NATO
Summer 2013
"Hot Off the Presses"
Newsletter Article, Belfer Center Newsletter
By Susan M. Lynch, Program Assistant, International Security Program; Web Manager, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program
A survey of recent books by Belfer Center affiliates.
Spring 2013
"Nebulous NATO: A Quest for Relevance"
Journal Article, Bologna Center Journal of International Affairs
By Timothy Sandole, Associate, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is considered the most successful military alliance in history, and yet, its future is clouded in uncertainty. With the end of the Cold War, followed by the breakup of the Soviet Union, NATO has suffered from a structural problem that has become more acute over time—the absence of a clearly defined existential threat to Europe. This makes for a dubious raison d’être. If NATO’s future was ambiguous immediately following the Cold War, it is disquieting to consider its role in an environment of draconian defense cuts, fiscal woes in the United States, a Europe-wide financial crisis, and a U.S. military shift toward the Pacific.
March 29, 2013
U.S.-Russia Arms Control: Prospects and Challenges
Media Feature
This seminar examined the prospects for further nuclear arms reductions between the United States and Russia, including the possibility that negotiations might be expanded to weapons not limited by the New START Treaty. The seminar covered U.S. and Russian differences over missile defense and how those might be resolved to allow a cooperative NATO-Russia missile defense arrangement for Europe.
March 2013
"Why America Should Not Retrench"
Policy Brief
By Stephen Brooks, Former Fellow, International Security Program, 2003-2004, G. John Ikenberry and William Wohlforth, Editorial Board Member, Quarterly Journal: International Security
The United States' extended system of security commitments creates a set of institutional relationships that foster political communication. Alliance institutions are first about security protection, but they also bind states together and create institutional channels of communication. For example, NATO has facilitated ties and associated institutions that increase the ability of the United States and Europe to talk to each other and to do business. Likewise, the bilateral alliances in East Asia also play a communication role beyond narrow security issues. Consultations and exchanges spill over into other policy areas. This gives the United States the capacity to work across issue areas, using assets and bargaining chips in one area to make progress in another.
March 20, 2013
"'Iran is the Main Beneficiary of the Iraq War'"
Magazine or Newspaper Article, The European
By Max Tholl and Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program
"Iran has always been a major power in that region. Under Saddam however, Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies who fought a long war and were strongly opposed to one another. There was almost a rough balance of power between the two countries. By reducing Iraq's power and by allowing the Shia to become the dominant political force in Iraq, the US removed the main country balancing Iran, and helped bring to power a government that has at least some sympathies and links to Iran. So, Iran is by far the main strategic beneficiary of the Iraq War, which made it even more difficult for the US and its allies to deal with the country."
December 2012
National Cyber Security Framework Manual
Book
The National Cyber Security Framework Manual provides detailed background information and in-depth theoretical frameworks to help the reader understand the various facets of National Cyber Security, according to different levels of public policy formulation.
January 15, 2013
"The Once and Present Ally: France"
Op-Ed, The Huffington Post
By Charles G. Cogan, Associate, International Security Program
"When the new, and pro-American, French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, returned France to the NATO integrated command in the spring of 2009, a number of prominent French figures stated their reservations, the most articulate of whom was the former French foreign minister under François Mitterrand, Hubert Védrine. Much later, and more recently, in a report submitted to President François Hollande on Nov. 12, 2012, Védrine stated that although de Gaulle had been right in 1966, the world had changed since. And the United States, especially with the reelection of Barack Obama, had changed. The Americans now want an increased military role for the Europeans."
December 19, 2012
"Is Chuck Hagel the Right Pick for the Pentagon?"
Op-Ed, Washington Post
By David Ignatius, Senior Fellow, Future of Diplomacy Project
"The debate over whether Chuck Hagel should be appointed defense secretary has centered on his sometimes critical views of Israel. But that’s the wrong issue. The question is whether Hagel is the right person to run the Pentagon at a delicate moment of transition in defense policy and spending....Moreover, the defense secretary doesn’t set U.S. policy in the Middle East; the U.S.-Israeli alliance will remain solid regardless of who runs the Pentagon....The harder puzzle for the White House is whether Hagel would be the best manager during an important inflection point in Pentagon history."
" writes Belfer Center's David Ignatius.
December 18, 2012
"A Defector's Account of Syrian Chemical Weapons on the Move"
Op-Ed, Washington Post
By David Ignatius, Senior Fellow, Future of Diplomacy Project
"Reports from inside two Syrian chemical weapons facilities offer chilling new evidence that President Bashar al-Assad’s regime developed special vehicles last year for moving and mixing the weapons — and an unconfirmed allegation that Lebanese allies of the regime, presumably in Hezbollah, may have been trained 11 months ago in the weapons’ use," writes Future of Diplomacy Project senior fellow David Ignatius.
October 9, 2012
"Talking Our Way Out Of Afghanistan"
Op-Ed, Foreign Policy
By Matt Waldman, Research Fellow, International Security Program
"Because the strength of any dialogue depends on buy-in from each of the major parties to the conflict, the participation of Pakistan, the Taliban's longtime host and supporter, is essential. But the nature and scope of Pakistan's involvement requires consideration. Many would argue it should be limited to regional and security issues. But to exclude Pakistan completely would be to encourage it to act as a spoiler."
