Search results

Benutzerkommentar + Aus indischer Sicht

DUE TO THE COLLAPSE OF COMMUNISM AND RELATED DEVELOPMENTS, FORWARD-DEPLOYED U.S. FORCES WILL PROBABLY BE REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE COMING DECADE. BUT OTHER COMPONENTS OF U.S. MILITARY POWER WILL REMAIN SIGNIFICANT IN ALLIANCE RELATIONS: GENERAL-PURPOSE CONVENTIONAL FORCES, NUCLEAR DETERRENCE FORCES, GLOBAL SURVEILLANCE AND COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES, AND MILITARY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. BURDEN-SHARING AND DECISION-MAKING WILL BECOME MORE CHALLENGING ALLIANCE PROBLEMS IN AN INCREASINGLY MULTIPOLAR AND FLUID INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT. FIVE FACTORS DESERVE PARTICULAR ATTENTION, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO THE FUTURE OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION: THE PERSIAN GULF WAR AND ITS AFTERMATH; GERMAN POLITICAL AND SECURITY CHOICES; WEST EUROPEAN POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC INTEGRATION; THE INTERNAL EVOLUTION OF THE SOVIET UNION AND EASTERN EUROPE; AND INTRA-WESTERN POLITICAL DIFFERENCES. DURING A TIME OF UNPREDICTABLE FLUX IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, THE MOST PRUDENT COURSE FOR THE UNITED STATES IS TO RETAIN THE ALLIANCE TIES ESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED AT GREAT COST IN THE PAST AND TO ADAPT THEM TO NEW REQUIREMENTS.

In view of the collapse of Communist governments in much of Eastern Europe and related developments since 1989, forward-deployed U.S. forces will probably be reduced substantially in the coming decade. Other components of U.S. military power will, however, remain significant in alliance relations: general-purpose conventional forces, nuclear deterrence forces, global surveillance and communications capabilities, and military research and development. Burden sharing and decision making will become more challenging alliance problems in an increasingly multipolar and fluid international context. Five factors deserve particular attention, especially with regard to the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization: the conduct and aftermath of the Persian Gulf war; German political and security choices; West European political and economic integration; the internal evolution of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe; and intra-Western political differences. During a time of unpredictable flux in international politics, the most prudent course for the United States is to retain the alliance ties established and maintained at great cost in the past and to adapt them to new requirements.

This paper focuses upon one small region of World-Systems Theory (wst) but one that is important for analysis of the contemporary world: the dynamics of intra-core relations.I will try to address three questions: 1. Does the wst theory of the historically cyclical patterns of intra-core relations provide us with a persuasive framework for understanding contemporary core dynamics? 2. More specifically can the reach and depth of the power of the United States within the contemporary core be captured by wst's theory of capitalist hegemons and their rise and decline? 3. Is wst's insistence that its concept of core-wide world empires cannot be established in the modern world system valid? In addressing these issues, I will begin by outlining the general approach of wst to the analysis of intra-core relations, focusing in particular upon wst's concept of core hegemons and their rise and fall. I will then look at the arguments of wst as to why a capitalist world empire is impossible. I will then go on to examine how we might conceive of the victory of a World-Empire. And I will then turn to examine the contending situation and the character of the power of the US today.

Orthodox approaches developed by Alliance Theory to study alliances are characterized by static and state-centric focus, which exposes theory's logical limitations. In contrast, modern alignments are marked by continuous oscillations. Alignment stability—according to orthodox Alliance Theory—may be altogether misleading for the explanation of behaviour in alignment. This article theoretically re-conceptualizes the key notion of the orthodox Alliance Theory—the concept of alliance. Building on the basis of isolated but significant fragments of advanced research, the theoretical essence of the Alliance Theory is adjusted to encompass alignment process. Importantly, such a re-calibration bears in on an overlooked element common to all alignments—fluidity. Theoretical modification resulted in two important outcomes. First, the change of the vantage point in explaining alignments theoretically extends the orthodox Alliance Theory's traditionally limited applicability, which excluded subnational and non-state actors. Second, the change allowed reviewing the essence of alignments focusing on a persistently evolving process, rather than on alignments' institutional image. Sustained realignment, upgrading or downgrading of cooperative relations between actors and concurrent alignment to rival parties is no more confusing in explaining alignments. The article develops an alignment index and calculates it for the post-Soviet space.

Despite the enduring importance of the U.S.–Japan security alliance, the broader relationship between the two countries is today beset by sobering new difficulties. In this comprehensive comparative analysis of the transpacific alliance and its political, economic, and social foundations, Kent E. Calder, a leading Japan specialist, asserts that bilateral relations between the two countries are dangerously eroding as both seek broader options in a globally oriented world.Calder documents the quiet erosion of America's multidimensional ties with Japan as China rises, generations change, and new forces arise in both American and Japanese politics. He then assesses consequences for a twenty-first-century military alliance with formidable coordination requirements, explores alternative foreign paradigms for dealing with the United States, adopted by Britain, Germany, and China, and offers prescriptions for restoring U.S.–Japan relations to vitality once again

"The 1956 Suez Crisis as a Perfect Case for Crisis Research" published on by Oxford University Press.

Abstract
Peacetime espionage is often employed by states as a means of acquiring information about competitor states in the international system. However the practice is not limited to competitor states. In a world where security concerns are an ever-present consideration for state action, acts of espionage normally reserved for use against enemies are also used against ally states. The basic premise is that while alliances are able to foster mutual trust and cooperation, they do not conclude that an ally will always be trust-worthy and faithful, most especially, when it involves issues of national interest. The international system and a need to safeguard one's own interests and population mean that espionage, even against an ally, will remain a necessary state function and all states should therefore remain vigilant against attempts at infiltration of their state secrets. The question of peacetime intra-alliance espionage and the consequences thereof has yet to be answered and it is the purpose of this research to fill that intellectual gap. This research will look at traditionally allied countries, with a long record of cooperation, and not competing states. To achieve this, the case from 2013 of two North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies, Germany and the United States (US), are our main focus. Lessons worth drawing from this, by NATO small states members, shall be discussed.