Search

You searched for: Publishing Institution The Geneva Centre for Security Policy Remove constraint Publishing Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy Political Geography Europe Remove constraint Political Geography: Europe Topic NATO Remove constraint Topic: NATO
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: Phillip Cornell
  • Publication Date: 01-2012
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: It should not come as a surprise that energy has been steadily gaining importance within security circles in recent years due to the military and security dimensions of this mainly economic issue. As globalization has blurred the lines between traditional security and economic interchange (and especially energy flows), new challenges have arisen. This process has fanned the debate surrounding the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with regard to energy questions and their evolution.
  • Topic: Security, Defense Policy, NATO, Energy Policy
  • Political Geography: Europe
  • Author: Marc Finaud
  • Publication Date: 10-2011
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: From 30 March to 1 April 2011, a high-level workshop was organized for parliamentarians from countries belonging to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Partnership for Peace (PfP). The topic of this event was “The Role of Parliaments in Arms Control, Disarmament, and the Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)”. It was a joint initiative of the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP), the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, and the WMD Non-Proliferation Centre of NATO. Some thirty-five parliamentarians (including several former government ministers) from twenty-three countries attended the workshop along with the same number of staffers, government representatives, and independent experts.
  • Topic: Security, Defense Policy, NATO
  • Political Geography: Europe
  • Author: Jean-Jacques de Dardel
  • Publication Date: 03-2009
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: In July 2009, NATO launched a process which should lead to the adoption of a new Strategic Concept. In defining its future referential framework, the Alliance will no doubt dwell on contemporary trends, such as the ever fastening globalisation of international relations and the widening spectrum of threats. In taking such evolutions into account, it would do well in vying for additional flexibility and pragmatism, instead of trying to define a rigid framework of action that would rapidly become obsolete as unforeseen events will constantly call for redirections. The Alliance should fully develop its comprehensive approach so as to interact coherently with international organisations, partner states and civil society. Only thus will it muster wide support for its operations and set up the preconditions for viable exit strategies. In doing so, NATO could build on the assets developed through the Partnership for Peace and its institutional and political framework, the Euro Atlantic Partnership Council. Indeed, EAPC partner nations can contribute a variety of means to secure peace, security and post conflict reconstruction, whose usefulness, not to be measured in terms of military assets alone, should grow as international security challenges take on ever more varied forms. Hence NATO should not dilute a tried and successful PfP/EAPC construct in bundling up all other countries associated in one way or the other with NATO's workings and operations into a one tutti-frutti new Partnership Forum. Instead, NATO should differentiate between different types of partners, all the while focusing more closely on the added value and underestimated opportunities of partnership. Indeed, partnerships should be at the core of NATO's ambitions, and not only be seen as a somewhat burdensome and ambiguous sideshow.
  • Topic: Security, NATO, Peace Studies
  • Political Geography: Europe
  • Author: William Wohlforth
  • Publication Date: 08-2002
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: The state of transatlantic relations is normal - arguably in crisis, arguably not; poised for fundamental change, or for basic continuity. The usual question for conferences on transatlantic relations is whether this situation will continue. My purpose in this paper is to set forth a perspective on the future of the transatlantic relationship based on the central realist proposition that the distribution of capabilities among states is an important background influence on their behaviour. Major changes in international relations often arise from changes in the distribution of power. Important features of the Cold War resulted from the great concentration of power in the United States and the Soviet Union - a condition that came to be called "bipolarity." The Cold War ended in significant measure owing to changes in the distribution of power - namely, the decline and fall of the Soviet Union. As a result of Soviet and Russian decline, a new unipolar distribution has emerged with new consequences for international politics in general and the transatlantic relationship in particular.
  • Topic: International Relations, NATO
  • Political Geography: United States, Europe
  • Author: William Hitchcock
  • Publication Date: 08-2000
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: Two years ago, when many of us gathered together in the dramatic Alpine setting of Leukerbad to consider the recent past and the likely future of US-European relations, our group was full of dire prognostications. Russia was headed toward collapse, the EU looked weak after the Yugoslav war, NATO expansion appeared to be dividing Europe; the introduction of the euro looked liked a risky gamble that might worsen trans-Atlantic relations; and most disturbing for me as an American, my government was preoccupied with the Lewinsky scandal and the future of the Clinton presidency seemed at risk. Indeed, one of our colleagues, discussing the crisis over after-dinner drinks, declared that Clinton would resign from the presidency within matter of weeks.
  • Topic: Security, Defense Policy, NATO
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Europe, Asia
  • Author: Anne Deighton
  • Publication Date: 08-2000
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: The 'St Malo process' which has being taking shape since December 1998, will bring a qualitative change in the EU's role as an international institution. Many of the big initiatives that the Union undertakes are not fully understood early on - unexpected, and sometimes unintended consequences can result from the changes that the EU agrees to. It takes time for the institutional implications of major changes to emerge: the Single Act was, in the mid 80s, often seen as the 'elephant that gave birth to a mouse'; and the Maastricht Treaty as at once called too federalist, and too timid. Likewise, the exact configuration of the changes that St Malo may bring will also take time to become clear. 'Militarising' the EU, however, ends one of the last policy taboos of a 'civilian-power' European Union and breaks through the 'glass ceiling' of the EU's self-denying ordinance against the adoption of the instruments of military force which has existed since its inception. This paper assesses how far these changes got by the summer of 2000 and asks whether the last eighteen months are one stage in the messy birth of a post-Cold War pan-European defence and security regime with institutions based around NATO and the EU. Europe's institutional configuration tends to matter more to Europeans than to our transatlantic partners; but institutions are the reality of contemporary European international politics. 'Multilateral institutionalism' too, is inescapable, and how institutions relate to each other has become an increasingly significant question. To accept this does not meant that states do not matter, for states also use institutions, as well as being shaped by institutions.
