POWER WITHOUT INFLUENCE: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S FOREIGN POLICY FAILURE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Jeremy Pressman, International Security, Spring 2009, pp. 149-179. "The administration of President George W. Bush was deeply involved in the Middle East, but its efforts did not advance U.S. national security. In the realms of counterterrorism, democracy promotion, and nonconventional proliferation, the Bush administration failed to achieve its objectives. Although the United States did not suffer a second direct attack after September 11, 2001, the terrorism situation worsened as many other countries came under attack and a new generation of terrorists trained in Iraq. Large regional powers such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia did not become more democratic, with no new leaders subject to popular mandate. The model used in Iraq of democratization by military force is risky, costly, and not replicable. Bush's policy exacerbated the problem of nuclear proliferation, expending tremendous resources on a nonexistent program in Iraq while bolstering Iran's geopolitical position. The administration failed because it relied too heavily on military force and too little on diplomacy, disregarded empiricism, and did not address long-standing policy contradictions. The case of the Bush administration makes clear that material power does not automatically translate into international influence." READ MORE

DIVERGING OR CONVERGING DYNAMICS? EU AND US POLICIES IN NORTH AFRICA.  Francesco Cavatorta and Vincent Durac, Journal of North African Studies, March 2009, pp. 1-9. "According to a number of scholars of international relations, the transatlantic relationship is going through a very significant and possibly irreversible crisis. It is claimed that the different reactions of the United States and the European Union to both September 11th and the war in Iraq were the catalyst for a rift that had been deepening for some time, leading to competition between the two actors. The literature on the foreign policy of the US and the EU in the Middle East and North Africa also points to this rift in order to explain the seemingly contradictory policies that the two actors implement in the region, with the US being more forceful in its attempts to export democracy and in supporting Israel while the EU adopts a less confrontational attitude and is perceived to be more friendly to the Palestinians. This article, which introduces a special issue on the nature of US and EU foreign policies in North Africa, argues on the contrary that the transatlantic rift does not really exist. While there are certainly differences in discourse and policies, both the EU and the US share the same concerns and have similar strategic objectives in the region, leading the two actors towards cooperation and division of labour rather than confrontation." READ MORE

Dealing With Nuclear Powers

INDIA AND PAKISTAN: COMPETING NUCLEAR STRATEGIES AND DOCTRINES. Vernie Liebl, Comparative Strategy, April 2009, pp. 154-163. "India and Pakistan have now been nuclear powers for at least a decade, apparently already having 'gone to the brink' several times. Despite the dire potentialities of nuclear exchange, both countries pursue very specific nuclear deterrent and response strategies. These strategies can be found in their doctrinal development, how they articulate that doctrine and affiliated 'red lines,' and deployment of nuclear weapons delivery means and associated systems (such as antiballistic missiles systems and satellites)." READ MORE

CREATING INSTABILITY IN DANGEROUS GLOBAL REGIONS: NORTH KOREAN PROLIFERATION AND SUPPORT TO TERRORISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA. Bruce Bechtol, Comparative Strategy, Jan/Feb 2009, pp. 99-115. "North Korea contributes to instability in the Middle East and South Asia through its proliferation of missiles and other weapons systems used as delivery platforms for chemical (and the production of chemical munitions) or biological weapons, including long-range artillery. Evidence also shows that North Korea has collaborated in the nuclear programs of Syria, Iran, Libya, and Pakistan and has provided weapons and training to terrorist groups in both the Middle East and South Asia (Hezbollah and the Tamil Tigers). Given the recent decision by Washington to take Pyongyang off of the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, the recent and ongoing activity by North Korea directly related to proliferation of WMD and the support of terrorist groups could lead to severe foreign policy challenges for the United States and its allies in the future." READ MORE

DEALING WITH NORTH KOREA: "DIPLOMATIC WARFAR" AHEAD. Joel S Wit, Arms Control Today, Jan/Feb 2009, pp. 14-16. "U.S. presidents have struggled with the challenges posed by a hostile North Korea since the end of the Korean War and with the dangers of a nuclear North since the mid-1980s. For the new Obama administration, the imperatives remain the same. Ending the North Korean threat would cut off a global source of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) technology, prevent an erosion of the nonproliferation regime that could trigger the acquisition of such weapons by other countries in East Asia, and provide a political boost to international efforts to stop the spread of dangerous technologies. In a regional context, ending the threat posed by Pyongyang would make U.S. allies and forces safer. How the United States copes with the North Korean challenge could also have important political ramifications for U.S. efforts to maintain close relations with Japan and South Korea, build better ties with China, and keep a strong U.S. presence in the region. Failure could undermine those efforts. Success would bolster them." READ MORE

NORTH KOREA: 20 YEARS OF SOLITUDE. John Delury, World Policy Journal, Winter 2008/09, pp. 75–82. "With the American people thirsting for a new foreign policy, transcending the aggrieved, insular doctrines of 'regime change,' 'pre-emptive war' and the 'global war on terror,' a breakthrough might be found in a most unlikely place—the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. North Korea’s alienation from the world community is a grave threat to peace in East Asia. But with the right kind of American leadership, North Korea can be coaxed back into concord with its Asia-Pacific neighbors. The new Obama administration has a chance to make history by ending the 60-year conflict that divides the Korean peninsula, and reversing the two decades of solitude that has exiled an entire nation from the global community." READ MORE

NEGOTIATING STRATEGY TO PREVENT A NUCLEAR IRAN. Alon Ben-Meir, International Journal on World Peace, Mar 2009, pp. 69-89. "The negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 over Tehran's nuclear enrichment activities have failed to reach an agreement, and Iran is much closer to mastering the technology of nuclear weapons. Many factors precipitated this breakdown, including the West's inability to handle the Iranian psychology, the failure to pose severe enough punitive measures in case of Iran's defiance, and the misleading U.S. policy that gave Iran room to maneuver. There is a need for new strategy toward Iran consisting of three tracks of separate but interconnected negotiations: (1) focus on the negotiations on Iran's enrichment program and the economic incentive package; (2) concentrate on regional security and the consequences of continued Iranian defiance; and (3) address Iran's and the United States' grievances against each other. The U.S. must initiate all three tracks to avoid failure in negotiations that would leave the West and Israel facing a nuclear Iran." READ MORE