DOCSLIB.ORG

ED360197.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 360 197 SO 022 278 TITLE Biennial Report of the United States Institute of Peace, 1991. Submitted to the Congress and the President of the United States. INSTITUTION United States Inst. of Peace, Washington, DC. REPORT NO ISBN-1-878379-13-5; ISSN-1-047-5915 PUB DATE Jan 92 NOTE 189p. AVAILABLE FROM United States Institute of Peace, 1550 M Street, N.W., Suite 700, Wiihinifon, DC 20005. PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC08 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Conflict Resolution; Disarmament; *Foreign Policy; *Government Role; Higher Education; *International Relations; *Peace; War IDENTIFIERS *Peace Studies ABSTRACT This document is the third in a series of biennial reports on the United States Institute of Peace. The Institute devotes itself to matters of international peace based on freedom and justice. Functioning as a nonideological educational resource for policymakers and officials, the Institute does not intervene directly in the formulation or conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Principal purposes of the Institute include:(1) expanding knowledge about international conflict and peace by sponsoring research, analysis, and training;(2) disseminating such knowledge; and (3) promoting understanding of the complexities of international conflict and peace among the U.S. public. The Institute promotes its goals through grants, fellowships, research, education and training, and library and information services. As Chapter 1 of the report indicates, the Institute undertook special initiatives during fiscal years 1990 and 1991 concerning the Middle East and Eastern Europe. In additi:m, according to Chapter 2, the Institute continued ongoing efforts in such areas as international conflict management, arms control, East-West relations, and sources of violence. Chapter 3 describes the Institute's education and training activities and has sections entitled "Helping Educate Secondary and Postsecondary Teachers and Students" and "Training for Other Professions." Chapter 4 discusses grants, fellowships, and research programs that the Institute sponsors. Descriptions of management and corporate affairs and biographies of Institute board members and senior staff comprise Chapter 5. A chairman's statement, message from the president, an overview, and three appendices regarding the United States Institute of Peace and its enabling legislation are attached. (SG) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** Biennial Report of the UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE 1991 U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EOUCAT Ofhce of Eclucatbanal Rmarch and imp EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFOf CENTER (ERIC1 IThm Aocumant has Owl repeol reCe.vtKI !corn tha person or ofc ongmatingff ki.no, changes nave bawl made t feomOuclloo Qualify Pofnts of vi*vr oe optnIonS Mateo ,n man? do no? natersahlv fPfs DERI minion or pAcy -PERMISSION TO REPRODU, MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRAN ,=1111 --)t-:=e\--(.; TO THE EDUCATIONAL RES INFORMATION CENTER IER 0 PLIWg' Ao4fic rrt'T6ctiIOW 4 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Elspeth Davies Rostow, Chairman J.A. Baldwin Dennis L. Bark Chester A. Crocker Stephen J. Hadley Theodore M. Hesburgh William R. Kintner Evron M. Kirkpatrick Ronald F. Lehman, II Morris I. Leibman Richard Schifter Mary Louise Smith W. Scott Thompson Allen Weinstein Samuel W. Lewis (nonvoting) a BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE 1991 Submitted to the Congress and the President of the United States of America By Elspeth Davies Rostov Chairman of the Board of Directors January 1992 United States Institute of Peace Washington, DC The Biennial Report of the United States Institute of Peace was prepared and trarbmitted to the President and the Congress of the United States pursuant to Section 1712 of the United States Institute of Peace Act (Public Law 98-525, as amended). Photo Credits: All photographs taken by Leslie Everheart unless otherwise noted below. p.vii. House of Representatives, Archives p.vii. United Nations p.vii. AP/Wide World Photos p. ix. Daniel Snodderly p.3.Senate, Archives p.9.AP/Wide World Photos p.13. AP/Wide World Photos p.15. AP/Wide World Photos p.17. Kenneth Jensen p.21. AP/Wide World Photos p.26. Daniel Snodderly p.28. Kenneth Jensen p.32. United Nations p.33. United Nations p.35. AP/Wide World Photos p.41. AP/Wide World Photos p.47. AP/Wide World Photos p.49. Close Up Foundation, Renee Bouchard p.52. Close Up Foundation, Hillary Schwab P.52. Close Up Foundation, Hillary Schwab p.54. Carl Biggs p.56. Patricia Tryforas p.58. Bob Daemmrich p.60. NBC News p.63. Univeristy photographer, Columbia University, Joe Pineiro p.64. Raymond Shonholtz Published by: United States Institute of Peace 1550 M Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 Library of Congress Card Number: 88-659599 ISBN 1-878379-13-5 ISSN 1-047-5915 Printed in the United States of America Editorial and Production Services: Joseph Foote Claude 0. Norcott First Printing 1992 5 ii CONTENTS Chairman's Statement Message from the