Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

This thesis examines the development of cooperative maritime security efforts in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Recent regional efforts to combat maritime security threats in the Gulf of Aden have drawn comparisons to similar efforts undertaken in the Malacca Straits. However, such comparisons fail to address the unique nature of security cooperation in the Persian Gulf, specifically the necessity of external security support for states in the region. This thesis argues that despite similarities shared by the two regions, the states of the Persian Gulf must deal with issues of prioritization, regional animosities, and external dependence before they can attempt to develop cooperative maritime security arrangements akin to those existing in Southeast Asia. Success will require a concerted effort by these states as well as the realization, by the United States, that it is undermining effective security cooperation in the region.

This thesis examines the development of cooperative maritime security efforts in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Recent regional efforts to combat maritime security threats in the Gulf of Aden have drawn comparisons to similar efforts undertaken in the Malacca Straits. However, such comparisons fail to address the unique nature of security cooperation in the Persian Gulf, specifically the necessity of external security support for states in the region. This thesis argues that despite similarities shared by the two regions, the states of the Persian Gulf must deal with issues of prioritization, regional animosities, and external dependence before they can attempt to develop cooperative maritime security arrangements akin to those existing in Southeast Asia. Success will require a concerted effort by these states as well as the realization, by the United States, that it is undermining effective security cooperation in the region.

Two alternative nonproliferation precedents were set in 2003: in Iraq, a change of regime; in Libya, a change in a regime. In March, U.S. and British military forces invaded Iraq to coercively disarm that country of its presumed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles. In December, only eight months after the fall of Baghdad, the British and U.S. governments jointly announced the starling revelation that secret negotiations had yielded a commitment by Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi to verifiably relinquish his country's covert WMD capabilities. President Bush stated that by this commitment to conform to international nonproliferation norms, Libya had begun the process of rejoining the con%community of nations. Administration officials were quick to link the Libyan development to the Iraq war, arguing that the decisive use of force to topple the Saddam Hussein regime had precipitated Qaddafi's decision, while former Clinton administration officials claimed that it was the culmination of a decade-long process. The current nuclear crisis with Iran is playing out against the backdrop of these twill precedents. What are the lessons and implications of these precedent-setting experiences for the development of effective nonproliferation strategies? The stakes are high as experts now posit that the international system now faces the specter of a tipping point in which the acquisition of nuclear weapons by one additional state, such as Iran, could trigger a proliferation epidemic as other states reconsider their nuclear restraint.

Two alternative nonproliferation precedents were set in 2003: in Iraq, a change of regime; in Libya, a change in a regime. In March, U.S. and British military forces invaded Iraq to coercively disarm that country of its presumed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles. In December, only eight months after the fall of Baghdad, the British and U.S. governments jointly announced the starling revelation that secret negotiations had yielded a commitment by Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi to verifiably relinquish his country's covert WMD capabilities. President Bush stated that by this commitment to conform to international nonproliferation norms, Libya had begun the process of rejoining the con%community of nations. Administration officials were quick to link the Libyan development to the Iraq war, arguing that the decisive use of force to topple the Saddam Hussein regime had precipitated Qaddafi's decision, while former Clinton administration officials claimed that it was the culmination of a decade-long process. The current nuclear crisis with Iran is playing out against the backdrop of these twill precedents. What are the lessons and implications of these precedent-setting experiences for the development of effective nonproliferation strategies? The stakes are high as experts now posit that the international system now faces the specter of a tipping point in which the acquisition of nuclear weapons by one additional state, such as Iran, could trigger a proliferation epidemic as other states reconsider their nuclear restraint.

Two alternative nonproliferation precedents were set in 2003: in Iraq, a change of regime; in Libya, a change in a regime. In March, U.S. and British military forces invaded Iraq to coercively disarm that country of its presumed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles. In December, only eight months after the fall of Baghdad, the British and U.S. governments jointly announced the starling revelation that secret negotiations had yielded a commitment by Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi to verifiably relinquish his country's covert WMD capabilities. President Bush stated that by this commitment to conform to international nonproliferation norms, Libya had begun the process of rejoining the con%community of nations. Administration officials were quick to link the Libyan development to the Iraq war, arguing that the decisive use of force to topple the Saddam Hussein regime had precipitated Qaddafi's decision, while former Clinton administration officials claimed that it was the culmination of a decade-long process. The current nuclear crisis with Iran is playing out against the backdrop of these twill precedents. What are the lessons and implications of these precedent-setting experiences for the development of effective nonproliferation strategies? The stakes are high as experts now posit that the international system now faces the specter of a tipping point in which the acquisition of nuclear weapons by one additional state, such as Iran, could trigger a proliferation epidemic as other states reconsider their nuclear restraint.

