosi, 1 - 00143 Rome, Italy Fax +39-06-50 52 57 97 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.ndc.nato.int Follow us on twitter: https://twitter.com/NDC_Research Printed and bound by DEd’A srl Viale Scalo S. Lorenzo 55, 00185, Rome, Italy www.dedaedizioni.it Enduring NATO, Rising Brazil Managing International Security in a Recalibrating Global Order Table of Contents List of Figures and Tables p. 6 Contributors p. 7 List of Acronyms p. 13 Foreword p. 17 Acknowledgements p. 21 Introduction Brooke A. Smith-Windsor p. 23 PART 1: Understanding NATO and Brazil NATO, Democratic Peace and Partnership with Brazil Rob de Wijk p. 29 Promoting International Peace and Security through NATO’s Partnerships: Identifying Cooperation Opportunities beyond Existing Frameworks Carlos Branco p. 39 The Silent Function of the Alliance: NATO’s Role as a Multilateral Repository of Military Expertise Alexander Mattelaer p. 53 4 Brazil in the Global Security Order: Principled Action and Immediate Responses to Long-term Challenges Antonio Jorge Ramalho p. 71 Interests, Identity and Brazilian Peacekeeping Policy Kai Michael Kenkel p. 83 PART 2: Perspectives on Intervention Brazil as a Norm Entrepreneur: “Responsibility while Protecting” Oliver Stuenkel p.119 The Role of NATO and Brazil in the Search for an R2P/RwP Regime Alexander Moens and Jimmy Petersen p.141 PART 3: Viewpoints on Nuclear and WMD Proliferation Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Western Alliance Joachim Krause p.169 Brazilian Perspectives on Weapons of Mass Destruction Carlo Patti p.185 5 PART 4: Securing the South Atlantic Securing the South Atlantic: In Favour of a Revised Brazilian Maritime Strategy Érico Duarte p.211 Brazil versus NATO? A Long-term View of Maritime Security in the Atlantic Bruno C. Reis p.227 PART 5: The Way Ahead Brazil-NATO: New Global Security Partners? José Francisco Pavia p.253 A Country of the Future and an Alliance that will Remain: An Interest-Driven Strategy for Brazil-NATO Relations Robert Helbig p.269 Index p.283 6 List of Figures and Tables Figures and Tables Figure 1: Spectrum of Interaction p. 25 Figure 2: NATO Allied Command Operations p. 60 Figure 3: International Shipping Density p.259 Figure 4: Blue Amazon p.260 Figure 5: Global Cocaine Flows p.261 Table 1: Brazilian Interests in Participating in Peacekeeping Operations p.111 7 Contributors Carlos Branco is a Major General in the Portuguese Armed Forces and currently serves as Deputy Director of the War College, Lisbon. From 2010 to 2013, he was Director of the Regional Cooperation and Security Division at NATO Headquarters. His previous appointments include: Deputy Director of the National Defence Institute (IDN) in Lisbon; spokesperson for NATO forces in Afghanistan; and Peacekeeping Affairs Officer in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations of the United Nations. He has published widely with extensive academic experience in the fields of technical-military cooperation as well as crisis and conflict management. Steven R. Covington serves as International Affairs Advisor to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), Deputy Supreme Allied Commander, and Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). As SACEUR’s International Affairs Advisor, he is responsible for assessments on strategic and international affairs, and develops political-military recommendations for SACEUR, the SHAPE Command Group, and Allied Command Operations. He directs a multi-national office composed of senior NATO civilian and military Special Advisors. Felix Dane holds a Master of Science in European Studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and a Bachelor in International Relations from Keele University, UK. From 2004 to 2009 he worked as parliamentary assistant to Jürgen Schröder, Member of the European Parliament. In 2009 he joined the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS) as