Central European Journal of International and Security Studies

Metropolitan University Prague Volume 3 / Issue 2 / November 2009 Central European Journal of International & Security Studies Volume 3 Issue 2 November 2009 Contents Editor’s Note. .5 Research Articles Tanya Narozhna and W. Andy Knight Understanding Suicide Terrorism: Problem-Solving and Critical Theoretical Approaches . .8 Veronika Bílková Talking about Unlawful Combatants? A Short and Concise Assessment of a Long and Multifaceted Debate . 29 Yury Fedorov Medvedev’s Initiative: A Trap for Europe? . 45 Scott Nicholas Romaniuk Rethinking EU-Russian Relations: ‘Modern’ Cooperation or ‘Post-Modern’ Strategic Partnership? . 70 Artur Gruszczak Governing Internal Security in the European Union . 86 José María López-Bueno Missing Development Opportunities on the EU’s Southern Border . 104 Nik Hynek Continuity and Change in the US Foreign and Security Policy with the Accession of President Obama . 122 Natalia Piskunova State Failure and Security in a Post-Westphalia Era. 139 Richard Bissell and Suresh Nanwani Multilateral Development Bank Accountability Mechanisms: Developments and Challenges . 154 Book Reviews . 199 Notes on Contributors . 215 5 Editor’s Note: CE JISS Scholars of international relations (IR), divided as they are over the contours of the discipline, bear moral responsibility to, among other things, objectively and fairly present the unfolding nature of international affairs, the types and potency of actual and potential challenges, and the means available to confront such challenges. While analyses and policy prescriptions are portrayed using a variety of theoretical tools, all international relations scholars ought to share a desire to further understand the nuances of international political life, convey the dynamics of change, and offer decision-makers, and the interested public, constructive approaches for dealing with the multitude of international actors (state, non-state/non-governmental, supranational and intergovernmental), contrasting interests, resource competition (between allies and adversaries), in addition to geopolitical conditions and emerging causes of discord. Currently however, the public domain of information is largely determined by the nature of available tools (re: the internet), and the role of scholarship in depicting international affairs is being subordinated to popular media outlets (including Facebook, blogs and Twitter) and political punditry; and ‘commu- nication’ has become, in many ways, synonymous with ‘education.’ In a way, the monopolisation of international political analyses by IR theorists has been shattered as scholars continue to produce intricate and thoughtful explorations while public interest in such work dwindles. The downward trend in relying on scholarship is logical given the speed of change to international relations coupled with the fact that many now have, at their fi ngertips, the ability to convey their opinion of international events as they occur. Similar to Bill Gates’ notion of business at the speed of thought, international scholarship cannot keep pace with reportage at the speed of occurrence. In other words, IR scholars can do little more than present historical-political renditions of events using theoretical frameworks to explain causes and effects. This implies a substantial time-gap between an internationally signifi cant event and an adequate scholarly response. With policy-makers and publics demanding swiftness and coherence in foreign policy, it is no wonder that IR scholars are increasingly fi nding themselves out-of-the-loop in decision-making cycles, while local ‘people on the ground’ are given increased importance in foreign policy-making. Of course, IR scholars have devoted their lives to scientifi cally and theoreti- cally exploring international issues, and their assessments cannot, in content, be compared to unsubstantiated and unresearched opinions. However, it is important that IR scholars reassert themselves and attempt to fulfi l the important and admirable role of objectively informing decision-makers and publics so policies refl ect the best known options and governments (at least democratic ones) are restrained in their actions by a sizable community of scholars able to reach, and help form, public opinion. If political personalities here in the Czech Republic would, for example, heed scholarly, rather than public exclamation, their concern over the US’s decision to 6 | abandon its missile defence (MD) components may have refl ected the gravity of the decision itself. Indeed, the Czech Republic (and Poland) laboured to secure US military investments in order to deepen their security provisions through the enlistment of an off-shore ally without a history of colonial expansion and occupation (at least within Europe), dictatorship or unprovoked belligerence. The US, for its part, used MD in the Czech Republic (and Poland) to achieve three of its own ambitions: increase its infl uence on EU decision-making by favouring two key ‘new’ EU members; carve-out forward geopolitical positions vis-à-vis Russia; and launch new socio-economic inroads into Central and East- ern Europe. So, the abandonment of MD in the Czech Republic indicates that: 1) the US, under Obama, has not prioritised relations with ‘new’ EU members; 2) the US has allowed Russia to penetrate its decision-making cycles and caves into Russian belligerence even if it appears that the US ‘traded’ MD for Russian acquiescence to sanctions against Iran; and 3) the Czech Republic was, for (at least) the third time in the past century, abandoned by its closest ally. It is likely that Obama’s midnight telephone call – announcing the abandonment of MD – to Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer was deliberate in its absurd timing; ensuring that Fischer was unable to adequately reply or present counter-veiling argumentation. In his malicious approach to the Czech Repub- lic, Obama revealed what many IR scholars already knew: that he was elected to advance US interests and that the US continues to assert itself as a unilateral power while attempting to give the impression of multilateralism. This idea contrasts sharply with European public opinion of Obama, which embraced him and his ‘yes we can’ attitude. It is shameful that Obama’s rhetoric has done more to formulate European approaches to the US – as policy, in this case, refl ects public opinion – than his actual policies have. The above is but one example and shows some dangers which require rec- tifi cation. Scholars need to re-enter decision making processes and help their political community make the right, not necessarily the most popular choices, while continuing to further educate the general public, otherwise democratic values will be eroded under new waves of populism. It is on this point that I would like to welcome you to CEJISS 3:2, since CEJISS has prioritised providing in-depth analyses of central issues in IR – free of charge – to as wide a public as possible. This issue introduces and examines many important themes in IR that, when read together, illustrates some key characteristics of the nature of international political life. I sincerely hope you enjoy this issue and I look forward to your comments, criticisms and concerns. Mitchell A. Belfer Editor in Chief CEJISS 90 CE JISS Research Articles Understanding Suicide Terrorism: Problem-Solving Approach to Suicide Terrorism Tanya Narozhna and W. Andy Knight1 Introduction Over the past few years, the problem of suicide terrorism has garnered signifi cant scholarly interest.2 Recent literature on suicide terrorism eschews earlier claims about the profound irrationality or psychopathology of attackers and focuses instead on the strategic dimension of this phenomenon, introduc- ing rational choice cost-benefi t analysis of the strategic calculations on the part of sponsoring organisations. Such analysis is often supplemented by the discussion of individual motives and the role of society in moulding the attackers. Amidst this literature one fi nds remarkably little serious refl ection on the ways in which the rejection of earlier claims about the irrationality of suicide terrorism contributes to the reframing of the problem in line with the logic of rationality; how rationalist approaches advance our knowledge of suicide terrorism; and whether interpretive perspectives can offer any fresh insights into the nature of this phenomenon. Ironically, the narrow limits of rationalist literature on suicide terrorism have often been self-imposed by a commitment (implicit or explicit) to produce policy relevant research that offers governments practical recommendations for countering terrorism. This instrumental problem-solving approach is no doubt important, in that it certainly provides a practical ‘tool-box’ guide for policy-makers. But the problem-solving approach is limited in perspective in terms of the problem and its solutions. At the same 1 Tanya Narozhna is an Assistant Professor of Global Politics at the University of Winnipeg and may be reached at: [email protected]; W. Andy Knight is Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Alberta and Governor of the International Development Research Centre. He may be reached at: [email protected]. 2 A number of scholarly publications including, but not limited to, Mohammed Hafez’s Manufacturing Human Bombs: The Making of Palestinian Suicide Bombers (2006), Robert Pape’s Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005), Diego Gambetta’s Making Sense of Suicide Missions (2005), Mia Bloom’s

Load more