President Overview Chapter I.Special Initiatives in an Era of Rapid Change Chapter II.Expanding Knowledge About International Conflict and Peacemaking 1: Chapter III.Reaching a Multitude of Audiences 40 Chapter IV. The Institute at Work: Grants, Fellowships, and In-House Research and Studies 7: Chapter V. Management and Finance 14! Appendices 15! iii CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT As the United States Institute of Peace completes six years of activity, the world is changing more rapidly, dramatically, and profoundly than at any time since World War II and, perhaps, than at any time in this century. At such a momentpromising, but unsettling and dangerousthe work of the Institute takes on special significance. The United States, although not a hegemonic superpower, is inescapably the world leader in promoting an international state system that relies to the greatest extent possible on peaceful means and collective security principles to settle international conflicts. It also leads the world in demonstrating the values of a free and open democratic approach to self-governance. It is in this tradition that the Institute strives to strengthen the efforts of American peacemakers and those in other nations who share these purposes. Today, the Institute undertakes its work in a world in which relationships between nations are increasingly conditioned by revolutionary advances in communications technology. No longer, with rare exceptions, can rulers seal off their borders to insulate their people from knowledge of the world outside. The attempted coup in Moscow in August 1991 was foiled partly because interna- tional media and private fax machines informed the Russian people immedi- ately about the actual course of events, thwarting the plotters' attempts to depict a false picture of reality. The failure of the August coup reinforced an historic lesson: that the attainment of peace and personal freedom is the dream of most people on this planet. On every continent, modern communications technology increasingly holds out that dream as a realistic possibilityworth risk, struggle, and faith. But technology can also help would-be aggressors and demagogues entice their peoples to follow the destructive banners of ethnic, xenophobic, or religious fanaticism. In this tumultuous environment, where the shape of the next century is at issue, the Institute is well positioned to help both government officials and private citizens make sense of a new world yearning for peace, but still unable to achieve it. Building on the excellent framework provided by its legislative mandate from the Congress, the Institute now has a sound and durable struc- ture both as a federal entity and an independent corporation. Its broad purpose is to educate. Its mission is to enlarge the capacities and roles of international peacemakers. How well the Institute is carrying forward that mission is de- scribed in great detail in this third Biennial Report of the United States Institute of Peace. It is a record of remarkable achievement. One aspect that makes me especially proud is the evidence of ways the Institute is helping to bridge the wide gap between foreign policy scholars and foreign policy practitioners between thinkers and doers. As one who hails from the world of scholarship, can say that this bridge is badly needed by those on both sides of the chasm. The Institute is doing an outstanding job of bringing relevant academic insights iv (From left to right) John n FIL7ILL Norton Moore, former Chairman, Board of Directors (February 1986 June 1991), Elspeth Davies Rostow, Chair- man, Board of Directors (elected in July 1991; Vice Chairman January 1989 July 1991), and Institute President Samuel W. Lewis. to those public officials who can best employ them in the search forpeace; simultaneously, it is giving the public in general, as wellas students and aca- demics, a greater understanding of the peacemakingprocess. All of us associated with the Institute are deeply encouraged by thesupport and encouragement of President Bush, senior officials of his Administration, and those many Members of Congress from both political parties who havecontin- ued to demonstrate their enthusiasm for the Institute'spurposes and direction. On behalf of the Board of Directors, I want to close witha special tribute to John Norton Moore for his dedicated service as Chairman from the first Board meeting in February 1986 until he resigned in June 1991. Professor Moore brought insight, wise guidance, and cheerful optimism toour work, thereby imparting much enduring character to this institution. All ofus who served with him are greatly in his debt. I also thank other members of the Boardwho have left during the past two yearsW. Bruce Weinrod, Richard John Neuhaus, and Sidney Lovettfor their creative service, and I enthusiasticallywelcome three additional distinguished colleagues, Mary Louise Smith, TheodoreM. Hesburgh, and Chester A. Crocker. The Board of the Institute isa working board, having met more than a dozen times for eight to twelve hourson each occasion during the period covered in this report.
Recommended publications
  • Surprise, Security, and the American Experience Jan Van Tol

