TOPIC 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE GEOSTRATEGIC CONTEXT
Monday,
3 January 2000
0900-1130 (LS)
It has become commonplace to point out the fundamental changes that have occurred in the international system in the years since the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989. These include the collapse of the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union itself; the rebirth of democracy and market economies in the former communist states; the emergence of the United States as the sole superpower; the rise of ethnic and national conflicts in the Caucasus, the Balkans, and Africa; and the spread of freely elected governments worldwide. In the early heady days of this decade, some pundits went so far as to proclaim the "end of history" with western values triumphant; others argued that we would miss the stability and certitudes of the Cold War. Cold War institutions such as NATO, searching for new reasons for their existence, may be in the process of being reborn; others such as MERCOSUR, ASEAN, and APEC are establishing their place and influence.
While most of the developed world --the "north"-- has benefited greatly from the end of the Cold War, conditions for many of the peoples in the "south" have deteriorated as a consequence of the interrelated factors of rapid population growth, political turmoil, ethnic strife, and economic failure. Information age technological advances have widened the gap between a wealthy, stable and satisfied north and a poor, tumultuous and dissatisfied south, where fractious states are struggling to hold together and to attain a tolerable standard of living. In such conditions, it is no surprise that impoverished people from the "south" head north seeking a better life. At the same time, the "north" is increasingly hostile to such immigrants.
In this lesson we will introduce in broad brush the key changes in the international environment and to set the global context for our subsequent study of transnational issues and regional trends and challenges.
Topic Objectives.
- Understand the major changes in the international security environment
- Assess, in general terms, the impact of these changes on U.S. interests and capabilities
- Review the conceptual frameworks presented in Core Courses 5601 and 5602, and begin to develop a coherent framework for analyzing regional contexts and strategies.
Issues for Consideration:
- If the United States is now the world's sole superpower, why can't we get our way in the Persian Gulf, the former Yugoslavia, and the Middle East?
- In the post-Cold War world, what has changed and what has remained the same? Do we really miss the "good old days" of the Cold War when "the enemy" seemed obvious and security planning, or at least its justification, was much simpler? Has U.S. security strategy adapted to the new era or are we still seeing the security context as if it were the Cold War environment?
- Has a "clash of civilizations" replaced the East-West confrontation as the major "threat" facing the West? Will North-South issues come to dominate the security debate? What are some of these North-South issues? How effectively has the U.S. come to grips with such challenges?
- Looking back to our study of national strategy in Course 5601, what does "national security" involve? Just "traditional" external threats or a more inclusive scope encompassing such concerns as illegal immigration, international crime, and environmental decay?
- Are traditional measures of national power, such as territorial size, industrial productive capacity, population and military forces becoming less relevant in determining a state's ability to influence others?
Required Readings:
a. Michael T. Klare, "Redefining Security: The new Global Schisms," Current History, vol. 95:604 (Nov 1996), pp. 353-358.
b. Jessica Tuchman Mathews, "Redefining Security," Foreign Affairs, vol. 68:2 (Spring 1989), pp. 162-177.
c. Robert Kagan, "The Benevolent Empire," Foreign Policy, no. 111 (Summer 1998), pp. 24-35.
d. Charles William Maynes, "The Perils of (and for) an Imperial America," Foreign Policy, no. 111 (Summer 1998), pp. 36-48.
e. Harvey Sapolsky, Eugene Gholz, and Allen Kaufman, "Security Lessons from the Cold War," Foreign Affairs, Volume 78, Number 4, July/August 1999, pp. 77-89.
f. Richard Haass, "What to do With American Primacy," Foreign Affairs, Volume 75, Number 5, September/October 1999, pp. 37-49.
Supplemental Readings:
1. Richard H. Schultz, Roy Godson and George W. Quester, Security Studies in the 21st Century (London: Brassey's, Inc., 1997).
2. Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996).
3. Francis Fukuyama, "The End of History," The National Interest (Summer 1989), pp. 3-18.
4. Hugh De Santis, Beyond Progress: An Interpretative Odyssey to the Future (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).
5. Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism (New York: Norton, 1996).
