Forging a World of Liberty Under Law U.S

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Forging a World of Liberty Under Law U.S Fo rging A A rging Wo rld of Liberty Liberty of rld Un der Law: U.S. N U.S. Law: der ational ational Se curity curity In T he 21st Centur 21st he Forging A World Of y Liberty Under Law U.S. National Security In The 21st Century Final Report of the Princeton Project on National Security G. G. G. John Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter Jo Co-Directors hn Ikenberr hn y and Anne- and y Ma rie rie Sl aughte r, Co-D irector The Princeton Project Papers s The Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Princeton University FORGING A WORLD OF LIBERTY UNDER LAW U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY Final Paper of the Princeton Project on National Security G. John Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter, Co-Directors September 27, 2006 The Princeton Project Papers Published by The Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Princeton University he Princeton Project on National Security is a three-year, bipartisan initiative to develop a Tsustainable and effective national security strategy for the United States of America. Under the stewardship of honorary co-chairs George Shultz and Anthony Lake, the Princeton Project brought together leading thinkers on national security from government, academe, business, and the non-profit sector to analyze key issues and develop innovative responses to a range of national security threats. Through the generous support of the Ford Foundation, Mr. David M. Rubenstein, and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, the Princeton Project has: • Convened and published the findings of seven working groups that addressed different aspects of national security—including grand strategy, state security and transnational threats, economics and national security, reconstruction and development, anti-Americanism, relative threat assessment, and foreign policy infrastructure and global institutions; • Held nine conferences in the United States and abroad to explore major issues pertaining to U.S. national security ranging from the use of preventive force to the role of the private sector; • Commissioned seventeen working papers on critical security topics that hitherto had received scant attention. The Princeton Project culminates with the release of this final report by project co-directors G. John Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter. Over the next nine months the co-directors will present their findings at a series of events in the United States, Europe, and Asia. For copies of Princeton Project working group papers or to learn more, visit the Princeton Project website at www.wws.princeton.edu/ppns. Please direct inquiries to [email protected]. Copyright © 2006 by the Princeton Project on National Security Designed and produced by Rebecca Dull, Office of External Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America CONTENTS Foreword ............................................................................................................................................2 Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................................................4 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................6 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................11 A National Security Strategy for the 21st Century .............................................................................14 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................14 Criteria for a Successful Strategy ................................................................................................17 A World of Liberty Under Law ..................................................................................................18 Major Threats and Challenges ..........................................................................................................33 The Middle East ........................................................................................................................33 Global Terror Networks .............................................................................................................39 The Proliferation and Transfer of Nuclear Weapons ...................................................................43 The Rise of China and Order in East Asia .................................................................................47 A Global Pandemic ....................................................................................................................51 Energy .......................................................................................................................................52 Building a Protective Infrastructure............................................................................................54 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................58 Appendix A: Charter for a Concert of Democracies ..........................................................................61 Appendix B: Executive Summaries of Working Group Reports ........................................................62 Appendix C: Project Participants ......................................................................................................79 Appendix D: Author Biographies .....................................................................................................91 1 FOREWORD or the past two years we have served as the honorary co-chairs of the Princeton Project on FNational Security. During that time the project has undertaken a far-reaching examination of U.S. national security strategy and the international security environment, with the goal of strengthening the intellectual underpinnings of American strategy. The Princeton Project has pursued this goal in a remarkably bipartisan spirit, drawing broadly on the experiences and insights of Republicans and Democrats to produce a report articulating core principles to guide the nation in the decades ahead. We had the privilege to hold leadership positions in the formation of U.S. national security policy during the Cold War and its aftermath – periods when the formulation of clear strategic principles was essential for the protection of U.S. security. Throughout the Cold War, U.S. policy was grounded in the doctrine