    Surprise, Security, and the American Experience Jan Van Tol

    Naval War College Review Volume 58 Article 11 Number 4 Autumn 2005 Surprise, Security, and the American Experience Jan van Tol John Lewis Gaddis Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation van Tol, Jan and Gaddis, John Lewis (2005) "Surprise, Security, and the American Experience," Naval War College Review: Vol. 58 : No. 4 , Article 11. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol58/iss4/11 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen van Tol and Gaddis: Surprise, Security, and the American Experience BOOK REVIEWS HOW COMFORTABLE WILL OUR DESCENDENTS BE WITH THE CHOICES WE’VE MADE TODAY? Gaddis, John Lewis. Surprise, Security, and the American Experience. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 2004. 150pp. $18.95 John Lewis Gaddis is the Robert A. U.S. history, American assumptions Lovell Professor of History at Yale Uni- about national security were shattered versity and one of the preeminent his- by surprise attack, and each time U.S. torians of American, particularly Cold grand strategy profoundly changed as a War, security policy. Surprise, Security, result. and the American Experience is based on After the British attack on Washington, a series of lectures given by the author D.C., in 1814, John Quincy Adams as in 2002 addressing the implications for secretary of state articulated three prin- American security after the 11 Septem- ciples to secure the American homeland ber attacks.
  • İRAN ÇALIŞMALARI DERGİSİ the Journal of Iranian Studies

    İRAN ÇALIŞMALARI DERGİSİ the Journal of Iranian Studies

    İRAN ÇALIŞMALARI DERGİSİ The Journal of Iranian Studies Cilt: 3, Sayı: 1, 2019 Vol: 3, No: 1, 2019 ISSN: 2536-5029 E-ISSN: 2651-4370 SAKARYA İran Çalışmaları Dergisi uluslararası hakemli bir dergidir. Yılda iki sayı olarak yayımlanır. Yazıların bilimsel ve hukuki sorumluluğu yazarlarına aittir. İran Çalışmaları Dergı̇ si The Journal of Iranian Studies ISSN: 2536-5029 E-ISSN: 2651-4370 Yayın dili: Türkçe- İngilizce- Farsça İran Çalışmaları Dergisi yılda iki kez yayımlanan uluslararası hakemli bir dergidir. Gönderilen ya- zılar yayın kurulunda incelendikten sonra, konunun uzmanı iki hakemin, gerekli görüldüğü takdirde üçüncü bir hakemin değerlendirmesi ve yayın kurulunun nihai onayıyla yayımlanır. Yayın kurulu, araştırma makaleleri dışındaki yazılan (sempozyum, kongre haberleri, kitap tanıtımları vb.) bizzat inceleyip hakeme göndermeden doğrudan kabul ve red kararı verebilir. İran Çalışmaları Dergisi Sakarya Üniversitesi Esentepe Kampüsü 54187 Serdivan/SAKARYA Tel: (+90) (264) 2953604 Faks: (+90) (264) 2953676 Erişim: [email protected] Dergide yayımlanan yazılarda fikirler yalnızca yazar(lar)ına aittir. Dergi sahibini, yayıncıyı ve editörleri bağlamaz. Tasarım-Baskı Hazırlık: Karınca Ajans Dr. Mediha Eldem Sok. 56/1 Kızılay-Ankara Tel: 0312 431 54 83 Baskı: Eflal Matbacılık Zübeyde Hanım Mah. Kazım Karabekir Cad. No: 95-1A Altındağ - Ankara Tel: 0312 341 47 48 The Journal of Iranian Studies İran Çalışmaları Dergisi ISSN: 2536-5029 E-ISSN: 2651-4370 Publishing Languages: Turkish- English- Persian The Journal of Iranian Studies is an international peer-reviewed journal, which is published twi- ce a year. The papers sent to the journal are reviewed by at least two referees (if necessary a third referee will also review the articles) and after their approval, they will be sent to the editorial board before being published.
  • The Foreign Policy of the Arab Gulf Monarchies from 1971 to 1990

