Search

While almost a decade old, Ted Hopf's observation that the democratic peace is an observation in search of a theory still has some validity. In particular, the mechanisms behind the observed lack of war between democracies are poorly understood, making it difficult for scholars to provide a compelling explanation. While there has been some innovative work, particularly with respect to learning and the ability of an increasing number of democracies to cement democratic norms, Müller and Wolff note that normative and structural explanations are monadic explanations for a dyadic phenomenon. Underappreciated in the existing work is the role of identity and the importance this has for driving the democratic peace. With a focus on developing a dyadic democratic peace mechanism and using a case study approach, this paper utilizes the Copenhagen School's securitization framework to examine how identity plays out in the U.S. response to the Indian and Iranian nuclear programs. It finds that in fact identity does play a significant role in how security policy is constructed. The potential implications of this finding, particularly on policy, are significant. If the democratic peace does rely on identity to trigger the constraining norms that limit the escalation of conflict to violence, it is unlikely the democratic peace can be spread by force and it is possible that states nominally democratic can be excluded from the community of democracies if their behavior or significant other aspects of their perceived identity are at variance with the accepted democratic identity standard. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regional multilateral regimes have become important instruments for promoting and defending democracy around the world. The novel nature of these regional instruments has generated a cottage industry in social science scholarship. Yet, none of these works examine how the actors and processes that gave birth to the regimes have influenced their performance and future challenges. In order to fill this gap, this paper compares the democracy promotion and defense regimes of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the African Union (AU). We argue that the unique constellation of actors that are members of each respective organization have reinforced two distinct democracy promotion and defense paths. The state-driven regime evolution characteristic of the Americas contrasts with Africa's expert-driven process of regime construction. The state-centric process of the OAS regime has bolstered a narrow interstate multilateralism that upholds traditional sovereign state prerogatives and minimizes the role for non-state actors in the promotion and defense of democracy in the Americas. The expert-driven process of AU's regime construction has fostered a legalistic approach to democratic promotion and defense in Africa and opened up space for non-state actors to play a central role in the development of regional democracy promotion and defense norms. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the words of human rights scholar David Forsythe, George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy incorporated “moral impulses as long as they did not prove inconvenient to expediential concerns,” (1995:126). In short, analysts have argued that human rights was approached pragmatically during the first Bush presidency, subordinated in realist fashion to broader strategic concerns and the considerations of post-Cold War power politics. But what of the son? By contrast, the presidency of George W. Bush has seemed to feature a shifting stance on the question of balancing human rights concerns and national security interests. As a candidate and in the first months of his presidency, George W. Bush largely echoed his father’s realist and pragmatic approach. For example, while committed to the promotion of political openness and economic growth abroad, on the question of humanitarian interventions, the initial position of the Bush team was to shun such operations unless larger regional or strategic interests were at stake. Yet by 2006 the Bush administration had embraced an apparent liberal interventionist stance toward the promotion of human rights, declaring in National Security Strategy 2006 that “… the United States seeks to extend freedom across the globe by leading an international effort to end tyranny and to promote effective democracy,” (2006:2). In this paper I will compare the approach to human rights and national security policy during the two Bush presidencies, identifying and accounting for key areas of similarity and difference. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the conference paper "The Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy After the Post-Cold War: Making Sense of It All" presented at the "Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association" in Honolulu, Hawaii. It provides a synthesis on various issues such as continuity and change, president's ability to govern and the tensions between the demands of national security and democracy in creating U.S. foreign policy. The conceptual models which will help to explain the overall system of the policy are accounted.