its Representative to the Palestinian Territories. Since 2012, he has served as the KAS Representative to Brazil. Rob de Wijk is the founder and non-executive Director of The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (HCSS), General Director of The Hague Security Delta (HSD), Professor of International Relations at Leiden 8 University, Chairman of the National Security Think Tank (Denktank Nationale Veiligheid) and columnist for the national daily Trouw. He is a member of the Strategic Advisors Group of the Atlantic Council in Washington DC and of the Senior Steering Group of the NATO Special Forces Headquarters in Mons. He studied Contemporary History and International Relations in Groningen, and wrote his PhD dissertation on NATO’s “Flexibility in Response” strategy at the Political Science Department of Leiden University. Érico Duarte is Assistant Professor of Strategic and International Studies at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul. He holds a DSc and an MSc in Strategic Studies, and a BA in International Relations. He is a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) London. He was the Rui Barbosa Chair at Leiden University in 2013 and was awarded the Best Thesis Prize by the Brazilian Ministry of Defence in 2010. He has worked with the Brazilian Army Command and Staff College, the Navy War College, the Air Force University and the Ministry of Defence. Robert Helbig is a Carlo Schmid Fellow at the NATO Headquarters Emerging Security Challenges Division and a graduate student at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He has previously published on NATO-India relations and is currently working on the future of relations between NATO and Mongolia. His experience with Brazil includes studies at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, service at the German Consulate General in Rio de Janeiro, as well as field research conducted in Brasilia and São Paulo. Kai Michael Kenkel is a tenured Assistant Professor in the Institute of International Relations at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro where he is Director of Graduate Studies. His principal areas of expertise are United Nations peace operations, intervention and the Responsibility to Protect. He has published and advised extensively on these topics and is the editor of three books. In addition, he has served as 9 editor of Contexto Internacional, one of the leading Brazilian international relations journals. Elena Lazarou is Assistant Professor and Head of the Center for International Relations at Getulio Vargas Foundation School of Social Sciences (FGV CPDOC). She received a PhD in International Relations from the University of Cambridge in 2008. Her interests include European Studies, Foreign Policy Analysis and Regional Integration. She is also affiliated with the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP). She has previously held research posts at the University of Cambridge, the London School of Economics (LSE) and the University of Sheffield. She has published several articles, edited volumes and book chapters in English and Portuguese and is a regular contributor to the Brazilian press. Alexander Mattelaer is Assistant Director of the Institute for European Studies in Brussels. He obtained his PhD in Political Science from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Master degrees from the University of Bath and the University of Leuven. In addition, he is a graduate of the Belgian Advanced Staff College (123rd Div) as a civilian joint planner. Currently, he is also a member of the scientific committee of the Royal High Institute for Defence and a senior editor of European Geostrategy, an online magazine analysing strategic affairs from a European perspective.
Recommended publications
  • Open Letter in Support of Amb. Bonnie Jenkins to Help Lead U.S. Efforts on Arms Control and International Security