    The Foreign Policy of the Arab Gulf Monarchies from 1971 to 1990

    The Foreign Policy of the Arab Gulf Monarchies from 1971 to 1990 Submitted by René Rieger to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Middle East Politics in June 2013 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature: ………… ………… 2 ABSTRACT This dissertation provides a comparative analysis of the foreign policies of the Arab Gulf monarchies during the period of 1971 to 1990, as examined through two case studies: (1) the Arab Gulf monarchies’ relations with Iran and Iraq and (2) the six states’ positions in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The dissertation argues that, in formulating their policies towards Iran and Iraq, the Arab Gulf monarchies aspired to realize four main objectives: external security and territorial integrity; domestic and regime stability; economic prosperity; and the attainment of a stable subregional balance of power without the emergence of Iran or Iraq as Gulf hegemon. Over the largest part of the period under review, the Arab Gulf monarchies managed to offset threats to these basic interests emanating from Iran and Iraq by alternately appeasing and balancing the source of the threat. The analysis reveals that the Arab Gulf monarchies’ individual bilateral relations with Iran and Iraq underwent considerable change over time and, particularly following the Iranian Revolution, displayed significant differences in comparison to one another.
  • Iran Under Khatami

    Iran Under Khatami

    IRAN UNDER KHATAMI A Political, Economic, and Military Assessment Patrick Clawson Michael Eisenstadt Eliyahu Kanovsky David Menashri A Washington Institute Monograph THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, re- cording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. © 1998 by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Published in 1998 in the United States of America by the Washing- ton Institute for Near East Policy, 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20036. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Iran under Khatami: a political, economic, and military assess- ment / Patrick L. Clawson ... [et al.]. p. cm. ISBN 0-944029-27-2 (pbk.) 1. Iran—Politics and government—1997- 2. Khatami, Muhammad. 3. Iran—Economic conditions—1997- 4. Iran—Foreign relations—1997- 5. Iran—Military policy. I. Clawson, Patrick, 1951- . DS318.9.I73 1998 955.05'43—dc21 98-39718 CIP Cover design by Monica Neal Hertzman. Cover image AFP Photo/ Jamshid Bairami/Corbis. CONTENTS Contributors v Preface vii 1 The Khatami Paradox Patrick Clawson 1 2 Whither Iranian Politics? The Khatami Factor David Menashri 13 3 Iran's Sick Economy Prospects for Change under Khatami Eliyahu Kanovsky 53 4 The Military Dimension Michael Eisenstadt 71 5 Opportunities and Challenges for U.S. Policy Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt 99 CONTRIBUTORS Patrick Clawson is director for research at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy and senior editor of the Middle East Quarterly.
  • Review Article the Responsibility to Protect at 15

