DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Security Complexes: an Alternative Approach to Nuclear Nonproliferation Beyza Unal Old Dominion University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Security Complexes: an Alternative Approach to Nuclear Nonproliferation Beyza Unal Old Dominion University Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Graduate Program in International Studies Dissertations Winter 2014 Nuclear Security Complexes: An Alternative Approach to Nuclear Nonproliferation Beyza Unal Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds Part of the International Relations Commons, and the Political Theory Commons Recommended Citation Unal, Beyza. "Nuclear Security Complexes: An Alternative Approach to Nuclear Nonproliferation" (2014). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), dissertation, International Studies, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/r2er-m877 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds/96 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Program in International Studies at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NUCLEAR SECURITY COMPLEXES: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION by Beyza Unal B.A. June 2007, Cankaya University, Turkey M.A. July 2010, Bilkent University, Turkey A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL STUDIES OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY December 2014 Approved by: Regina Karp (Director) Steve Yetiv (Mimber) Peter Schulman (Member) ABSTRACT NUCLEAR SECURITY COMPLEXES AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION Beyza Unal Old Dominion University, 2014 Director: Dr. Regina Karp Existing literature examines nuclear proliferation from a regional or a national perspective but nuclear issues are inherently transnational. The literature also often focuses on single-state policies for deterrence purposes. Following tailored (single-state) policies, however, is too narrow because these policies are bilateral and based on national interest; they do not include global concerns. In response to the literature, this dissertation proposes to examine states grouped according to their state characteristics in terms of threat existence, democracy level in the nuclear field, and membership in nuclear organizations and compliance with major nuclear treaties. The focus here is to ask: “Does regional security complex theory explain nuclear behavior?” To some extent it does. Regional security complex theory groups states in relation to their geopolitical context. This grouping method is essential for the model that I call nuclear nonproliferation security complexes. Different than the former theory, I argue that nuclear issues are inherently transnational, not regional, and states’ nuclear behavior is shaped by the aforementioned state characteristics. This model places states into seven different groups in terms of their characteristics. A triple Venn diagram helps to picture this conceptualization. The first three groups—called material, liberal, and norms-based security complexes—are the core parts of the Venn diagram. Security complexes four through six lie on the intersections between one, two, and three, with the seventh lying at the center. The state characteristics of Iran, Israel, Turkey and the United States are examined in order to understand how the model functions. This dissertation finds that despite having common Middle Eastern security concerns, Iran, Israel and Turkey follow different nuclear policies and their relationship with the United States is a fundamental factor in their nuclear decision-making. In conclusion, I suggest that the United States should differentiate its national interest, which is more to follow nuclear nonproliferation policies, from the global interest, which is to follow nuclear disarmament policies. From this perspective, the United States should find equal ground for both policies to work in conjunction with each other. This could lead to a more comprehensive nuclear approach that incorporates and engages with all actors. V Aileme vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply grateful to have the intellectual environment at Old Dominion University, especially to Dr. Regina Karp for her continuous support and making valuable suggestions as to how this dissertation might be improved. I sincerely appreciate all the assistance from my committee members, Dr. Steve Yetiv and Dr. Peter Schulman. I have been extremely lucky to attend nuclear summer programs through U.S. Department of Energy. As such, I thank to Monterey Institute of International Studies and Brookhaven National Laboratory to expand my nuclear knowledge. It would be remiss of me not to mention peer discussions at North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Allied Command Transformation: in particular I would like to thank to Lieutenant Colonel Bill Jakola, Andy Schlegel and former Royal Marine Alex Case for insights and fruitful discussions in personal capacity. I have been extremely fortunate with an excellent editor/friend Richard Crellin from United Kingdom and to have support of Robyn Thomas. I am grateful to William J. Fulbright Fellowship to make all this happen. My greatest debt of all is to my family that has given full support to my professional undertakings. I developed intellectual rigor, thanks to my mom’s rational thinking, like Diana Scully, and my dad’s normative thinking, like Fox Mulder in The X- Files. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1 RESEARCH QUESTION AND ARGUMENTS..................................................................2 RESEARCH THEORIES........................................................................................................4 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY.................................................................5 CONTEXT................................................................................................................................. 6 DISSERTATION ORGANIZATION...................................................................................11 2. SECURITY COMPLEX THEORY......................................................................................19 DEFINITION...........................................................................................................................21 CHARACTERISTICS........................................................................................................... 23 DEBATE.................................................................................................................................. 29 NON-TERRITORIALITY: MISSING ELEMENT........................................................... 44 NUCLEAR PRACTICES AND SECURITY COMPLEX THEORY..............................45 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 49 3. EXAMINING NUCLEAR LITERATURE THROUGH GROUPING METHOD 50 GROUPING METHODS....................................................................................................... 52 4. NUCLEAR SECURITY COMPLEX THEORY................................................................82 NUCLEAR SECURITY COMPLEXES METHODOLOGY........................................... 85 PROPOSED STATE CHARACTERISTICS...................................................................... 90 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................116 5. MODELING NUCLEAR SECURITY COMPLEXES WITH SELECTED COUNTRIES............................................................................................................................. 118 IRAN: MATERIAL-NORMS BASED SECURITY COMPLEX..................................124 ISRAEL: MATERIAL SECURITY COMPLEX.............................................................. 138 TURKEY: MATERIAL-LIBERAL SECURITY COMPLEX....................................... 149 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: QUASI-HEGEMONIC SECURITY COMPLEX............................................................................................................................ 157 Chapter Page 6. ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................ 173 IMPLICATIONS OF TRANSNATIONALISM TO NUCLEAR SECURITY COMPLEXES........................................................................................................................174 LESSONS LEARNED FROM CONVENTIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX THEORY..........................................................................................................187 LESSONS LEARNED FROM NEW MODEL................................................................. 190 FINDINGS............................................................................................................................. 199 7. CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................206 FUTURE RESEARCH AREAS.........................................................................................210 BIBLIOGRAPHY ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. VITA..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Paul Roe Department of International Relations 'Critical Security Studies
    Paul Roe Department of International Relations ‘Critical Security Studies’ (MA: Winter Semester, 2019-20) This course is concerned with how the so-called ‘critical turn’ in International Relations has been reflected specifically in thinking about Strategy and Security. ‘Critical Security Studies’ is, in its broadest sense, a collection of approaches all united by a profound dissatisfaction with so-called ‘traditional’ security studies. Critical Security Studies seeks to question, though not always completely do away with, the foundations upon which the dominant state-centrism and military-centrism is built. This course deals with a number of these approaches: from the ‘conventional’ constructivists, through the ‘Copenhagen’ and ‘Aberystwyth’, or ‘Welsh’, Schools, to more ‘critical’ constructivist positions. In doing so, not only does it seek to illuminate the main theoretical assumptions underpinning each of the various approaches, but also to explore just how they are ‘critical’; that is, in what ways they challenge traditional security studies, and in what ways they compare and contrast with each other. While the course is mainly theoretical in its orientation, much emphasis is also placed on empirical application; how, and to what kind of cases, each of the approaches can be profitably applied. Teaching Method For this course, there are no lectures. Instead, students will participate in seminars where they are expected to form their own opinions through ‘critical’ evaluation of the readings. For each seminar, there will be one or two key texts (which are in the course reader). Seminar discussion will be structured around a short presentation of the text(s), in which students will summarise and critically evaluate the readings.