TOPIC 2: TRANSNATIONAL ISSUES IN THE GEOSTRATEGIC CONTEXT: HOW TO THINK ABOUT ETHNIC CONFLICT
Tuesday
4 January 2000
0830-1130 (LS)
Wars of ethnicity and national identity are not new. What is new is the breakdown of the structures that previously contributed to keeping such confrontations under control. The changes that accompanied the end of the Cold War international system and the European colonial system that predated it created opportunities for leaders of new political movements to act forcefully on the basis of ethnicity. We have witnessed this most recently in Africa, southern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and southern Asia.
Many analysts have argued that ethnic conflicts are so intractable that they are beyond our ability to influence, let alone solve. In the case of Bosnia, for example, the conventional wisdom was that the confrontation involved ancient hatreds and reciprocal vengeance. Others have argued that these conflicts, deplorable as they are, lie essentially within the sovereign domestic arena of the countries involved, and thus we have no right to intervene. Most ethnic conflicts-like all-conflict stem from the Machiavellian tendencies and tactics of political leaders rather than from longstanding historical hatreds and rivalries.
Unfortunately, no one has professed to come up with real "solutions" to ethnic conflict. There is no model that can be deployed to resolve these problems. Ethnic conflict will remain a case-by-case story but, as long as these conflicts have implications for American foreign policy, there will be pressures for U.S. involvement. This morning's speaker, Dr. Paul Goble, will help us conceptualize these issues.
Issues for Consideration:
- As the killing in Chechnya, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka, and central Africa reveal, post-Cold War ethnic conflict is not limited to the former Yugoslavia. And, as the bitter strife between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo indicates, a peaceful reconciliation in Bosnia would not end ethnic war in the Balkans. What are the root causes of ethnic conflict?
- What can/should be done to prevent or limit such conflict?
- Does the principle of self-determination mean that each national or ethnic group should have its own state?
Required Readings.
a. Anthony Smith, "The Ethnic Sources of Nationalism," Survival, Volume 35, Number 1, 1993, pp. 48-62.
b. Yahya Sadowski, "Ethnic Conflict," Foreign Policy, Summer 1998, pp. 12-23.
c. Lawrence Freedman, "International Security: Changing Targets," Foreign Policy, Spring 19998, pp. 48-64.
d. William Hager, "The Balkans' Lethal Nationalisms," Foreign Affairs, Volume 78, Number 4, July/August 1999, pp. 52-64.
e. Edward Luttwack, 'Give War a Chance," Foreign Affairs, Volume 78, Number 4, July/August 1999, pp. 36-44.
f. Anita Inder Singh, "On the Absence of War," The World Today, Volume 54, Number 8/9, August/September 1998, pp. 236-239.
TOPIC 3: TRANSNATIONAL ISSUES IN MEXICO: ENVIRONMENT, POPULATION, TERRORISM, AND PROLIFERATION
Wednesday
5 January 2000
0800-1000 (L)
1330-1530 (DR)
We now move from a broad overview of the changing international context to an examination of a number of transnational or non-traditional security issues in Mexico. These phenomena do not fit the stereotype of traditional security threats posed by rival nations or alliances. Rather, these issues are often labeled "transnational" or "global" because they are "threats" that are not isolated to a single state or even to a particular region of the world. These concerns include some of the matters that strategists have always understood as threatening national security, such as weapons proliferation and terrorism. Security professionals may, however, question whether other trans-national challenges, such as environmental degradation, resource scarcities, immigration and refugee tribulations, and drug trafficking, are appropriate subjects for national security policy-makers to address.
Today's discussions and readings will provide an opportunity for students to consider these issues in depth. Seminars will be broken down into groups of two or three students each to examine four broad categories of transnational threats with each group focusing on one of these challenges, particularly in Mexico. These students groups will serve as "advocates" in a seminar setting to explain to their classmates what the transstate concern is and its relevance for U.S. national security now and in the coming decades. Students should analyze their particular subject along three lines: 1) what is the issue, 2) what are its national security implications, and 3) what should the United States do about this particular challenge.
Topic Objectives.
- Assess the security challenges to U.S. interests posed by environmental degradation, uncontrolled migration and refugee flows, and ethnic conflict.