    Review Article the Responsibility to Protect at 15

    Review article The Responsibility to Protect at 15 RAMESH THAKUR Anniversaries are occasions to take stock: reflect on progress, celebrate successes, acknowledge setbacks and outline a vision and roadmap for a better future. This year marks the fifteenth anniversary of the publication of the landmark report1 by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) that first introduced the innovative principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Within four years, R2P was endorsed unanimously at a United Nations summit of world leaders as the central organizing principle for responding to mass atrocity crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. The ‘original’ documents comprise the initial report of the international commission, its supporting supplementary volume, the 2005 UN summit’s Outcome Document which adopted R2P as official UN policy,2 the special reports of the secretary-general (SG) issued annually since 2009, the debates in the General Assembly around his annual reports,3 resolutions adopted by the Security Council and statements issued by its president, and statements and speeches by the SG and his special advisers on R2P and genocide prevention. To this we might add the series of speeches and reports by Kofi Annan from his time as SG.4 In the secondary literature, it is worth highlighting the central role of Global Responsi- bility to Protect (GR2P), a journal dedicated to this topic. Occasionally special issues of other journals have focused on R2P, for example Ethics & International Affairs 25: 3 (2011). ICISS co-chair Gareth Evans and Commissioner Ramesh Thakur have provided their accounts,5 and ICISS research director Tom Weiss has written an elegant account of R2P in the longer and broader context of humanitarian intervention.6 Edward Luck, the SG’s first special adviser on R2P, has written several accounts of the development and evolution of R2P during his term in 1 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2001).
  • PATTERNS of DISCONTENT: WILL HISTORY REPEAT in IRAN? by Michael Rubin and Patrick Clawson *

    PATTERNS of DISCONTENT: WILL HISTORY REPEAT in IRAN? by Michael Rubin and Patrick Clawson *

    PATTERNS OF DISCONTENT: WILL HISTORY REPEAT IN IRAN? By Michael Rubin and Patrick Clawson * While international attention is focused on Iran’s nuclear program and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s bombast, Iranian society itself is facing turbulent times. Increasingly, patterns are re-emerging that mirror events in the years before the Islamic revolution. These include political disillusionment, domestic protest, government failure to match public expectations of economic success, and labor unrest. Nevertheless, the Islamic regime has learned the lessons of the past and is determined not to repeat them, even as political discord crescendos. This essay is derived from the authors’ recent book, Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2005). Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s victory in Iran’s Ahmadinejad’s 2003 election as mayor of 2005 Presidential elections shocked both Tehran. Iranians and the West. “Winner in Iran calls The election of Ahmadinejad was only the for Unity; Reformists Reel,” headlined The latest in a series of surprises that Iran has New York Times.1 Most Western produced in recent decades. Indeed, a review governments assumed that former President of Iran's history over the last thirty years and Expediency Council chairman Ali Akbar suggests that Iran excels at surprising its own Hashemi Rafsanjani would win. 2 Many people and the world. This does not mean academics also were surprised. Few paid any that history will be repeated. But it is worth heed to the former blacksmith’s son who rose bearing in mind that nearly three decades to become mayor of Tehran. Brown after the shah's grip on power began to falter, University anthropologist William O.
  • Norm Robustness and the Responsibility to Protect

    Norm Robustness and the Responsibility to Protect

    Journal of Global Security Studies, 4(1), 2019, 53–72 doi: 10.1093/jogss/ogy045 Research Article Norm Robustness and the Responsibility to Protect Jennifer M. Welsh Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jogss/article/4/1/53/5347912 by guest on 29 September 2021 McGill University Abstract This article begins by critically assessing some of the current measures used to evaluate the status and impact of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). It then lays the groundwork for a deeper examina- tion of RtoP’s strength by specifying what kind of norm it is, and what it can reasonably be expected to do. The third section engages Zimmerman and Deitelhoff’s framework on norm robustness and contestation by positing two arguments. First, the past decade of diplomatic engagement and policy development has brought about greater consensus on RtoP’s core elements, and thus enhanced its validity; however, this process has also dampened many of RtoP’s original cosmopolitan aspirations. Second, persistent applicatory contestation about RtoP’s so-called third pillar is revealing deeper con- cerns about the norm’s justification – thereby leading some actors to avoid framing situations with RtoP terminology. I use two cases to address the broader theoretical questions raised about whether and how language matters in assessing norm robustness: the international community’s response to the deepening political violence in Burundi in 2015, and the evolution of the international community’s response to the war in Syria (2011–17). While these cases illustrate changing perceptions of the politi- cal utility of RtoP language, concrete engagement by the international community, particularly in the Burundi case, indicates that RtoP’s validity remains intact.
  • Inconsistent U.S. Representation in Saudi Arabia: a Continuing Problem | the Washington Institute

