This paper examines the African Union's (AU) institutional approach to transnational terrorism. Specifically, its approaches in combating Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Boko Haram, and al-Shabaab.
This paper examines Indonesia’s Global Maritime Fulcrum (GMF) initiative, and its present and future importance, primarily in combating the threat of maritime irregular warfare (MIW) in Southeast Asia. Specifically, it references the rise of grey-zone operations in the South China Sea, particularly by China.
In international scholarship, the enormous Indic legacy on formulating and categorizing spy networks is more or less forgotten. This analysis will address this void in scholarship by shedding light on the sophisticated Indic spy system.
As this historically significant arms-control treaty unravels, two of the world’s superpowers are heightening the potential for military conflict.
The US decision to focus on civil rights and institutions as a part of an overall counter-insurgency strategy was not a mistake. The suggestion that the United States has no obligation to address women’s rights in the negotiation process because “such rights have never existed in most of Afghanistan” is an insult to the thousands of women that have sacrificed for the American ideals of freedom and equality pushed by the Allies since 2001.
Much of the public discourse on nuclear security is based on the implications of binary scenarios: a nuclear state versus a non-nuclear one. This approach does not account for the fact that beyond these two positions lies a spectrum of relative nuclear capabilities and characteristics. Factors that determine the position of a state in this nuclear spectrum include the size of its nuclear arsenal, its delivery capabilities, the vulnerabilities of its nuclear infrastructure, and its tactical deployment strategy. The state’s relative position, in turn, produces different security implications.
It is clear that while the momentum of the Arab Uprisings of 2011 had been arrested – and, in Egypt, Syria, and Bahrain, reversed or crushed – the root causes that brought them about still exist and have, in most states, not been addressed and are “burning embers under the ashes.”
If you turn on the news today, you will most likely hear about the recent government shutdown, our military presence in the Middle East, or a number of other domestic and international issues. But what will most likely not be discussed, or at least at length, is the threat the Venezuelan crisis poses to the United States.
The United States will not tolerate any other power establishing “exclusive hegemonic control” over Asia or the Pacific, according to renowned Asia scholar Michael Green. In a magisterial work, Green argues persuasively that this anti-hegemonic impulse has been the central driver of American grand strategy toward the Asia-Pacific for over two centuries.
In Pushkin’s 1822 poem, Prisoner of the Caucasus, the epilogue proclaims, “And the violent cry of war fell silent: All is subject to the Russian sword. Proud sons of the Caucasus, You have fought, you have perished terribly.”[1] The political overtones of the poem’s dénouement are jarring compared to the poem’s earlier verses on romance, natural beauty, and the heroism of the Caucasian people. But the poem’s ending reveals the complicated position of the region in Russian history and culture. The Caucasus is simultaneously a place to be controlled, otherized, and romanticized.
To achieve its goal of deepened integration with ASEAN, India has established and continuously emphasized opportunities for economic and security partnership. All the while, it has simultaneously appealed to socio-cultural ties. Closer integration with ASEAN, India hopes, will allow the two to jointly balance China’s growing regional influence.
For seven decades, the United States has prided itself in being a reliable and committed NATO partner, willing to protect all allies at all times. Today such assurances no longer appear rock-solid. ... In this context, one is reminded of Czech-born writer Milan Kundera’s insightful words regarding the fate of small countries: “What distinguishes the small nations from the large is not the quantitative criterion of the number of their inhabitants; it is something deeper: for them their existence is not a self-evident certainty but always a question, a wager, a risk.”