of containment, first articulated by George Kennan, which aimed to prevent the spread of communism. The containment doctrine influenced all aspects of national security strategy, from the formation of strong alliances with other democracies to support for anti-communist groups around the world. In the end, Kennan was proved right; contained from without, the Soviet Union ultimately crumbled from within. The United States must deal with series of profound changes in the international landscape, including rising new powers, a tightening energy market, increasing anti-Americanism, and a globalized economy. Serious security threats emanate from instability in the Middle East, Islamic radicalism, global terrorist networks, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the spread of infectious diseases, and global warming. At the same time, tremendous opportunities exist for the advancement of democracy, prosperity, and respect for human rights in much of the world. Despite this altered landscape and the many changes in U.S. policy since 9/11, the United States lacks a clear statement of national security principles with broad bipartisan support. The George W. Bush administration has issued two national security strategies since 2002; Democratic groups from the Congress and various think tanks have put forward national security reports and sets of principles. The Princeton Project has benefited from all of these and has tried to build on overlapping areas of consensus in charting America’s future course. As Colin Powell observed in his 2004 address at Princeton University in honor of Kennan’s 100th birthday, “because Kennan could see more deeply, he could predict more accurately.” Following Kennan’s example, the Princeton Project sets forth a security strategy grounded in a systematic and probing assessment of current trends and likely future conditions. 2 This important report is a testament to the outstanding leadership of project co-directors Anne-Marie Slaughter and G. John Ikenberry and a talented and broad-gauged steering committee. It argues for an American grand strategy of forging a world of liberty under law by supporting popular, accountable, and rights-regarding governments; building a liberal international order; and updating rules on the use of force. The strategy’s principles transcend partisan lines. Although their implementation would differ across administrations, their application would strengthen the capacity of the United States to protect the American people and the American way of life for years to come. Anthony Lake George Shultz Georgetown University Hoover Institution 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS he Princeton Project’s aim was to write a collective “X article,” to do together what no one person Tin our highly specialized and rapidly changing world could hope to do alone. Arguably, even someone of George Kennan’s
Recommended publications
  • 184 Centralized Leadership, in Contrast to Lithuania, Was Not
    184 Book Reviews centralized leadership, in contrast to Lithuania, was not established. There were regional organizations: the National Kurzeme Organiza­ tion of Latvian Partisans (1945), the National Vidzeme Movement of Latvian Partisans (1944-1948), the Latvian Union of Fatherland Guards (Partisans) (LTS(p)A) in Latgale (1945). The latter organization imi­ tated the structure of the Latvian army, its four divisions; it also made unsuccessful attempts to unify the partisan movement. Nevertheless, the leaders of these organizations (K.Rusovs, A. Cirulis (Varpa), pas­ tor A. Juhnevics, K. Blumbergs, V Mundure (Marta Skuja)) as well as the leaders of partisan detachments (such as P. Cevers) contributed greatly to the survival of the resistance movement. On February 1, 1954 there were still 105 partisans in Latvia. However, in 1956 they either surrendered or perished. On the basis of thoroughly collected and profoundly analyzed documentary material the author presents a comprehensive panorama of the partisan movement, the activities of separate organizations and the chronological stages of the struggle for freedom. To our knowl­ edge this is the only detailed history of the Latvian partisan warfare there is. In its turn, it will enable historians of Lithuanian 'resistance to draw generalized conclusions on the basis of more than their own country's experience, and, at the same time, develop new research as­ pects. Arvydas Anusauskas Lithuanian Institute of History Anatol Lieven. Pabaltijo revoliucija. Estija, Latvija, Lietuva - kelias i nepriklausomyb~. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1995, 475 pp. (Translated by Rasa AsminaviCiiite and Ausra Cizikiene from: Anatol Lieven. The Baltic Revolution. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Path to Independence.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006-07 Annual Report
    ����������������������������� the chicago council on global affairs 1 The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, founded in 1922 as The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning. The Chicago Council brings the world to Chicago by hosting public programs and private events featuring world leaders and experts with diverse views on a wide range of global topics. Through task forces, conferences, studies, and leadership dialogue, the Council brings Chicago’s ideas and opinions to the world. 2 the chicago council on global affairs table of contents the chicago council on global affairs 3 Message from the Chairman The world has undergone On September 1, 2006, The Chicago Council on tremendous change since Foreign Relations became The Chicago Council on The Chicago Council was Global Affairs. The new name respects the Council’s founded in 1922, when heritage – a commitment to nonpartisanship and public nation-states dominated education – while it signals an understanding of the the international stage. changing world and reflects the Council’s increased Balance of power, national efforts to contribute to national and international security, statecraft, and discussions in a global era. diplomacy were foremost Changes at The Chicago Council are evident on on the agenda. many fronts – more and new programs, larger and more Lester Crown Today, our world diverse audiences, a step-up in the pace of task force is shaped increasingly by forces far beyond national reports and conferences, heightened visibility, increased capitals.