    Inconsistent U.S. Representation in Saudi Arabia: a Continuing Problem | the Washington Institute

    MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 789 Inconsistent U.S. Representation in Saudi Arabia: A Continuing Problem by Simon Henderson Oct 2, 2003 ABOUT THE AUTHORS Simon Henderson Simon Henderson is the Baker fellow and director of the Bernstein Program on Gulf and Energy Policy at The Washington Institute, specializing in energy matters and the conservative Arab states of the Persian Gulf. Brief Analysis he surprise announcement that Robert Jordan, U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, will leave his post by mid- T October means that Washington will lack an authoritative voice in the kingdom at a crucial time in the war on terror. One State Department official has claimed that Jordan's resignation was for personal reasons and that "Saudi Arabia holds him in the highest regard." Yet, other reports suggest that Jordan's public and semipublic criticisms of the kingdom have annoyed Riyadh. Controversial Remarks In the months since May 12, 2003, when ten Americans were killed in attacks against three expatriate residential compounds in Riyadh, several of Ambassador Jordan's comments have created a stir. Analysts are accustomed to U.S. officials employing a cautious and laudatory approach when publicly describing relations with Saudi Arabia. Hence, many were astonished when, during an interview with CBS News soon after the Riyadh attacks, Jordan stated that Washington's previous requests for increased security at the compounds had been ignored. He made similar comments to the New York Times a day later, this time singling out Crown Prince Abdullah and Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal for praise. By implication, Jordan was pointing the blame in the direction of Interior Minister Prince Nayef, who is in charge of internal security and has a reputation for being difficult.
  • International Security, Human Rights and the Responsibility to Protect

    International Security, Human Rights and the Responsibility to Protect

    International Security, Human Rights and the Responsibility to Protect Remarks delivered by Dr. Simon Adams in Moscow, Russia on 30 October 2013 at a conference on “State Sovereignty and the Concept of ‘Responsibility to Protect’: The Evolution of the International Situation and Russia's Interests.” Hosted by the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia. I want to thank the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the opportunity to participate in this historic event – the first conference on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to be hosted by your government. I want to digress slightly from my suggested topic and start, if I could, by addressing this vexed issue of sovereignty which has gripped our deliberations so far this morning. Sovereignty has never been absolute and that is truer now than at any time since the Treaty of Westphalia. But that is not because R2P has undermined it. It is because the problems of the twenty-first century are quantitatively and qualitatively different from those of previous centuries. Climate change, transnational terrorism, AIDS, mass atrocities, poverty and piracy – these issues are what former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described as “problems without passports.” They require fresh thinking and global partnership. Mass atrocities, in particular, are a threat to all humans as humans. That’s why we define them – politically and legally – as crimes against humanity. That’s why we punish them as an affront not just to their victims, but to all of us as human beings. That’s why they constitute a threat to both international security and human rights.
  • BURTON I. KAUFMAN (Blacksburg, VA, USA)

    BURTON I. KAUFMAN (Blacksburg, VA, USA)