With the Bush Administration’s National Security Strategy and the war in Iraq, the common argument that democracies do not fight preventive wars against rising adversaries loses much of its plausibility, and the more important question is the conditions under which democracies do and do not initiate such wars. This paper proposes a number of hypotheses to explain such outcomes, and explores these hypotheses through a series of mini-case studies of situations in which democracies faced with military rising adversaries 1) take military action (Israel vs Egypt in 1956, Israel vs. Iraq in 1981, U.S. vs. Iraq in 1991 and 2003), 2) seriously consider but do not take military action (U.S. vs. North Korea in 1994), and 3) do not seriously consider taking military action (France vs. Germany in the 1930s). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States and other democratic polities are in the midst of a sustained expansion of domestic and global electronic and human surveillance projects, ostensibly in order to detect the presence and activities of terrorist cells and networks, and espionage and sabotage activities of enemy states. The mobilization of the surveillance apparatus of democratic polities has not been without controversy and concern, which has voiced by human rights, civil liberties, and privacy NGOs, and investigative reporting in both mainstream and alternative media. While the current wave of expansion, and concern about, surveillance projects, is at times presented as a unique problem created by the various “wars on terror” of the early 21st century, the legacy of previous waves of surveillance mobilization and opposition inform the contemporary debate about the need for, and danger of, massive domesticand global surveillance projects.This paper examines the current mobilization of the surveillance apparatus, and concern about this mobilization, in the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union, in a comparative historical context. The first section of the paper examines quantitative indicators of the waxing and waning of wiretapping in the United States and the United Kingdom from the immediate pre-World War II period to the present, and utilizes analytic statistics (time series analysis) to examine the correlates of domestic surveillance mobilization. This analysis is designed to answer the following questions: is domestic surveillance mobilization provoked more by external or internal threats, and which types of external or internal threats is surveillance activity most sensitive to (global levels of terrorist events, power differentials between peer competitors, internal disorders and/or criminality)?After discussing the patterns of expansion and contraction of internal surveillance activity of the United States and United Kingdom in historical and global context in the mid-20th to early 21st centuries, the paper moves on to a series of case studies examining specific electronic and human intelligence based surveillance projects in the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union from the 1990s to the present. In particular this paper examines the open source literature on the internal surveillance operations, and enabling legislation, of surveillance programs carried out by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency, UK GCHQ and MI5, and the European Community’s reaction to the Echelon surveillance project, and attempts to integrate the surveillance activities of the member states of the European Union, which was accelerated by the Madrid and London terrorist attacks of 2004 and 2005.These case studies will examine the: 1) debate surrounding the enabling legislation for surveillance projects; 2) open source evidence of the range and intensity of these various surveillance projects; and 3) how NGOs, and mainstream and alternative media, become aware of these surveillance projects, and begin to mobilize against, and draw attention to, the possible threat to human rights, privacy rights, and civil liberties presented by these projects.The goals of these case studies are fourfold. These cases investigate: 1) the rationale for electronic and human surveillance enabling legislation and projects; 2) the origins of concern with, and opposition to, the legislation and projects; 3) the application of political movement literature to examine the mobilization of opposition to these pieces of legislation and projects; and, 4) locating this specific debate in the broader discussion about the domestic impact of the "global war on terror" and other "emergent threats". ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the words of Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for the common foreign and security policy, the EU-style form of promoting and safeguarding democracy is ?voluntary, cost-effective and extraordinarily successful?. On a less business-like note, the United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, claims that ?[i]n time, the blessings of democracy come to everyone who keeps the faith with the principles of democracy.? This paper will compare and contrast the approaches to democracy as a foreign policy concern pursued by the European Union on the one hand and the United States on the other. The overarching theme of the paper is the drive for democracy promotion on the part of the EU and the US in their respective ?neighbourhoods?. The concept of neighbourhood in international relations will first be elaborated upon thereby emphasising an important international dimension of democratisation. The second part of this paper will examine EU enlargement and its role in the processes of democratization first in southern Europe and then in Central Europe. This will be contrasted with US projects of ?democracy assistance? in Latin America and their role in the processes of democratisation in that region. This paper will argue against the view that the EU and the US projects of democracy promotion represent distinctly different models. Rather, the adoption of democracy as a foreign policy goal whether as pursued by the EU or the US reflects a deliberate projection of power in an international order that is characterised by its inherent power asymmetries. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his second inaugural address, President Bush boldly put democracy promotion at the center of U.S. foreign policy. Subsequently, however, setbacks in Iraq, Palestinian elections, Egypt, Central and Southeast Asia have damaged democracy promotion’s reput ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Constitutions of democratic countries are built on liberal ethics. While neorealists and rationalists do not expect these norms to infect foreign and security policy, constructivists hypothesize that democracies develop a logic of appropriateness which am ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on preventing tension in the Taiwan Strait. It cites that an outbreak of military conflict in the channel would have consequences for regional stability and the global economy. The first security priority for the second term of U.S. President George W. Bush will be preventing the conflict due to changing status quo as well as increasing urgency. One of the reasons why Taiwan is of considerable significance to the U.S. is that U.S. support for Taiwan is closely tied to U.S. interests in fostering newly established democracies.