    [Show full text]
  • TRINITY COLLEGE Cambridge Trinity College Cambridge College Trinity Annual Record Annual
    2016 TRINITY COLLEGE cambridge trinity college cambridge annual record annual record 2016 Trinity College Cambridge Annual Record 2015–2016 Trinity College Cambridge CB2 1TQ Telephone: 01223 338400 e-mail: [email protected] website: www.trin.cam.ac.uk Contents 5 Editorial 11 Commemoration 12 Chapel Address 15 The Health of the College 18 The Master’s Response on Behalf of the College 25 Alumni Relations & Development 26 Alumni Relations and Associations 37 Dining Privileges 38 Annual Gatherings 39 Alumni Achievements CONTENTS 44 Donations to the College Library 47 College Activities 48 First & Third Trinity Boat Club 53 Field Clubs 71 Students’ Union and Societies 80 College Choir 83 Features 84 Hermes 86 Inside a Pirate’s Cookbook 93 “… Through a Glass Darkly…” 102 Robert Smith, John Harrison, and a College Clock 109 ‘We need to talk about Erskine’ 117 My time as advisor to the BBC’s War and Peace TRINITY ANNUAL RECORD 2016 | 3 123 Fellows, Staff, and Students 124 The Master and Fellows 139 Appointments and Distinctions 141 In Memoriam 155 A Ninetieth Birthday Speech 158 An Eightieth Birthday Speech 167 College Notes 181 The Register 182 In Memoriam 186 Addresses wanted CONTENTS TRINITY ANNUAL RECORD 2016 | 4 Editorial It is with some trepidation that I step into Boyd Hilton’s shoes and take on the editorship of this journal. He managed the transition to ‘glossy’ with flair and panache. As historian of the College and sometime holder of many of its working offices, he also brought a knowledge of its past and an understanding of its mysteries that I am unable to match.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Texas at Austin A0015 B0015
    U.S. Department of Education Washington, D.C. 20202-5335 APPLICATION FOR GRANTS UNDER THE National Resource Centers and Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships CFDA # 84.015A PR/Award # P015A180015 Gramts.gov Tracking#: GRANT12657769 OMB No. , Expiration Date: Closing Date: Jun 25, 2018 PR/Award # P015A180015 **Table of Contents** Form Page 1. Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 e3 Attachment - 1 (Areas_Affected_by_Project1031558997) e6 2. Standard Budget Sheet (ED 524) e7 3. Assurances Non-Construction Programs (SF 424B) e9 4. Disclosure Of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) e11 5. ED GEPA427 Form e12 Attachment - 1 (CES_GEPA1031662081) e13 6. Grants.gov Lobbying Form e14 7. Dept of Education Supplemental Information for SF-424 e15 8. ED Abstract Narrative Form e16 Attachment - 1 (CES_Abstract1031662090) e17 9. Project Narrative Form e18 Attachment - 1 (CES_Narrative1031662092) e19 10. Other Narrative Form e75 Attachment - 1 (CES_ProfileForm1031662084) e76 Attachment - 2 (CES_Acronyms1031662093) e78 Attachment - 3 (CES_HigherEdActRequirement1031662094) e79 Attachment - 4 (CES_DirectorStaffFaculty1031662095) e81 Attachment - 5 (CES_Positions1031662096) e186 Attachment - 6 (CES_Courses1031662111) e189 Attachment - 7 (CES_PMFs1031662098) e208 Attachment - 8 (LettersSupport1031662099) e213 11. Budget Narrative Form e220 Attachment - 1 (CES_Budget1031662091) e221 This application was generated using the PDF functionality. The PDF functionality automatically numbers the pages in this application. Some pages/sections of this application may contain 2 sets of page numbers, one set created by the applicant and the other set created by e-Application's PDF functionality. Page numbers created by the e-Application PDF functionality will be preceded by the letter e (for example, e1, e2, e3, etc.). Page e2 OMB Number: 4040-0004 Expiration Date: 12/31/2019 Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 * 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Anatol Lieven on Pakistan