    Open Letter in Support of Amb. Bonnie Jenkins to Help Lead U.S. Efforts on Arms Control and International Security

    Open Letter in Support of Amb. Bonnie Jenkins to Help Lead U.S. Efforts on Arms Control and International Security June 21, 2021 As President Biden's Interim National Security Strategy notes: "Global dynamics have shifted. New crises demand our attention.” It is a "moment of accelerating global challenges — from the pandemic to the climate crisis to nuclear proliferation .…" This means that our nation has no time to lose when it comes to putting in place the leadership team in government that can harness America's diplomatic power, which is essential to advancing effective solutions to address the most difficult security and foreign policy challenges. As arms control, international security, and foreign policy experts with years of experience in and out of government, we believe President Joe Biden — or any president — needs a strong and experienced team in place to address issues of international security, particularly the difficult and urgent challenges posed by nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the countries that possess them or that could develop them. Five months since inauguration day, the president’s nominee for one of the most important positions in this area — Amb. Bonnie Jenkins for Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security — has yet to be confirmed. Further delays of this nomination will hamper our nation’s ability to put its best diplomatic foot forward at a critical time. In the coming weeks and months, her leadership will be important to help the State Department and the White House:
  • Military Diplomacy and Its Role in the Foreign Policy of Nepal

    Military Diplomacy and Its Role in the Foreign Policy of Nepal

    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive DSpace Repository Theses and Dissertations 1. Thesis and Dissertation Collection, all items 2019-12 MILITARY DIPLOMACY AND ITS ROLE IN THE FOREIGN POLICY OF NEPAL Rawal, Pankaj Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/64054 Downloaded from NPS Archive: Calhoun NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS MILITARY DIPLOMACY AND ITS ROLE IN THE FOREIGN POLICY OF NEPAL by Pankaj Rawal December 2019 Thesis Advisor: Anshu N. Chatterjee Second Reader: Carolyn C. Halladay Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Form Approved OMB REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED (Leave blank) December 2019 Master’s thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS MILITARY DIPLOMACY AND ITS ROLE IN THE FOREIGN POLICY OF NEPAL 6. AUTHOR(S) Pankaj Rawal 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION REPORT Monterey, CA 93943-5000 NUMBER 9.
  • NATO Expansion: Benefits and Consequences

    NATO Expansion: Benefits and Consequences

    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2001 NATO expansion: Benefits and consequences Jeffrey William Christiansen The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Christiansen, Jeffrey William, "NATO expansion: Benefits and consequences" (2001). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 8802. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/8802 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ■rr - Maween and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of M ontana Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. **Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature** Yes, I grant permission X No, I do not grant permission ________ Author's Signature; Date:__ ^ ^ 0 / Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. MSThe»i9\M«r«f»eld Library Permission Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NATO EXPANSION: BENEFITS AND CONSEQUENCES by Jeffrey William Christiansen B.A. University of Montana, 2000 presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts The University of Montana 2001 Approved by: hairpers Dean, Graduate School 7 - 24- 0 ^ Date Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
  • Global Zero NATO-Russia Commission REPORT REMOVING U.S

    Global Zero NATO-Russia Commission REPORT REMOVING U.S

    GLOBAL ZERO NATO-RUSSIA COMMISSION REPORT REMOVING U.S. AnD RUSSIAN TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS FROM EUROPEAn COMBAT BASES FEBRUARY 2012 GLOBAL ZERO NATO-RUSSIA COMMISSION REPORT Removing U.S. and Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons from European Combat Bases PREPARED FOR THE 48TH MUNICH SECURITY CONFERENCE GLOBAL ZERO NATO-RUSSIA COMMISSION REPORT REMOVING U.S. AnD RUSSIAN TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS FROM EUROPEAn COMBAT BASES GLOBAL ZERO NATO-RUSSIA COMMISSION REPORT Removing U.S. and Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons from European Combat Bases Copyright © 2012 by Global Zero All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, sorted in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written permission of the copyright holder. Global Zero assumes full responsibility for the analysis and recommendations contained in this report. www.GLOBALZERO.ORG i GLOBAL ZERO NATO-RUSSIA COMMISSION REPORT REMOVING U.S. AnD RUSSIAN TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS FROM EUROPEAn COMBAT BASES Global ZERO NATO-RUSSIA COMMISSION AMB. RICHARD BURT, CO-CHAIR AMB. WOLfgAng ISCHIngER, CO-CHAIR COL. GEN. (RET.) VIctOR ESIN, CO-CHAIR SIR MALCOLM RIFKIND, MP, CO-CHAIR MIN. HIKMET ÇETIN AMB. THOMAS PICKERIng GEN. (RET.) AnATOLY KULIKOV AMB. StEVEN PIFER COL. GEN. (RET.) EVGENY MASLIN GEN. (RET.) JOHN SHEEHAN SEN. MIKHAIL MARGELOV COL. (RET.) VALERY YARYNICH GEN. (RET.) KLAUS NAUMAnn MAJ. GEN. (RET.) PAVEL ZOLOTAREV GEN. (RET.) BERNARD NORLAIN Global Zero is the international movement for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. It has grown to 300 leaders and more than 450,000 citizens worldwide, developed a step-by-step plan to eliminate nu- clear weapons, built an international student movement with 100 campus chapters in ten countries, and produced an acclaimed documentary film, Countdown to Zero.
  • Brexit and the Future of the US–EU and US–UK Relationships