    [Show full text]
  • Securitization of Energy Through the Lenses of Copenhagen School 1
    The 2013 WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings Orlando, USA SECURITIZATION OF ENERGY THROUGH THE LENSES OF COPENHAGEN SCHOOL 1 Sezer Özcan PhD Fellow, Bielefeld Graduate School in History and Sociology (BGHS), Bielefeld University, Germany Paper prepared for the 2013 Orlando International Conference, 21-23 March, 2013, West East Institute, Orlando/USA. Abstract ‘Security’ is considered one of the most significant concepts within International Relations (IR) studies, prompting much serious debate around it. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, broad literature has emerged on the concept of security and the field of Security Studies. New definitions of security emerged following the Cold War, and the debates moved beyond military issues through to other fields such as economic, environmental and societal issues. In this context, the theory of securitization, which is contributed to the IR literature by the Copenhagen School as a mode of analyzing security processes, has also emerged within Security Studies. The theory represents a new and alternative approach applied by many scholars in their analysis of security politics in all sectors. It fundamentally analyses how an issue is brought up to the level of security by the speech act, namely explaining how issues are securitized, and what methods are involved. Within such a framework, this paper is dedicated to discussing the security approach of the Copenhagen School (CS), and particularly the theory of securitization, in order to form a theoretical framework to analyze the issue of energy securitization. With the security approach of the School, the framework enables analyzing the issue of energy (particularly oil and natural gas) through the perspective of securitization, and to discuss how the issue of energy has moved into security issues.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Securitization Theory
    ‘Securitization’ revisited: Theory and cases Abstract Securitization theory seeks to explain the politics through which: (i) the security character of public problems is established; (ii) the social commitments resulting from the collective acceptance that a phenomenon is a threat are fixed; and (iii) the possibility of a particular policy is created. In the last decade, research on securitization has grown significantly. The aim of this article is to evaluate the achievements of securitization theory. Firstly, its main concepts and premises are critically discussed. The article then proceeds to examine the empirical applications of securitization theory to a broad range of issues, as well as the theoretical implications of these studies. Finally, it discusses the main challenges faced by securitization scholars and puts forward strategies to overcome them. This article develops three inter-related arguments. Firstly, notably thanks to empirical studies, securitization theory has significantly developed beyond its initial focus on the speech act. Secondly, as a result, the distinctiveness of securitization theory currently lies in its capacity to articulate a specific approach to security - influenced by the speech act - with an ‘analytics of government’, which emphasises practices and processes. Thirdly, securitization theory faces three types of challenges, related respectively to theory, method and methodology. The capacity of scholars to overcome those will strongly influence the extent to which securitization theory will be able
    [Show full text]
  • IR 616 Individual, National and Global Security Spring 2006
    Objectives The objectives of this course are both subject-specific and general. General objectives include the development of oral, written and research skills as the course requires students to become able to read, absorb and critically assess IR 616 a significant amount of complex (and at times contradictory) material. The Individual, National and Global Security subject-specific objectives include developing students’ • understanding of contending approaches to the study of Spring 2006 security; • knowledge and understanding of the key literature in the discipline; • knowledge and understanding of Security Studies Pınar Bilgin beyond their immediate area of interest; + A313 • ability to analyse contemporary security policies and (290) 2164 practices from a conceptual perspective; [email protected] • ability to assess the implications of adopting critical http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~pbilgin approaches for the study and practices of security Monday 16:40-17:30, Tuesday 10:40-11:30 around the world. and by appointment Teaching Aims Despite the prevalence of state-based ('national security') approaches to Since the course is taught as a post-graduate level seminar, the onus is on security during the Cold War, alternative ways of thinking about security— you to read widely around the topics. The seminars on occasions may include focusing on the individual and society—also developed during this time period. mini lectures designed to introduce and/or contextualise that week’s topic, but In the post-Cold War era the primacy of state in considerations of security has you will be doing most of the work. My role will be to provide a basic overview come under increasing challenge from a variety of perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Societal Security and Social Psychology
