Suchergebnisse

After the 9/11 attacks & the subsequent military action in Afghanistan & Iraq, is the transatlantic community headed towards a divorce of Europe & the United States? Or, quite the opposite, are we witnessing a dawn of a new, revitalized, globally active western community? The article focuses on possible evolution of the transatlantic community, & aims at judging various future arrangements of security & defense area against the background of realist approach of international relations. The analysis proceeds in four steps. First of all, the realist theoretical background is laid down, as compared to other possible approaches, including the one of Robert Kagan. Self-interest & the crucial importance of security of an international actor are presented as basic principles. Secondly, the military capabilities of the United States of America & Europe are compared, as the gap between them justifies the concept of strong America & weak Europe. The third part presents four possible scenarios of future transatlantic relations. Since the position of the United States is to be considered constant for foreseeable future, the article closely examines the relationship between NATO & the EU. The structure on which the scenarios are based com-bines two processes: the process of European integration in security & defense, & the evolution of transatlantic cohesion. Military capabilities, effectiveness of political leadership, & a capacity for global action are considered to be the substantial aspects for the evaluation of the balance of power. Finally, the scenarios are compared with the assumptions of the realist theory. The results differ substantially from Kagan's who claims that the strengthening of Europe will result in a closer transatlantic community. The realist approach foresees either a close alliance based on subordination of Europe to the United States in case of substantial external threat, or a strong Europe opposing the power of the United States. Adapted from the source document.

This article provides an analysis of the of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping, one of the hottest topics in international politics of the post-cold war era. Numerous books, articles, and Ph.D. thesis have already been written about UN peacekeeping operations. Although differing vastly in their scope and quality, most of the recent critiques have pointed out the pressing need to re-define and strengthen the cold war era concept of UN peacekeeping so that it becomes a viable conflict resolution method in the 21st century. Some scholars have, however, expressed serious doubts about the actual conflict resolution capabilities of UN peacekeeping operations. They argue that premature, short-tenn and under funded UN peacekeeping operations may well do more damage than good. One of the few things the majority of conflict resolution scholars and practitioners can nowadays agree on is that no UN intervention can bring peace to a place where it is not wanted.This article aims to enrich the current peace research by introducing an alternative analytical approach to the study of the UN peacekeeping. It is divided into seven sections. The introduction is followed by a theoretical section where I briefly summarize two basic theoretical approaches to the study of the UN peacekeeping (Conflict Management & Conflict Resolution). The third section provides an analysis of the changing nature of armed conflicts in the post-cold war period. The fourth section deals with the adjustments that were made to the concept of UN peacekeeping operations in reaction to the changes in the nature of current armed conflicts. The analytical concept Capabilities versus Expectations Gap is introduced in the fifth chapter, followed by the core section of this article -- the analysis of the United Nations peacekeeping using the analytical concept Capabilities versus Expectations Gap. The analytical concept Capabilities versus Expectations Gap was first introduced by Christopher Hill in 1992 as a handy tool for analyzing the evolving European Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The unique advantage of this concept is that it provides a sensible assessment of both the actual and potential UN capabilities. By comparing these with the existing UN expectations, the Capabilities versus Expectations Gap analysis of UN peacekeeping enables us to sketch a more realistic picture of what the UN is capable of doing in the area of conflict resolution than that presented either by its more enthusiastic supporters or by the demanders among the UN Member States. Consequently, building further on this realistic picture of the UN conflict resolution capabilities, I attempt to answer the key research question of this article: Is the UN, with the current level of its conflict resolution capabilities, capable of providing high quality treatment to as many conflicts as it nowadays attempts to provide? Based on the findings of the Capabilities versus Expectations Gap analysis of the UN peacekeeping problematic, I argue that since the end of the cold war, the UN has several times attempted to carry out more peacekeeping operations than it was capable of performing well in light of the current level of its conflict resolution capabilities. In other words, the most important conclusion of this article is that there is a gap between the UN capabilities and expectations in the area of conflict resolution and that the only option how to bridge this gap in the foreseeable future is to decrease the excessive UN expectations to meet the currently available UN capabilities. As paradoxical as it may sound, in practical terms this means that the United Nations is nowadays more likely to succeed in meeting its basic function ("to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war") by carrying out fewer but high quality peacekeeping operations. Adapted from the source document.

The September 11th, terrorist attacks on the United States totally overshadowed the significant legislative changes in the field of the US sanctions policy, which went into effect in the years 2000 and 2001. Albeit these changes as such may appear insufficient at first sight, the decade of sanctions policy reform debates and disputes which preceded these changes justifies the conclusion that they are the best result possible, and far more important than any unsystematic shifts in the regime of imposing economic sanctions for foreign policy purposes made back in the 1990s. The need to reform the US sanctions policy was caused by afundamental change of the international environment brought about by the end of the Cold War. Unlike in the bipolar world, wherein universal sanctions measures were fully sufficient, it was necessary after the end of the Cold War to react to numerous and varied threats to US foreign policy interests. This was done by laws "tailored" for the sanctioned country. The attempt to reform US sanctions policy in the 1990s revealed infull the rivalry between the legislative and executive powers, both of which wanted to preserve the decisive influence upon administrating sanctions and making decisions about them. It was undoubtedly the legislative power the Congress -- which emerged strengthened from the decade of rivalry. The last major factor reemerging in the sanctions policy reform debate and disputes was the issue of extraterritorial effects of some us laws. The extraterritoriality of us legislation caused a backlash in the world, which the US administration could not simply ignore. Yet the United States will probably not give up this powerful tool for forced multilateralization of its unilateral sanctions since this tool enables the US to avoid protracted and uncertain promotion of its interests in the form of multilateral sanctions negotiated by traditional diplomatic means. Adapted from the source document.