    Brexit and the Future of the US–EU and US–UK Relationships

    Special relationships in flux: Brexit and the future of the US–EU and US–UK relationships TIM OLIVER AND MICHAEL JOHN WILLIAMS If the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union in the referendum of June 2016 then one of the United States’ closest allies, one of the EU’s largest member states and a leading member of NATO will negotiate a withdrawal from the EU, popularly known as ‘Brexit’. While talk of a UK–US ‘special relation- ship’ or of Britain as a ‘transatlantic bridge’ can be overplayed, not least by British prime ministers, the UK is a central player in US–European relations.1 This reflects not only Britain’s close relations with Washington, its role in European security and its membership of the EU; it also reflects America’s role as a European power and Europe’s interests in the United States. A Brexit has the potential to make a significant impact on transatlantic relations. It will change both the UK as a country and Britain’s place in the world.2 It will also change the EU, reshape European geopolitics, affect NATO and change the US–UK and US–EU relationships, both internally and in respect of their place in the world. Such is the potential impact of Brexit on the United States that, in an interview with the BBC’s Jon Sopel in summer 2015, President Obama stated: I will say this, that having the United Kingdom in the European Union gives us much greater confidence about the strength of the transatlantic union and is part of the corner- stone of institutions built after World War II that has made the world safer and more prosperous.
  • Brazil and the Alliance for Progress

    Brazil and the Alliance for Progress

    BRAZIL AND THE ALLIANCE FOR PROGRESS: US-BRAZILIAN FINANCIAL RELATIONS DURING THE FORMULATION OF JOÃO GOULART‟S THREE-YEAR PLAN (1962)* Felipe Pereira Loureiro Assistant Professor at the Institute of International Relations, University of São Paulo (IRI-USP), Brazil [email protected] Presented for the panel “New Perspectives on Latin America‟s Cold War” at the FLACSO-ISA Joint International Conference, Buenos Aires, 23 to 25 July, 2014 ABSTRACT The paper aims to analyze US-Brazilian financial relations during the formulation of President João Goulart‟s Three-Year Plan (September to December 1962). Brazil was facing severe economic disequilibria in the early 1960s, such as a rising inflation and a balance of payments constrain. The Three-Year Plan sought to tackle these problems without compromising growth and through structural reforms. Although these were the guiding principles of the Alliance for Progress, President John F. Kennedy‟s economic aid program for Latin America, Washington did not offer assistance in adequate conditions and in a sufficient amount for Brazil. The paper argues the causes of the US attitude lay in the period of formulation of the Three-Year Plan, when President Goulart threatened to increase economic links with the Soviet bloc if Washington did not provide aid according to the country‟s needs. As a result, the US hardened its financial approach to entice a change in the political orientation of the Brazilian government. The US tough stand fostered the abandonment of the Three-Year Plan, opening the way for the crisis of Brazil‟s postwar democracy, and for a 21-year military regime in the country.
  • Globalizing Nuclear Zero: Is a World Without Nuclear Weapons Really Attainable? GÖTZ NEUNECK

    Globalizing Nuclear Zero: Is a World Without Nuclear Weapons Really Attainable? GÖTZ NEUNECK