    Review of International Studies (2003), 29, 249–268 Copyright © British International Studies Association DOI: 10.1017/S0260210503000159 Societal security and social psychology TOBIAS THEILER* Abstract. The concept of societal security as developed by the Copenhagen school has three underlying weaknesses: a tendency to reify societies as independent social agents, a use of too vague a definition of ‘identity’, and a failure to demonstrate sufficiently that social security matters to individuals. This article shows that applying social identity theory to the societal security concept helps remedy these weaknesses and closes the theoretical gaps that the Copenhagen school has left open. It enables us to treat ‘society’ as an independent variable without reifying it as an independent agent. It also suggests a much sharper definition of identity, and a rationale for the Copenhagen school’s claim that individuals have a psychological need to achieve societal security by protecting their group boundaries. Social identity theory thus supports the societal security concept in its central assumptions while giving it stronger theoretical foundations and greater analytical clout. Introduction The concept of societal security first came to prominence in Barry Buzan’s classic People, States and Fear.1 From the early 1990s, a series of writings by Buzan, Ole Wæver and a number of collaborators revived and significantly reinterpreted it, turning societal security into a conceptual cornerstone of what some have labelled the ‘Copenhagen school’ in International Relations (IR).2 By the end of the decade, the Copenhagen school had developed additional concepts and societal security had lost some of its erstwhile centrality. Nonetheless, it has remained the most innovative element in the Copenhagen school and the one that sets it apart most clearly from other approaches in International Relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Security and the Costs and Benefits of Manipulating Analytical Boundaries
    FORUM Security and the costs and benefi ts of manipulating analytical boundaries: Constructivist debates within European Critical Security Studies Anne Hinz* Abstract: In Germany, debates within European critical security studies are taken up belatedly. Yet the debates on identity and security, the interrelation of these two concepts, and the dilemma of writing security, raise fundamental issues with the theory of IR in general, as well as with security scholars’ self-perception. Shaped by the return of ideas, culture, and identity to IR and by the linguistic turn in the social sciences, the new European security theory challenges the tendencies to simply incorporate the new concerns as additional variables into positivist frameworks in order to explain changes in world politics. In developing a conceptual alternative, critical security studies point to innovative avenues of research. Keywords: Critical security studies, constructivism, securitization, identity, discourse 1. The return of ideas, culture and identity: 1967: 5). His understanding of power and interest as fl exible A theoretical challenge and indeterminate concepts and his emphasis on context de- pendency are based on similar premises as the constructivist he 1990s were marked by debates about a return of ide- defi nition of actors as products of complex historical processes as, identity and culture to International Relations and encompassing social, political, material and ideational dimen- Tto Security Studies, this »last bastion of neorealist or- sions. Morgenthau’s limited defi nition of the sphere of politics thodoxy« (Krause 1998: 298). The debates were accompanied is due to his conviction that the introduction of certain issues by disciplining practices of scholars representing dominant into political research entails ethical questions, and that ana- rationalist approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Security by Any Other Name: Negative Security, Positive Security, and a Multi-Actor Security Approach
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259426095 Security by any other name: Negative security, positive security, and a multi-actor security approach Article in Review of International Studies · October 2012 DOI: 10.1017/S0260210511000751 CITATIONS READS 8 251 1 author: Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv University of Tromsoe 21 PUBLICATIONS 157 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv on 11 September 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file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eview of International Studies (2012), 38, 835–859 6 2012 British International Studies Association doi:10.1017/S0260210511000751 First published online 22 Feb 2012 Security by any other name: negative security, positive security, and a multi-actor security approach GUNHILD HOOGENSEN GJØRV Abstract.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Waterloo PSCI 681 Power Politics and World Order (Critical Security Studies) Fall 2007 Graduate Discussion Session TBA
    University of Waterloo PSCI 681 Power Politics and World Order (Critical Security Studies) Fall 2007 Graduate Discussion Session TBA Veronica M. Kitchen [email protected] Office: HH 312 Office Hours: Tuesdays, 1:30-4:00 pm. Students with class conflicts may make an appointment. Contact Policy : The best way to contact me is by email or to come to office hours. Pre-Requisites : Admitted as a graduate student. A strong background in International Relations is recommended. Course Description : This course is a survey of the sub-field of critical security studies. The central questions of the course are: What is critical? What is security? Traditionally, the field of International Relations concerned itself with state security, and has studied it through realist and occasionally liberal, Marxist, and constructivist lenses. This course goes beyond this mainstream in two ways. First, we question whether the state is the appropriate (or only) referent object for security, and second, we use analytical models from outside the mainstream. The first part of the course reviews critical approaches to the study of international security, and the second part examines a range of issues including environmental security, public safety, cyber security, and counter-terrorism which might be considered non-traditional. This course is reading-, writing-, and discussion-intensive. Students will benefit from a background in International Relations and excellent critical thinking skills. Laptops and Class Participation: The success of this seminar course relies on excellent discussions and intensive class participation. In order to facilitate the flow of discussion, I request that students not use their laptops to take notes (or do anything else) in seminar.