    Anatol Lieven on Pakistan http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/transcripts/0380.html/:pf_print... Anatol Lieven on Pakistan Anatol Lieven , David C. Speedie April 20, 2011 The U.S. Global Engagement program gratefully acknowledges the support for its work from the following: Alfred and Jane Ross Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Donald M. Kendall, Rockefeller Family & Associates, and Booz & Company. Anatol Lieven May 3, 2011. Following the death of Osama bin Laden, here follows a special note from Anatol Lieven. In recent years, Pakistan—or rather the Pakistani military—has been pursuing not a two-faced but a four-faced approach to extremism: One face for the Afghan Taliban, one for the Pakistani Taliban, one for al-Qaeda and other international terrorists based in Pakistan, and one for Pakistani terrorists who in the past operated against India with Pakistani military support. To the Afghan Taliban, it has given shelter. Against the Pakistani Taliban, it has pursued a tough military campaign. It has also intermittently cracked down hard on al-Qaeda. With regard to the anti-Indian extremists, it has said that it is keeping them from terrorism against Pakistan and the West by maintaining a close relationship with them. David C. Speedie In the past, the U.S. has turned a partially blind eye to Pakistan's shelter to the Afghan Taliban because of a belief that the Pakistani military really was co-operating against al-Qaeda. It is this belief—and with it the whole U.S.-Pakistani relationship—that risks being blown into the air by the revelation that bin Laden was hiding near a major Pakistani military base without being spotted.
    [Show full text]
  • Aida Ussayran - Deputy Minister, Iraq Human Rights Ministry Col
    Presents NO END IN SIGHT Written, Directed and Produced by Charles Ferguson Winner Special Documentary Jury Prize 2007 Sundance Film Festival (102 mins, USA, 2007) Distribution Publicity Bonne Smith 1028 Queen Street West Star PR Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M6J 1H6 Tel: 416-488-4436 Tel: 416-516-9775 Fax: 416-516-0651 Fax: 416-488-8438 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] www.mongrelmedia.com High res stills may be downloaded from http://www.mongrelmedia.com/press.html SYNOPSIS The first film of its kind to chronicle the reasons behind Iraq’s descent into guerilla war, warlord rule, criminality and anarchy, NO END IN SIGHT is a jaw-dropping, insider’s tale of wholesale incompetence, recklessness and venality. Based on over 200 hours of footage, the film provides a candid retelling of the events following the fall of Baghdad in 2003 by high ranking officials such as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Ambassador Barbara Bodine (in charge of Baghdad during the Spring of 2003), Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, and General Jay Garner (in charge of the occupation of Iraq through May 2003), as well as Iraqi civilians, American soldiers and prominent analysts. NO END IN SIGHT examines the manner in which the principal errors of U.S. policy – the use of insufficient troop levels, allowing the looting of Baghdad, the purging of professionals from the Iraqi government and the disbanding of the Iraqi military – largely created the insurgency and chaos that engulf Iraq today. How did a group of men with little or no military experience, knowledge of the Arab world or personal experience in Iraq come to make such flagrantly debilitating decisions? NO END IN SIGHT dissects the people, issues and facts behind the Bush administration’s decisions and their consequences on the ground to provide a powerful look into how arrogance and ignorance turned a military victory into a seemingly endless and deepening nightmare of a war.