    Globalizing Nuclear Zero: Is a World without Nuclear Weapons Really Attainable? GÖTZ NEUNECK Introduction After years in the doldrums, there is once more wind in the sails of nu- clear arms control. Important aims and proposals of the arms control community, which in recent decades have been worked out by non- governmental organizations, think tanks, and commissions (Palme 1982, Canberra 1996 and the Blix Commission 2006), are once again an inte- gral part of world politics. During the eight years of the George W. Bush administration the arms control and disarmament process, which was launched after the Cold War ended, was systematically neutered, en- feebled, and reversed. A un commission warned in 2004 that »we are approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation« (un 2004). us President Obama, in his Prague speech of April 5, 2009, de- clared – to widespread astonishment – that America was committed »to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons« (Obama 2009). He laid particular emphasis on the usa’s great moral responsibil- ity: »As a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.« Con- crete proposals were pledged. In June 2009, President Obama’s Repub- lican opponent for the us presidency, John McCain, recalled Ronald Reagan’s dream of a world free of nuclear weapons and he too demanded a dramatic reduction of nuclear arsenals across the world.
  • SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS Australia and New Zealand in the Anglo-American World1

    SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS Australia and New Zealand in the Anglo-American World1

    8 SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS Australia and New Zealand in the Anglo-American World1 David MacDonald and Brendon O’Connor In this chapter, we argue that the extensive range of Australia’s and New Zealand’s (NZ) foreign policy activities – including their involvement in numerous foreign wars since the Boer War – can be best explained by the special relations both nations have maintained with the broader Anglo-American world. Strong bonds of shared interests, history, culture, and other commonalities have proven durable and demonstrably influential in determining the priorities and actions of both Antipodean countries. The “imagined community” of the Anglo-American world, strengthened by regular economic, military, and diplomatic interactions, possesses significant ideational power. Such bonds have also been affected by emotional beliefs, as Mercer puts it, “a generalization about an actor that involves certainty beyond evidence.” 2 These beliefs are expressed either as positive sentiments towards fellow members of the Anglo-American world, or as distrust of “others” like Japan, Indonesia, or China. The origin and nature of these emotional and ideational ties are key foci of our chapter. Arguably, European settlement of both countries has had a long-term impact, orienting both nations towards Britain, the USA, and other white settler societies (and to a lesser extent non-white British colonies and ex-British colonies) for most of their histories. The resulting strategic culture helps to explain the extremely close security and cultural alliances with the USA and Britain, which we will dissect in detail. Both of our case studies are clearly part of the “West,” even if that West, to echo Peter Katzenstein, is a plural and pluralist entity, often difficult to define as it is evolving and changing.
  • The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture

    The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture

    THE END OF NUCLEAR WARFIGHTING MOVING TO A W E I DETERRENCE-ONLY V E R POSTURE E R U T S O P R A E L C U N . S . U E V I T A N September 2018 R E T L A Dr. Bruce G. Blair N Jessica Sleight A Emma Claire Foley In Collaboration with the Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture an alternative u.s. nuclear posture review Bruce G. Blair with Jessica Sleight and Emma Claire Foley Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University Global Zero, Washington, DC September 2018 Copyright © 2018 Bruce G. Blair published by the program on science and global security, princeton university This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License; to view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 typesetting in LATEX with tufte document class First printing, September 2018 Contents Abstract 5 Executive Summary 6 I. Introduction 15 II. The Value of U.S. Nuclear Capabilities and Enduring National Objectives 21 III. Maximizing Strategic Stability 23 IV. U.S. Objectives if Deterrence Fails 32 V. Modernization of Nuclear C3 40 VI. Near-Term Guidance for Reducing the Risks of Prompt Launch 49 VII. Moving the U.S. Strategic Force Toward a Deterrence-Only Strategy 53 VIII.Nuclear Modernization Program 70 IX. Nuclear-Weapon Infrastructure: The “Complex” 86 X. Countering Nuclear Terrorism 89 XI. Nonproliferation and Strategic-Arms Control 91 XII. Conclusion 106 Authors 109 Abstract The United States should adopt a deterrence-only policy based on no first use of nuclear weapons, no counterforce against opposing nuclear forces in second use, and no hair-trigger response.
  • Japan's Defense Diplomacy in South East Asia