The article focuses on the impact of the U.S. War on Terror campaign on global democracy. It notes that the global war on terror resulted to security decisions made privately by states and not to consensual decisions made in open and inclusive global political processes. It discusses how the country's unilateral exercise of power resulted to a legitimacy crisis. It stresses the potential of deliberative democracy to legitimize the country's foreign policy.

Post-9/11 security concerns and the US-led invasion of Iraq have renewed scholarly interest in nation-building as a form of externally-fostered democratization. Recen works have assessed Iraq and its precursors to find general lessons for establishing new democracies. They have principally concluded that successful nation-building depends on sustained commitments of time, materiel, and manpower. Although this thesis improves upon earlier studies of democracy promotion, which often treated intentions as determinative, it does not fully reckon with the effect of antecedent conditions on external intervention. As this paper addresses, American efforts at nation-building have historically been enabled or constrained by local political institutions. Rather than autonomously reengineering the target society, nation-builders have buttressed bureaucracies and parliaments where they were available (Germany, Japan) and foundered in countries that lacked such institutions (Somalia, Haiti). In sum, nation-building has been most effective when pursued least ambitiously, amid functioning states with prior experience in constitutional government. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the conditions under which the United States employs large-scale military power to build democratic institutions abroad. Despite its centrality to US security policy, there is very little rigorous research scholarship on the causes of American democracy promotion, or forcible regime imposition more generally. I argue that US policies attempting to re-order the national political structures of other states through coercive force can be attributed to the confluence of expanding material power and changes in domestic political culture, which create expectations about the viability of liberal change and the efficacy of American power in achieving it. These arguments will be assessed against evidence from two twentieth-century cases studies. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an era in which the Bush administration?s plea for spreading democracy has been a cornerstone of American security strategy, the security repercussions of democratic consolidation in general and its impact on regional security dynamics in particular have been regrettably understudied. Numerous politicians, including President George W. Bush, have simply touted the East Asian experiences in democracy as a model for a democratic Middle East. Upon closer observation, the story is not only far more complicated but also alarmingly dangerous: Contrary to the ?democratic peace? thesis, democratic consolidation has recently become a source of instability in East Asia. The East Asian case is also interesting because contrary to Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder?s thesis that democratizing countries are prone to instability, it is not the early transition period but the consolidation of democratization that appears to be fodder for regional tension. Based on a comparative analysis of recent developments in Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan, this paper examines the impact of the deepening of democratization in East Asia on regional security dynamics. More specifically, democratic consolidation in East Asia has opened up a dynamic, interactive process in which foreign policy orientation in each country becomes more conflictual, as manifest in Taiwan?s aggressive push for de jure independence, South Korea?s increasing anti-American and anti-Japanese sentiments, and Japan?s growing assertiveness in its regional diplomacy. As such, instead of unproblematically accepting democratization as a panacea for regional stability, we need to explore the regional context in which democratic processes affect domestic security dynamics in ways that may worsen patterns of regional interaction. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses fear as a driving force behind post-Sept 11 international relations. The most powerful nation on earth is also the most fearful nation. American security policy is driven by new kinds of fear, fear of the terorrist, fear of Islam, even fear of the UN. This in turn creates fears in the international community about the hegemon’s intentions and capabilities, manifested in a new interventionism. The main casualities of hegemonic fear and the global fear politics are multilateratilism and democracy which are increasingly challenged by unilateralism, coalitions of the willing and the ascendancy of the homeland security state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policymakers in the US, Japan, and elsewhere have recently taken limited steps toward the realization of a quadrilateral strategic alliance between the US, India, Australia, and Japan. The development of such an 'Asia Democracy Partnership,' supported in ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pax