    [Show full text]
  • Pakistan: a Hard Country (London: Allen Lane, 2011)
    April 2012 NOREF Book Review Anatol Lieven, Pakistan: A Hard Country (London: Allen Lane, 2011) Reviewed by Marco Mezzera Executive summary In his latest book on Pakistan, Anatol same time a strong society. Throughout Lieven takes the reader on a revealing the book the analysis keeps balancing journey through that troubled country. on this tightrope of competing definitions, Departing from a title that is subtly trying to build up a convincing case for misleading, as it seems to announce the inner resilience of the country. At the misfortunes befalling the country’s fragile end, however, the reader is left with a state structure, the author, a professor sensation that despite all the arguments of International Relations and Terrorism and evidence that have been provided Studies at King’s College London and an (or maybe because of them), the future expert on South Asia, decides instead to of Pakistan remains still wrapped in take a provocative detour by presenting unfathomable indeterminateness. Pakistan indeed as a weak state, but at the The reviewer Marco Mezzera is a senior adviser at NOREF. He has 15 years of policy research experience in conflict and development issues, with a specific geographical focus on Pakistan and South-east Asia. He holds an MSc in Development Studies and has co-authored four books and written several articles and policy reports. Anatol Lieven, Pakistan: A Hard Country Weak state, strong societies that will eventually determine his/her most fundamental choices. Anatol Lieven is doubtless well placed to draw a fine and comprehensive picture of Pakistan’s If the kinship group is indeed the foundational recent history of inner distresses.
    [Show full text]
  • Jeremi Suri Department of History Lyndon B
    1 Jeremi Suri Department of History Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712 (512) 232-3989 [email protected] http://jeremisuri.net Current Position: Mack Brown Distinguished Chair for Leadership in Global Affairs Professor, Department of History Professor, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs Senior Fellow, Provost’s Teaching Fellows Faculty Fellow, William P. Clements, Jr. Center for National Security Distinguished Scholar, Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law University of Texas at Austin. Previous Employment: E. Gordon Fox Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2009 to 2011. Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2007-2009. Associate Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2005-2007. Assistant Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2001-2005. Education: Yale University, Ph.D. in history, 2001. Dissertation: “Convergent Responses to Disorder: Cultural Revolution and Détente among the Great Powers during the 1960s.” Recipient of the John Addison Porter Prize for the best dissertation in the humanities. Recipient of the Hans Gatzke Prize for the best dissertation in international history. Ohio University, M.A. in history, 1996. Completed M.A. thesis with distinction: “Cold War Legitimacy in Crisis: An International History of Détente.” Stanford University, A.B. in history with highest honors and university distinction, 1994. Book Publications: Modern Diplomacy in Practice, co-edited with Robert Hutchings (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020). Includes my original introduction and four original co-written chapters. See: https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9783030269357#otherversion=9783030269333. The Impossible Presidency: The Rise and Fall of America’s Highest Office (New York: Basic Books, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Ch 1 Latvia's Post-Soviet Transition
    1 Latvia’s Post-Soviet Transition The collapse of the Soviet Union, beginning in the late 1980s, was a dream come true for the Latvian people, who had never voluntarily joined that state. Their great dream—to restore national sovereignty and independence to their country—was fulfilled in August 1991. The next daunting task was to establish a normal, functioning market economy to escape the post-Soviet economic chaos. It needed to be combined with the building of a normal parliamentary democracy as in Western Europe.1 A Bitter Struggle for Independence Latvia has had a difficult history, particularly in the last century. Shortly after the end of World War I, in November 1918, the Latvian government declared Latvia an independent state for the first time in history. But within weeks, communists supported by Soviet Russia took control. After brief commu- nist rule and independence battles against both German and Russian troops, Latvia signed the Latvian-Soviet Peace Treaty on August 11, 1920, and Soviet Russia recognized Latvia as an independent and sovereign state. Twenty years of independence followed. Few countries suffered as much as Latvia during World War II. On August 23, 1939, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany concluded the Molotov- Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact, which divided a number of countries between the two states. The pact awarded the three Baltic states to the Soviet Union, thus sealing Latvia’s fate. On the basis of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Soviet troops invaded and occupied Latvia in June 1940. The Soviets deported some 35,000 Latvians, mainly members of the Latvian intellectual, political, and business elite, to Siberia, where most of them perished.