    Japan's Defense Diplomacy in South East Asia

    ISSN 2464-9929, Global Politics Review 5, no. 1-2 (2019): 6-49. Japan’s Defense Diplomacy in South East Asia Daniel Foulkes Leon* Abstract: Through an empirical case study analysis, this article analyses Japan’s defense diplomacy in the South East Asian nations of Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam during the period from 2006 to 2016. Defense diplomacy is an element of statecraft that uses a nation’s military and security institutions in a non-coercive, peaceful manner to enhance military cooperation and to seek military reform with another nation. This article traces the evolution of Japan’s defense diplomacy in its evolving security environment and identifies its character based on See Seng Tang and Bhubhindar Singh’s typology of “pragmatic” or “transformative” defense diplomacy, contributing important elements in the study of Japan’s defense diplomacy strategy and engagement in South East Asia. Keywords: Defense Diplomacy, Japan, South East Asia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines. Received: April 5, 2019. Accepted: May 10, 2019. Published: May 19, 2019. Introduction n May 2017 Japan’s largest naval vessel in the Maritime Self Defense Forces, the JS Izumo, arrived in Vietnam as part of the Pacific Partnership naval exercise, focused on Ihumanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR).1 This multilateral naval exercise led by the United States with Australia, the United Kingdom and Japan as participating countries, involved a series of host nations in professional training opportunities, workshops and field training exercises. In March 2017, the Philippine Navy had also received two patrol aircraft from Japan with the purpose of aiding its future maritime patrol and HA/DR capabilities.2 Philippine Navy pilots undertook training in Japan from November 2016 to March 2017.
  • 11 NATO and the Partnership for Peace

    11 NATO and the Partnership for Peace

    11 NATO and the Partnership for Peace Frank Boland1 uring 1989 and 1990, as the hold of the Soviet Union and the authority of com- munist regimes evaporated across the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Allies attempted to make sense of Dthis new situation. There was unease that the old certainties of the Cold War era were being swept away without any guarantees that their replacements would be more comfortable to live with. There was disquiet that the security linkage with the United States, through NATO, might no longer be sustainable or, at least, might be substantially more difficult to sustain than it had been. The complete dissolution of the Soviet Union was barely conceiv- able at that time. Allies were also wrestling with the complexities of extremely challenging arms control agreements, while also trying to define the wider role of the Atlantic Alliance in a Europe where the Conference on Security Cooperation in Europe and, subsequently, the European Union would also be significant political players.2 As they contemplated these uncertainties, the idea began to take hold that the Alliance had to provide practical assis- tance and institutional structures to support emerging democratic institutions and states in resisting the almost inevitable pressures that could emerge and drag them back toward the authoritarian practices to which they had been accustomed for a generation, or more. In July 1990, in their London Summit Declaration, NATO Heads of State and Government extended the “hand of friendship” to the countries of the East that had been their adversaries in the Cold War.3 They also noted that NATO would adapt and could “help build the structures of a more united continent, supporting security and stability with the strength of our shared faith in democracy, the rights of the individual, and the peaceful resolution of disputes.”4 They also proposed that the countries of the former Warsaw Pact establish regular diplomatic liaison with the Atlantic Alliance.
  • Nato Enlargement: Qualifications and Contributions—Parts I–Iv Hearings

    Nato Enlargement: Qualifications and Contributions—Parts I–Iv Hearings

    S. HRG. 108–180 NATO ENLARGEMENT: QUALIFICATIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS—PARTS I–IV HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 27, AND APRIL 1, 3 AND 8, 2003 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 90–325 PDF WASHINGTON : 2003 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:42 Nov 12, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 90325 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BILL NELSON, Florida NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Staff Director ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Democratic Staff Director (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:42 Nov 12, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 90325 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1 CONTENTS Thursday, March 27, 2003—Part I Page Allen, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from Virginia, opening statement .................