Americana, based on a global cooperative and multilateralist hegemony of the United States, was cemented during the Cold War and consolidated as the Cold War ended with the dissolution of the Soviet state and its system of international control and influence. Upon the ending of the Cold War crisis system, the U. S. had the option to strengthen the global institutions of governance and moving toward an integrative world policy framework, especially in the global commons of security, economics, and human rights and democracy. After the political realignment which followed the 1994 elections, the dominant American political establishment opted for pursuing an increasingly unilateral agenda, one in the first place determined by growing objections to the organized international system.The difficulties to deal promptly and effectively with the Balkan crisis and the apparent incapacity for managing in a just and effective way the Middle East conflicts, compounded with the reemergence of global crisis patterns, first over the Kosovo conflict, then and more ominously with the terror attacks of September 11 2001 on the United States.The response of the U. S. government to these serious breakdowns of international security obtained different, problematic and even antagonistic, if not outright hostile responses from large segments of the international community and world public opinion. As the Bushadministration moved to escalate the initial framework of measures to combat international terrorism â€"the war on terrorâ€" and the military intervention in Afghanistan with the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the Spring of 2003, the divide in the international community also widened and deepened. For the first time with such an intensity, the divide affected the North Atlantic Treaty Organization: the basic collective military security alliance of the United States broke functionally down into two opposite fields concerning, not simply tactical issues, but fundamental questions pertaining to the essence of international security policy and the nature of world order.From an American national security perspective, the key questions with which the country is confronted are whether the conditions of international terrorism have been actually worsened by these decisions, and whether they have compounded with a stance of relative yet acute isolation and leadership erosion, thus making much more difficult for the U. S. to deal effectively, under the present conditions, with a seriously impaired international security situation.After a critical discussion of these concepts framework I identify the sources and the characteristics of America’s contemporary crossroads in terms of two tentative historical intervals: the interval of the first post-Cold War years, 1992-2000, which I provisionally define as expectations, hesitations, reservations; and the interval of the years 2001 to the present, which again I propose to be conceptualized on a preliminary basis as mutations and unraveling: the crisis of Pax Americana.Applying historical, political, and foreign policy concepts, the characteristics, foreign policy directions, and international projections of these two intervals are examined respectively through seven and four pivotal cases. Shaping the direction of the first interval: Iraq's annexation of Kuwait and the second Persian Gulf War, the UN question and the roads to and from the 1992 UNSC Summit, the Balkans Wars and the Dayton Accords, the Kosovo crisis, the national missile defense question I, the rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the question of the International Criminal Court... ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policymakers frequently make sweeping generalizations about the positive relationship between the democracy agenda and U.S. national security. These generalizations are buttressed by important assumptions about the affects the spread of democracy has on national security priorities. This study examines the degree to which political science research to date substantiates these assumptions. A content analysis of each official White House National Security Strategy from 1986-2001 reveals four primary assumptions: the spread of democracy decreases interstate conflict and increases stability, human rights, and economic development. A review of the literature finds that several of these assumptions are only justified by mature democracies that have passed through the gray zone of transition to democratic consolidation. In contrast, those democracies that occupy the intermediate or gray zone actually pose a threat to U.S. national security. It is consequently recommended that the democracy agenda prioritize democratic consolidation of the gray zone above all else. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on anti-terror laws in the third world. It notes that the goals of promoting democracy and fighting terrorism are at odds with one another as the government uses anti-terrorist rhetoric to restrict civil liberties and strengthen security measures. It cites the concerns raised by the U.S. Patriot Act about its provision for enhanced surveillance, information sharing and indefinite detention. It examines the involvement of the U.S. in the development of anti-terror legislation in the third world.