    [Show full text]
  • Reimagining Pakistan's Militia Policy
    Atlantic Council SOUTH ASIA CENTER ISSUEBRIEF BY YELENA BIBERMAN Reimagining Pakistan’s Militia Policy APRIL 2015 If ever a turning point seemed inevitable in Atlantic Council South Asia Center Pakistan’s militia policy, it was in the aftermath of the Peshawar school massacre in December 2014. The South Asia Center serves as the Atlantic Council’s focal point for work on greater South Asia Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) killed 152 people, as well as its relations between these countries, the 133 of them children, in the bloodiest terrorist neighboring regions, Europe, and the United States. attack in Pakistan’s history.1 The carnage sparked The US-Pakistan Program was funded by the an unprecedented national dialogue about the Carnegie Corporation of New York. costs and contradictions of the Pakistani political and military establishment’s reliance on violent Pakistan’s post-Peshawar collaboration with proxies, such as the Afghan Taliban (from which Afghanistan signals a willingness to halt the the TTP originates), for security. long-standing policy of nurturing and sending Pakistani leaders vowed to take serious measures violent proxies across the border. However, this to ensure that such a tragedy would never breakthrough makes all the more conspicuous happen again. Those measures include a military the absence of a similar arrangement with India. crackdown in the tribal areas, reinstatement of the What Sharif did not include in his to-do list for death penalty, establishment of a parallel system of “the war against terrorism till the last terrorist 4 military courts to try terrorism cases, and enlisting is eliminated” is a crackdown on the anti-India the help of the Afghan army.
    [Show full text]
  • Jeremi Suri Department of History Lyndon B
    1 Jeremi Suri Department of History Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712 (512) 232-3989 [email protected] http://jeremisuri.net Current Position: Mack Brown Distinguished Chair for Leadership in Global Affairs Professor, Department of History Professor, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs Senior Fellow, Provost’s Teaching Fellows Faculty Fellow, William P. Clements, Jr. Center for National Security Distinguished Scholar, Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law University of Texas at Austin. Previous Employment: E. Gordon Fox Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2009 to 2011. Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2007-2009. Associate Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2005-2007. Assistant Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2001-2005. Education: Yale University, Ph.D. in history, 2001. Dissertation: “Convergent Responses to Disorder: Cultural Revolution and Détente among the Great Powers during the 1960s.” Recipient of the John Addison Porter Prize for the best dissertation in the humanities. Recipient of the Hans Gatzke Prize for the best dissertation in international history. Ohio University, M.A. in history, 1996. Completed M.A. thesis with distinction: “Cold War Legitimacy in Crisis: An International History of Détente.” Stanford University, A.B. in history with highest honors and university distinction, 1994. Book Publications: Modern Diplomacy in Practice, co-edited with Robert Hutchings (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020). Includes my original introduction and four original co-written chapters. See: https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9783030269357#otherversion=9783030269333. The Impossible Presidency: The Rise and Fall of America’s Highest Office (New York: Basic Books, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • The Indian Way of Humanitarian Intervention
    Article The Indian Way of Humanitarian Intervention Gary J. Basst INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................228 I. PAKISTAN'S CLAIMS OF SOVEREIGNTY ..............................................................................................233 A. Background ..........................................................................................................................233 B. Pakistan's Argument for Sovereignty ...................................................................................236 C. Nehruvian Ideology and the Problem of Sovereignty ...........................................................238 II. INDIA'S ARGUME NTS FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION ..............................................................239 A. The Argument from Human Rights ................................................................................. 244 1. India's Claims ...........................................................................................................244 2. The Rhodesian Precedent ..........................................................................................246 3. R esu lts....................................................................................................................... 2 4 9 B. The Argument from Genocide .............................................................................................253 1. India's Claims ...........................................................................................................253
    [Show full text]