- Analyze current strategies for dealing with these issues and recommend alternative Approaches
- Assess the security challenges to U.S. interests by narcotics trafficking, terrorism, and WMD proliferation.
- Analyze current strategies for addressing these challenges and propose alternative approaches.
Issues for Consideration:
- Why are many analysts convinced that the future wars of Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia are far more likely to be over resource issues than "traditional" national security concerns? How does this problem affect the United States, as we think about national security in the twenty-first century?
- A number of the most recent international crises--Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Congo and the former Yugoslavia--for which both "peacekeepers" and humanitarian agencies have been forced into service-- have involved massive migrations of people. For Europe and the United States, concerns about migration--legal and illegal--have become extremely volatile issues in domestic politics. Why have population and migration issues become increasingly important concerns for policy-makers? How or might demographic changes in the United States affect foreign policy? How can developed countries reduce illegal immigration? What incentives are there for source countries to restrict the migration of their citizens?
- What are the links among terrorism, resource scarcity, population growth, and ethnic tensions? If there are identifiable linkages, can one predict likely targets and regions for ethnic conflict and for terrorist actions in the future?
- Is there a linkage between weapons proliferation and terrorism? Now? In the near future? To what types of weapons of mass destruction is the United States most vulnerable? How, if at all, can we reduce such vulnerability?
- The World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings in this country and the Khobar Towers and American embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania brought terrorism of both the international and domestic varieties home to Americans, a phenomena that much of the world had been subjected to for decades. What are the aims of terrorist organizations? To what extent do state authorities direct terrorists? What policy options and tools of statecraft does the United States have for dealing with state sponsored terrorism? For dealing with non-state actors?
- How should the U.S. government organize to deal with these kinds of non-traditional threats? Does our present "stove-pipe" security structure limit the effectiveness of U.S. action?
READING
For this lesson and the following, your instructor will divide the class into four groups, with each group focusing on one of the challenges outlined above and responsible for the readings assigned for its topic. Note: All students should read articles designated by an asterisk.
I-Mexico
Required Readings.
a. Peter H. Smith, "Mexico, The Projected Pivotal States: A New Framework for U.S. Policy in the Developing World", Robert Case, Emily Tull, Paul Kennedy, eds.,(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999), pp. 215-243.
II-Environmental Threats/Resource Scarcities
Required Readings:
a. Warren Christopher, "American Diplomacy and the Global Environmental Challenges of the 21st Century," Address at Stanford University, April 9, 1996, reprinted in U.S. Department of State Dispatch, vol. 7:16, pp. 189-192.
b. Eileen Claussen, "US Foreign Policy and the Environment: Engagement for the Next Century," SAIS Review, vol. XVII:1 (Winter-Spring 1997), pp. 93-105.
c. Gareth Porter, "Environmental Security as a National Security Issue," Current History, vol. 94:592 (May 1995), pp. 218-222.
d. Thomas Homer-Dixon, "Environmental Scarcity, Mass Violence, and The Limits to Ingenuity," Current History, vol. 95:604 (Nov 1996), pp. 359-365.
e. Henry D. Jacoby, Ronald G. Prinn, and Richard Schmalensee, "Kyoto's Unfinished Business," Foreign Affairs, vol. 77:4 (July/August 1998), pp. 54-66.
f. Jonathan Adler, "Hot Air," National Review, vol. 50:15 (August 17, 1998), pp. 36-39.
g. Willaim K. Stevens, "Global Warming, or Hot Air," The New York Times, October 3, 1998, p. 6.
Supplemental Readings:
1. Joseph Romm, "Environmental Security," in Defining National Security: The Nonmilitary Aspects (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1993), pp. 15-36.
2. Richard A. Matthew, "Environmental Security & Conflict: An Overview of the Current Debate," National Security Studies Quarterly, vol. 1:2 (Summer 1995), pp. 1-10.
3. Thomas Homer-Dixon, "On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict," International Security, vol. 16:2 (Fall 1991), pp. 76-116.
4. Peter Gleick, "Water and Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and International Security," International Security, vol. 18:1 (Summer 1993), pp. 79-112.
5. Marc A. Levy, "Is the Environment a National Security Issue?" International Security, vol. 20, no. 2 (Fall 1995), pp. 35-62.