    [Show full text]
  • Securitization Through Myths
    Peace and Conflict Studies Volume 7 Number 2 Article 1 11-2000 From Liminars to Others: Securitization Through Myths Karsten Friis Norwegian Institute of International Affairs Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs Part of the Peace and Conflict Studies Commons Recommended Citation Friis, Karsten (2000) "From Liminars to Others: Securitization Through Myths," Peace and Conflict Studies: Vol. 7 : No. 2 , Article 1. DOI: 10.46743/1082-7307/2000.1008 Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol7/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Peace & Conflict Studies at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Peace and Conflict Studies by an authorized editor of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. From Liminars to Others: Securitization Through Myths Abstract The article discusses the rise of societal and ethnic conflicts. It focuses on some of the analytical oolst designed to illuminate these processes. More specifically it builds on the framework of the so-called "Copenhagen School of Security Studies" but seeks to develop a more flexible approach on the concept of identity. To understand how an identity gains strength, Roland Barthes’ theory of myths is examined and combined with Michel Foucault's concept of power. Finally a concept of agency is added, namely what has been labeled a “conflict entrepreneur”. It is argued that by combining these theoretical insights the process of constructing Self and Other, and the subsequent alienation of those who not fit these categories, will be better understood. Keywords: Copenhagen School of Security Studies, Michel Foucault, national identities, Roland Barthes, securitization Author Bio(s) Karsten Friis has previously been associated with the UN section at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs and was until recently working in the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo (KFOR).
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Roe Department of International Relations/Doctoral School Of
    Paul Roe Department of International Relations/Doctoral School of Political Science, Public Policy & International Relations ‘Critical Security Studies’ (Winter Semester, 2017-18) This course, which is taught at both the PhD and MA levels, is concerned with how the so-called ‘critical turn’ in International Relations has been reflected specifically in thinking about Strategy and Security. ‘Critical Security Studies’ is, in its broadest sense, a collection of approaches all united by a profound dissatisfaction with so-called ‘traditional’ security studies. Critical Security Studies seeks to question, though not always completely do away with, the foundations upon which the dominant state-centrism and military-centrism is built. This course deals with a number of these approaches: from the ‘conventional’ constructivists, through the ‘Copenhagen’ and ‘Aberystwyth’, or ‘Welsh’, Schools, to more ‘critical’ constructivist positions. In doing so, not only does it seek to illuminate the main theoretical assumptions underpinning each of the various approaches, but also to explore just how they are ‘critical’; that is, in what ways they challenge traditional security studies, and in what ways they compare and contrast with each other. While the course is mainly theoretical in its orientation, much emphasis is also placed on empirical application; how, and to what kind of cases, each of the approaches can be profitably applied. Teaching Method For this course, there are no lectures. Instead, students will participate in seminars where they are expected to form their own opinions through ‘critical’ evaluation of the readings. For each seminar, there will be one or two key texts (which are in the course reader).