  • Topic: Security, Defense Policy, NATO
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Europe, Asia, Switzerland
  • Author: John Lewis Gaddis
  • Publication Date: 08-2000
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization stands at a crossroads. Critical choices lie ahead that will determine its future. I begin my paper this way because it is customary to begin pronouncements on NATO with this kind of statement. Indeed papers and speeches on NATO have been beginning this way through the half-century of the alliance's existence - and yet NATO never quite reaches whatever crisis the speaker or writer has in mind. NATO seems to have a life of its own, which is remarkably detached from the shocks and surprises that dominate most of history, certainly Cold War history. And NATO's members, both actual and aspiring, seem bent on keeping it that way. So what is a crossroad anyway in historical terms? Most of my colleagues, I think, would say that it's a turning point: a moment at which it becomes clear that the status quo can no longer sustain itself, at which decisions have to be made about new courses of action, at which the results of those decisions shape what happens for years to come. The Cold War was full of such moments: the Korean War, Khrushchev's de-Stalinization speech, the Hungarian and Suez crises, the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Six Day War, the Tet offensive, Nixon's trip to China, the invasion of Afghanistan, the reunification of Germany, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War itself. What strikes me as a historian, though, is how little impact these turning points had on NATO's history - even General deGaulle, who tried to turn himself personally into a turning point. The structure and purposes of the alliance today are not greatly different from what they were when NATO was founded. Which is to say that NATO's history, compared to that of most other Cold War institutions, is uneventful, bland, and even (let us be frank) a little dull. That very uneventfulness, though, is turning out to be one of the more significant aspects of Cold War history. It surprised the historians, who have been able to cite no other example of a multi-national alliance that has had the robustness, the durability, the continuity, some might say the apparent immortality, of this one. It has also surprised the international relations theorists, for it is a fundamental principle of their discipline that alliances form when nations balance against threats. It follows, then, that as threats dissipate, alliances should also - and yet this one shows no signs of doing so. An instrument of statecraft, which is what an alliance normally is, has in this instance come to be regarded as a fundamental interest of statecraft. That requires explanation, which is what I should like to attempt here.
  • Topic: Security, Defense Policy, NATO
  • Political Geography: Afghanistan, Russia, United States, China, Europe, Asia, Soviet Union, Germany, Berlin
  • Author: Pal Dunay
  • Publication Date: 08-2000
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: The current phase and the prospects of U.S. - EU relations can be analysed from different vantage points. The most logical is to deal with the position of the main actors, the United States or the European Union. This paper makes an attempt to analyse the prospects of U.S. - EU relations in light of two major developments: the beginning of the third phase of the economic and monetary union, symbolised by the introduction of the Euro and the verbal (re-)establishment of European defence. The paper makes an attempt to pay attention to the arguments of the United States, though the emphasis is on the European perception of the possible complications of the new phase of evolution that European integration may generate in the relations between the two entities.
  • Topic: Security, Defense Policy, NATO
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Europe, Asia
  • Author: S. Neil MacFarlane
  • Publication Date: 08-2000
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: In 1996, ex-NATO Defence College fellow Dmitrii Trenin wrote that "in spite of the numerous public declarations of intention by Russia and the United States, Russia and NATO, and Russia and the European Union, so far no reliable foundation for partnership has been laid." Although the remark is four years old, there is little to argue with here. The proposition remains equally valid today. Four years ago, one might have asked: so what? Given the state of affairs in Russia, it didn't matter much anyway. However, things are changing. For the first time in ten years, secessionist wars, submarine disasters and fires in television towers notwithstanding, NATO and the West face a pivotal moment in the effort to normalize the relationship with Russia. The executive has secured reasonable control over the legislature. It is moving towards the reestablishment of central authority vis-à-vis the regions. The government is restoring a disciplined and reasonably orderly approach to foreign and security policy. There is increasingly strong evidence of sustained Russian economic recovery. This is a moment, consequently, of both opportunity and risk in the West's relations with Russia. It is an appropriate time to review where we have been, where we are, where we want to be, and what the role of NATO is in getting us there.
  • Topic: Security, Defense Policy, NATO
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Europe, Asia
  • Author: Charles H. Norchi
  • Publication Date: 08-2000
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Abstract: It will be recalled that Yugoslavia was created in 1918 in the wake of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The new state was peopled by religiously distinct ethnic groups of Serbs, Croats, Slovenians and Muslims. After World War II and German occupation, Josip Broz Tito, the Croat leader of the Yugoslav resistance, reunited the country as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). Member Republics of the SFRY were Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and the autonomous provinces of Voyvodina and Kosovo. Kosovo had been incorporated into Yugoslavia in 1945, but unlike the five federal units of Yugoslavia, it did not have the constitutional right to secede from the federation. With its majority Albanian population, it held the same status of Vojvadina with its majority Hungarian population. Tito's rule was harsh. His aim was to establish a public order straddling capitalism and communism in a multi-ethnic society. His foreign policy direction was non-aligned. Tito died in 1980 and SFRY leadership was assumed by a Presidential Council intended to represent the republics and autonomous territories with council chairmanship rotating among members.
  • Topic: Security, Defense Policy, NATO
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Europe, Asia, Kosovo