    BURTON I. KAUFMAN (Blacksburg, VA, USA) INTRODUCTION: THE WORLD REMAINS A DANGEROUS PLACE Most politica! analysts agree that the Cold War ended in 1989, when revolutions in Poland and Hungary quickly spread to other East Eu- ropean countries, toppling existing Communist regimes and shattering the Iron Curtain that had divided Eastern and Western Europe for almost forty-five years. Much of the credit for these developments has been given to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who promoted economic and political liberalization in the Soviet Union through his policies of pe;e- s,rolka and glasnost', restricted the use of Soviet military power to main- tain Soviet hegemonic control over Eastern Europe and sought new and fruitful openings to the West. In 1992, of course, these same liberal poli- cies led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union itself, following an un- successful coup against Gorbachev. In a fine history on the end of the Cold War, Washington Post re- porter Don Oberdorfer has also attributed considerable credit to Presi- dent Ronald Reagan. Believing when he took office in 1981 that the So- viet Union was an "evil empire" (the term he used in a 1983 speech), Reagan was nevertheless anxious to ease tensions between Washington and Moscow. Determined to strengthen America's military posture, he was unalterably committed to his.Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or "Star Wars"), despite Gorbachev's equatty resolute opposition to it. Throughout most of Reagan's administration, in fact, SDI remained the major impedi- ment to a Soviet-American disarmament agreement. in the end, however, the Soviets realized they could not afford the costs of competing with the United States in the development of sophisticated and enormously expensive military technology.
  • Cold War Triumphalism and the Reagan Factor

    Cold War Triumphalism and the Reagan Factor

    Cold War Triumphalism and the Reagan Factor Onur İŞÇİ* Abstract Key Words Three decades after Gorbachev’s 1986 Cold War Triumphalism, Reagan Victory Glasnost campaign, the sudden death of School, US-Soviet Confrontation, Demise of the the Soviet Union still continues to keep USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev. diplomatic historians busy with its momentous implications. The mutually excluding political realms of the Cold War forged a conservative In 1986 the Union of Soviet Socialist American historical discourse, which perceived the Soviet Union as an evil empire. Existing Republics finally became the toast of biases against Moscow continued after the American diplomats, who believed Soviet collapse and were conjured up in a new that global harmony was a step closer. scholarly genre that might properly be termed as After four decades of superpower “the Reagan Victory School”. The adherents of conflict, the new Russia was seen as a this school suggest that President Reagan’s resolve and unsophisticated yet faithfully pragmatic long lost friend that reemerged from its foreign policy designs – the Strategic Defense ashes, promising to adopt democracy Initiative (SDI) in particular – became the and a liberal market economy. Mikhail major factor behind the Soviet Union’s demise Gorbachev’s Glasnost and Perestroika and America’s “triumph” after the Cold War. signaled the end of a modern period Looking at several influential monographs on the subject, this paper seeks to demonstrate the in history that had been economically well nuanced yet often mono-causal notions and politically exhausting for virtually vocalized by American scholars of Cold War the whole world. Faced with a serious triumphalism.
  • United Nations Nations Unies

    United Nations Nations Unies

    United Nations NationsUnies Informal Interactive Dialogue of the General Assembly "Early Warning, Assessment, and the Responsibility to Protect" 9 August 2010 Conference Room 4, United Nations Headquarters, New York Program 10:00 – 10:20 Opening Short opening statement by the Acting President of the General Assembly Statement by H.E. Mr. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General 10:20 – 11:15 Informal presentations by panelists Panelists Dr. Edward C. Luck, Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General Dr. Francis M. Deng, Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide Professor Bertie Ramcharan, First Swiss Chair of Human Rights, Geneva Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies; Seventh Chancellor of the University of Guyana; Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ad interim Professor Andrea Bartoli, Director of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University Professor Muna Ndulo, Professor of Law, Director of the Institute for African Development, Cornell University 11:15 – 13:00 Interactive discussion between Member States and panelists 1 Statement by Edward C. Luck Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General Informal Interactive Dialogue on Early Warning, Assessment, and the Responsibility to Protect United Nations General Assembly 9 August 2010 Madame Acting President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, Many thanks go to the President of the General Assembly for convening this informal interactive dialogue on early warning, assessment, and the responsibility to protect (RtoP) and to you, Madame Acting President, for so energetically and skillfully chairing it. I have no doubt that our conversation today will underscore the value of the continuing consideration of RtoP by the General Assembly.