6. "The Liberation of the Environment," Daedalus, vol. 125:3 (Summer 1996). Entire issue devoted to environmental matters.
7. Daniel Litvin, "Dirt Poor: A Survey of Development and the Environment," The Economist, March 21, 1998, pp. 3-15.
III-Demographics and Migration
Required Readings:
a. Demitrious Papademetriou, "Migration: Think Again," Foreign Policy, no. 109 (Winter 1997-98), pp. 15-31.
b. Matthew Connelly and Paul Kennedy, "Must it be The Rest Against the West?" The Atlantic Monthly, December 1994, pp. 61-63, 66, 68-70, 72, 76, 79, 82, 84.
c. Jean-Claude Chesnais, "Mediterranean Imbalances and the Future of International Migrations in Europe," SAIS Review, vol.13: SI (1993), pp. 103-120.
d. Myron Weiner, "A Security Perspective on International Migration," The Fletcher Forum on International Affairs, vol. 20:2 (Summer/Fall 1996), pp. 17-34.
e. John E. Lange, "Civilian-Military Cooperation and Humanitarian Assistance: Lessons from Rwanda," Parameters, vol. 28:2 (summer 1998), pp. 106-122.
f. William Booth, "One Nation, Indivisible: Is it History?" Washington Post, February 22, 1998, 8 pages (Internet version).
g. Rene Sanchez, "Violence, Questions Grow in U.S. Crackdown on Border Crossers," Washington Post, October 3, 1998, p. A3.
Supplemental Readings:
1. Myron Weiner, "Bad Neighbors, Bad Neighborhoods: An Inquiry into the Causes of Refugee Flows," International Security, vol. 21:1 (Summer 1966), pp. 5-42.
2. Myron Weiner, The Global Challenge to States and to Human Rights (New York: HarperCollins, 1995).
3. Roy Beck, The Case Against Immigration: Economic, Social and Environmental Reasons for Reducing U.S. Immigration Back to Traditional Levels (New York: W.W. Norton, 1996).
4. Barry Posen, "Military Responses to Refugee Disasters," International Security, vol. 21:1 (1996), pp. 71-111.
IV-Terrorism
Required Readings:
a. William Clinton, "Remarks to the Opening Session of the 53rd United Nations General Assembly," New York, September 21, 1998 (White House Press Release), pp. 1-5.
b. Walter Laqueur, "Postmodern Terrorism," Foreign Affairs, vol. 75:5 (September-October 1996), pp. 24-36.
c. Louis J. Freeh, "Threats to U.S. National Security," Statement before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, January 28, 1998, pp. 1-9. (Full statement reprinted for 3-IV-a. above; pp 1-9 required for this topic)
d. Walter Laqueur, "The New Face of Terrorism," The Washington Quarterly, vol. 21:4 (Autumn 1998), pp. 169-178.
e. "What is Terrorism?" The Economist, March 2, 1996, pp. 23-25.
f. "The New Terrorism: Coming soon to a city near you," The Economist, August 15, 1998, pp. 17-19.
g. Richard A. Falkenrath, "Confronting Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Terrorism," Survival, vol. 40:3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 43-65.
h. Louis Freeh, "U.S. Government's Response to Terrorism," Statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington D.C., September 3, 1998, pp. 1-8.
Supplemental Reading:
1. Jeffrey D. Simon, The Terrorist Trap (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994).
2. U.S. Department of State, Patterns of Global Terrorism 1996 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State, April 1997).
3. Roger Medd and Frank Goldstein, "International Terrorism on the Eve of A New Millenium," Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, vol. 20 (July-Sep 1997), pp. 281-316.
4. Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (London: Victor Gollancz, 1998).