    [Show full text]
  • The Securitization of Migration a Case Study of Discursive Threat
    The Securitization of Migration A case study of discursive threat construction in Hungary during the European Migration Crisis By Fatih Güler International Relations IR103L Department of Global Political Studies Bachelor thesis Spring 2019 Supervisor: Gunnhildur Lily Magnusdottir Fatih Güler 2 Abstract This study looks at the discursive threat constructions of political elites in Hungary during a time span corresponding to the European Migration Crisis. Securitization theory is used in conjunction with a Critical Discourse Analysis to analyse the communicated threat perceptions that led to the extraordinary security measures of building fences. Analysis finds that there was a clear grammar of security in all discourses – on both the state and the regional level - in identifying migration as a possible threat. Characteristics of the discourses varied between the state agents in different contexts in terms of wording, the referent objects they focused on and the utterance of speech acts. The study demonstrates that securitization did successfully happen, but argues that it was likely the result of securitization not happening on a regional level prior. In the study, the European Migration Crisis, the migration- security nexus, and the Copenhagen School’s earlier work: Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe are also explored. The latter work is incorporated in the analysis by testing its correspondence with the communicated threat constructions in Hungary. The study finds strong correlations between the theorized security landscape and the communicated threat perceptions. Key words: Migration, Security, Hungary, Copenhagen School, Securitization, Words: 19407 Table of contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 The Problem ....................................................................................................... 2 1.2 The Aim and Purpose ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Carl Schmitt and Copenhagen School of Security Studies
    WESTERN BALKANS SECURITY OBSERVER THIS ISSUE`S THEME: Carl Schmitt and y Copenhagen School of Security Studies YEAR 4 • No 13 APLRIL – JUNE 2009 Belgrade WESTERN BALKANS SECURITY OBSERVER Contents Journal of the Belgrade School of Security Studies Year 4 No. 13 EDITOR’S WORD . 1 APRIL-JUNE 2009 Publisher: CARL SCHMITH AND COPENHAGEN SCHOOL Centre for Civil-Military OF SECURITY STUDIES Relations Editor in chief: Predrag Petrović Miroslav Hadžić Professor, Faculty ENEMY AS THE ESSENCE OF THE POLITICAL . 1 of Political sciences Filip Ejdus Executive editors: Sonja Stojanović, Teaching DANGEROUS LIAISONS: SECURITIZATION THEORY Assistant, Faculty AND SCHMITTIAN LEGACY . 3 of Political sciences Filip Ejdus, Assistant Lecturer, Marko Žilović Faculty of Political sciences THE CONCEPT OF THE POLITICAL Editorial Board: Barry Ryan AND THE FUTURE OF THE KOPENHAGEN SCHOOL . 9 Bogoljub Milosavljević Dragan Simić Branka Panić Dušan Pavlović SOCIETAL SECURITY – SECURITY AND IDENTITY. 17 Ivan Vejvoda Kenneth Morrison Saša Đorđević Friesendorf Cornelius UNDERSTANDING TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED Marjan Malešič Nadčge Ragaru CRIME AS A SECURITY THREAT Svetlana Đurđević Lukić AND SECURITY THEORIES . 29 Timothy Edmunds Editors’ contact: Adel Abusara Gundulićev venac 48 “FIGHTING THE BEAST”: THEORY AND HISTORY [email protected] tel/fax +381 11 3287 226 OF CONDITIONALITY POLICY OF THE EU . 39 Translation: Jorg Artman Ana Đorđević Teodora Borić WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE: GERMAN Vesna Podgorac INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES IN KOSOVO. 53 Proofreading: Dag Ole Huseby and Adel Abusara BOOK REVIEWS Design: Saša Janjić Slavica Mijatović Computer typesetting: REVIEW OF KAGAN’S BOOK “THE RETURN Časlav Bjelica OF HISTORY AND THE END OF DREAMS”. 63 Printed by: GORAGRAF, Beograd INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE AUTHORS .
    [Show full text]