This paper compares the standard economic & a complementary socioeconomic approach to the transition. While the economic approach looks at social problems from the outside & views them as costs of transition, the socioeconomic approach looks at these problems from the inside & views them as a part of the social change taking place. Both approaches are used here to analyze four frictions, concerning (1) the PAYG pension system, which emphasizes intergenerational dependence & turns pensioners into a socially needy population; (2) the relation between low market wages & a higher welfare provision, which creates a poverty trap & leads to a culture of dependency; (3) the insufficient incentives for middle-class expansion, which contrasts with the key role this class should play in the future prosperity of society; & (4) tensions between various sections of the middle class. 6 Tables, 2 Figures, 4 Graphs, 17 References. Adapted from the source document.

Americans were neither victims nor perpetrators of the Holocaust. Why, then, does this horrific event occupy such a prominent place in their public life & political discourse? With the help of the works by American Jewish historians Norman Finkelstein & Peter Novick, this review article offers a tentative solution to this puzzle. Finkeistein stresses that the Holocaust has been used by the American Jewish elites & organizations for their financial, political & symbolic benefits. Novick does not deny the role of elites & of their instrumental motives but claims that sincere & profitless activities of innumerable "private" Jews & of their informal networks have played no lesser role. According to Novick, four factors contributed to the elevating of the Holocaust to the public pedestal: (1) the transformation of the general atmosphere in theAmerican society from the "integrationism" of the 1950s & 1960s to the "differentialism" of the 1970s & 1980s, (2) the ensuing competition of ethnic & racial groups for the status of the most historically aggrieved minority which motivated Jews to use the Holocaust as a trump against the claims of other groups, (3) the crisis of Jewish identity (brought about by waning religious practices) which made it possible for the Holocaust to function as an Ersatzidentity for Judaism, &, finally, (4) the overrepresentation of the Jews in the media, cultural institutions & entertainment industry which confers upon them a privileged role in the creation & reproduction of hegemonic discourses & images of the larger society. In addition, the reference to the Holocaust has proved useful in justifying tough policies of Israeli governments vis-a-vis the Palestinians & in gaining support for those policies with the American public & government. 11 References. Adapted from the source document.

Im Aufsatz werden folgende Themen behandelt: die anhaltende Popularität von Labour und ihres Chefs, die Kontinuität in der Wirtschaftspolitik, die Gesetze über die Einführung des Parlaments in Schottland und Wales, die positive Entwicklung in Nordirland, die dramatische Reform des Oberhauses, die Vorbereitung einer Wahlrechtsreform, die neue Europapolitik, die Programmreform der konservativen Partei und deren schlechte Ergebnisse in den Meinungsumfragen sowie die Einstellung der Konservativen zur europäischen Integration. (BIOst-Hrs)

Die Autoren befassen sich mit der Frage nach den finanziellen Kosten der NATO-Osterweiterung und deren Verteilung zwischen den bestehenden und den neuen Allianzmitgliedern. Hierzu ziehen sie drei wichtige Studien heran: den Bericht des Haushaltsausschusses des US- Kongresses, den der RAND-Corporation und den Pentagon- Bericht für den Kongress. Im krassen Unterschied zu den ersten Schätzungen der NATO, die sich auf höchstens 2 Milliarden Dollars beliefen, rechnen die besagten Studien mit weitaus höheren, in einem Fall mit bis 60mal höheren Kosten. Ähnliche Differenzen gäbe es auch bezüglich der Kostenverteilung. Die Autoren gehen davon aus, dass selbst die höchsten Schätzungen zu niedrig angesetzt sind, und dass die Kostenverteilung riesige Probleme aufwirft.(BIOst-Hrs)

Der Autor faßt zunächst Einwände zusammen, die im amerikanischen Senat gegen die NATO-Osterweiterung laut werden. Die zentrale Frage, die die Clinton-Administrative zu beantworten hat, lautet: Ist das strategische Hauptziel der Allianz-Erweiterung die Stärkung der Rolle der NATO durch die Aufnahme weiterer geeigneter Mitglieder, oder aber die Schaffung einer "neuen NATO", der gegenüber Moskau seinen Einfluß auf Grundsatzentscheidungen geltend machen wird. Die Antwort hänge davon ab, wie die US-Regierung und der Senat die doppeldeutigen Formulierungen des Grundaktes zwischen Rußland und der NATO interpretieren werden. Die zweite wichtige Diskussionsfrage sei die Eignung der Beitrittskandidaten für die NATO-Mitgliedschaft. Diese Frage wird von dem Verfasser trotz einiger Vorbehalte positiv beantwortet. (BIOst-Hrs)