NATO
AP Photo
Summer 2009
"Testing the NATO Alliance: Afghanistan and the Future of Cooperation"
Op-Ed, Harvard International Review, issue 2, volume 31
By Azeem Ibrahim, Research Fellow, International Security Program
"...[O]n the ground, Afghanistan does not look like a NATO mission, but a deployment of an ad hoc alliance. This impression is bolstered given that eight non-NATO countries are also contributing troops. This arrangement calls into question how genuine and useful the alliance will be in the future. It is no good to argue that NATO countries should share the burden more equally. That will not be enough to persuade skeptical governments to offer more troops. The truth is that the differences in deployment levels reflect real differences of public and political opinion. Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect that they should agree in the future either, as there is no longer agreement on what constitutes NATO's mission in Afghanistan."
AP Photo
September 2009
"The Next Government Must Fund Britain's Armed Forces to Match the Many and Growing Threats to National Security"
Policy Brief
By Azeem Ibrahim, Research Fellow, International Security Program
"The choice facing the next Prime Minister and government is clear. On the one hand, he can continue the policy of the present Government. This will result in a slow slide down the second division of nations, an inability to defend the sea passages on which our global trade and standard of living depend (ninety per cent of our trade still comes by sea), an inability to secure our growing imported energy supplies and the vital food supplies which we in this country take for granted.
Or, the next Government can resist this decline, hold firm against the pressure to reduce defence funding, and provide an adequate defence provision with contingency reserve capability for all three Services. If this decision is made, it should be done as a deliberate and well researched policy."
Summer 2009
"The Limits of Coercive Airpower: NATO'S 'Victory' in Kosovo Revisited"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 1, volume 34
Despite NATO's overwhelming strategic superiority, Milošević was able to reject his adversary's terms of surrender until his political position became untenable. This suggests that airpower may have greater limitations as a tool of statecraft than its supporters maintain.
AP Photo
July 7, 2009
"Obama's Style Trumps Substance, Again"
Op-Ed, The Daily Beast
By Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program
"The tone of U.S.-Russian diplomacy was much improved, and Obama is returning to Washington with several concrete agreements, but the summit did not yield a significant breakthrough on any major issue. In fact, like much of Obama's foreign policy to date, the Moscow summit was as much a triumph of style and attitude as an achievement in terms of substance. Russian-American relations may now be headed in the right direction, but both sides have a long way to go."
April 10, 2009
"The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations"
Presentation
By Thomas M. Nichols, Research Fellow, International Security Program/Project on Managing the Atom
Dr. Thomas M. Nichols gave the keynote address at a symposium on U.S.-Russian relations which was sponsored by Tufts University on April 10, 2009.
AP Photo
April 3, 2009
"Working with our friends in Europe"
Op-Ed, Boston Globe
By R. Nicholas Burns, Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics
European governments need to work harder to convince their publics that they have as much of a stake in facing global threats as we do.
AP Photo
Fall 2008
"Afghanistan: Partners in Time"
Journal Article, World Policy Journal, 25th Anniversary Edition, issue 3, volume 25
By Charles G. Cogan, Associate, International Security Program
"If the Pakistani authorities cannot or will not play their part, a way should be found to scale back significantly the U.S. and NATO military commitment in Afghanistan. Our fundamental problem, it should be emphasized, is with Al Qaeda, and secondarily with the Taliban, who sheltered Al Qaeda. We cannot be perceived as moving toward a colonial war, as happened in Vietnam...."
AP Photo
September 2, 2008
"Guns and Gold of August"
Op-Ed, The Korea Times
By Joseph S. Nye, Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor
"...Military force is obviously a source of hard power, but the same resource can sometimes contribute to soft power behavior. The impressive job by the American military in providing humanitarian relief after the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 and the South Asian earthquake in 2005 helped restore America's attractiveness....By bombing, blockading, and occupying many parts of Georgia, delaying its withdrawal, parading blindfolded Georgian soldiers, and failing to protect Georgian citizens, Russia lost its claims to legitimacy and sowed fear and mistrust in much of the world...."
AP Photo
Summer 2008
"Identities, Interests and the Resolution of the Abkhaz Conflict"
Journal Article, Caucasian Review of International Affairs, issue 3, volume 2
By Ondrej Ditrych, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2007-2008
"The recent crisis in Abkhazia reveals a fundamental qualitative change in the conflict in which the balance among three main actors is shifting, and increasingly the conflict plays a more important role in the triangular relations between Georgia, Russia and the West. The search for a new equilibrium in the conflict, one that would be an optimal outcome for the actors involved, will require rethinking the mutually constitutive roles (identities) and interests they want to assume with respect to the conflict and the entire South Caucasus...."
AP Photo
July-September 2008
"When Does the Mission Determine the Coalition? The Logic of Multilateral Intervention and the Case of Afghanistan"
Journal Article, Security Studies, issue 3, volume 17
By Sarah Kreps, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2007-2008
"Using the debate between the logic of appropriateness and consequences as a theoretical backdrop, I argue that neither is able to explain the United States' choices between unilateralism and multilateralism in post-Cold War military interventions....In this article, I suggest that "consequences" are best specified according to time horizon, which creates intertemporal tradeoffs between the long-term benefits of multilateralism and immediate payoffs of unilateralism, and the nature of the intervention, which affects the operational payoffs of multilateralism. I test this argument and the existing explanations against the case of Afghanistan. Its within-case variation — largely unilateral in combat operations and robustly multilateral in post-conflict phases — lends strong support to the logic of consequences as specified according to time horizon and operational payoff."