V-Weapons Proliferation
Required Readings:
a. John F. Sopko, "The Changing Proliferation Threat," Foreign Policy, no. 105 (Winter 1996-97), pp. 3-20.
b. Richard K. Betts, "The New Threat of Mass Destruction," Foreign Affairs, vol. 77:1 (January/February 1998), pp. 26-41.
c. Graham T. Allison, "The Number One Threat of Nuclear Proliferation: Loose Nukes from Russia," The Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol. IV: 1 (Winter/Spring 1997), pp. 65-72.
d. Jaswant Singh, "Against Nuclear Apartheid," Foreign Affairs, vol. 77:5 (September/October 1998), pp. 41-52.
e. George Perkovich, "Nuclear Proliferation," Foreign Policy, no. 112 (Fall 1998), pp. 12-22.
f. Robert G. Joseph and John Reichart, "Deterrence and Defense in a Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Environment," Comparative Strategy, vol. 15:1 (1996), pp. 59-80.
Supplemental Readings:
1. "Proliferation: Threat and Response," (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1996), pp. 1-41.
2. K. Scott McMahon, "Whither the Smuggled Bomb," Comparative Strategy, vol. 15:2 (1996), pp. 123-134.
3. George Rathjens, "Rethinking Nuclear Proliferation," The Washington Quarterly, vol. 18:1 (Winter 1995), pp. 181-196.
4. Robert G. Joseph, "Proliferation, Counter-Proliferation and NATO," Survival, vol. 38:1 (1996), pp. 111-130.
TOPIC 4: TRANSNATIONAL ISSUES IN THE GEOSTRATEGIC CONTEXT: CRIME AND CORRUPTION
Thursday
6 January 2000
0830-1130 (LS)
Crime and corruption have deep roots in the history of Russia and the Soviet Union. For nearly all of Russian history, the state was either the private property of the Czar or the collective property of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union and the demise of the Communist Party, we have witnessed the fragmentation of the state. The central bureaucracy is much less coherent and disciplined than it used to be, which has exacerbated the problems of crime and corruption that stemmed from the Soviet period.
Russia has become a world without limits, without constraints, without rules, without a civil society. As a result, crime and corruption are pervasive. This corrupt state has sent much of its wealth abroad, and it has watched the gross domestic product decline by nearly 50 percent over the past nine years. The standard of living for the vast majority of the Russian people has deteriorated quite sharply. As a result, most Russians view the Brezhnev period, which we used to call the "period of stagnation," as a time of stability and predictability.
There are no easy solutions to the problem of crime and corruption, but it is essential that we understand the issue, which is now being investigated in the United States. We must be aware that some of the remedies for the problem could be worse than the disease. We may want the Russian government to move more aggressively against corruption, but we must understand the dangers of such an approach in a society where the rule of law nas not bee institutionalized in independent and reliable judicial system. Under the current system, the term "mafioso" or "corrupt official" could easily become the functional equivalent of "enemy of the people" of the Stalinist era. If this happens, an aggressive anti-corruption campaign could become a witch hunt that over time would serve to destabilize Russian society, erode support for democratic principles, and deepen the lawlessness that takes place in Russia today.
Issues for Consideration:
- Is there a legitimate concern that crime and corruption in Russia could become a problem for the United States? How should Russia deal with the problem? How should the United States deal with the problem? Is there an opportunity for Russian-American cooperation in this area?
- Is the problem of crime and corruption in Russia a threat to the credibility and legitimacy of the Russian government? Is Russia equipped to deal with the problem?
- Will the problem of crime and corruption in Russia compromise the task of integrating Russia into the global economy? Can IMF funding to Russia be properly safeguarded?
- Have we squandered the vast reservoir of goodwill in Russia towards the United States that will complicate our role in any solution to the problem?
- Is there a legitimate concern that transnational organized crime networks can become major international weapons proliferators? How might the United States deal with this challenge?
Required Readings:
a. Louis J. Freeh, "Threats to U.S. National Security," Statement before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, January 28, 1998, pp. 15-20. (Full Statement is reprinted; only pp. 15-20 are required reading)
b. Stephen Handelman, "Russia's Rule by Raketeers," The Wall Street Journal, September 20, 1999, p. 28.
c. John Kramer, "The Politics of Corruption," Current History, Volume 97, Number 621, October 1998, pp. 329-334.
d. John Brademas and Fritz Heimann, "Tackling International Cooperation," Foreign Affairs, Volume 77, Number 5, September/October 1998, pp. 17-23.
e. Fritz Ermarth, "Seeing Russia Plain," The National Interest, Number 55, Spring 1999, pp. 5-14.
 |
 |
 |