Two alternative nonproliferation precedents were set in 2003: in Iraq, a change of regime; in Libya, a change in a regime. In March, U.S. and British military forces invaded Iraq to coercively disarm that country of its presumed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles. In December, only eight months after the fall of Baghdad, the British and U.S. governments jointly announced the starling revelation that secret negotiations had yielded a commitment by Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi to verifiably relinquish his country's covert WMD capabilities. President Bush stated that by this commitment to conform to international nonproliferation norms, Libya had begun the process of rejoining the con%community of nations. Administration officials were quick to link the Libyan development to the Iraq war, arguing that the decisive use of force to topple the Saddam Hussein regime had precipitated Qaddafi's decision, while former Clinton administration officials claimed that it was the culmination of a decade-long process. The current nuclear crisis with Iran is playing out against the backdrop of these twill precedents. What are the lessons and implications of these precedent-setting experiences for the development of effective nonproliferation strategies? The stakes are high as experts now posit that the international system now faces the specter of a tipping point in which the acquisition of nuclear weapons by one additional state, such as Iran, could trigger a proliferation epidemic as other states reconsider their nuclear restraint.

Two alternative nonproliferation precedents were set in 2003: in Iraq, a change of regime; in Libya, a change in a regime. In March, U.S. and British military forces invaded Iraq to coercively disarm that country of its presumed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles. In December, only eight months after the fall of Baghdad, the British and U.S. governments jointly announced the startling revelation that secret negotiations had yielded a commitment by Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi to verifiably relinquish his country's covert WMD capabilities. President Bush stated that by this commitment to conform to international nonproliferation norms, Libya had begun the process of rejoining the community of nations. Administration officials were quick to link the Libyan development to the Iraq war, arguing that the decisive use of force to topple the Saddam Hussein regime had precipitated Qaddafi's decision, while former Clinton administration officials claimed that it was the culmination of a decade-long process. The current nuclear crisis with Iran is playing out against the backdrop of these twin precedents. What are the lessons and implications of these precedent-setting experiences for the development of effective nonproliferation strategies? The stakes are high as experts now posit that the international system now faces the specter of a tipping point in which the acquisition of nuclear weapons by one additional state, such as Iran, could trigger a proliferation epidemic as other states reconsider their nuclear restraint.

Two alternative nonproliferation precedents were set in 2003: in Iraq, a change of regime; in Libya, a change in a regime. In March, U.S. and British military forces invaded Iraq to coercively disarm that country of its presumed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles. In December, only eight months after the fall of Baghdad, the British and U.S. governments jointly announced the startling revelation that secret negotiations had yielded a commitment by Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi to verifiably relinquish his country's covert WMD capabilities. President Bush stated that by this commitment to conform to international nonproliferation norms, Libya had begun the process of rejoining the community of nations. Administration officials were quick to link the Libyan development to the Iraq war, arguing that the decisive use of force to topple the Saddam Hussein regime had precipitated Qaddafi's decision, while former Clinton administration officials claimed that it was the culmination of a decade-long process. The current nuclear crisis with Iran is playing out against the backdrop of these twin precedents. What are the lessons and implications of these precedent-setting experiences for the development of effective nonproliferation strategies? The stakes are high as experts now posit that the international system now faces the specter of a tipping point in which the acquisition of nuclear weapons by one additional state, such as Iran, could trigger a proliferation epidemic as other states reconsider their nuclear restraint.

This monograph evaluates the security issues in the Middle East. The paper supports the position that regional security is essential, and plays a pivotal role on the road to the real peace between Arabs and Israelis. Since early last decade, the Middle East region has witnessed a state of significant dynamic changes. These changes are expected to leave major impacts on shaping the political, social, and economic future of the countries in the region and to influence the intellectual structure. These changes are exhibited in the decisive strategic transformation process regarding the Arab Israeli conflict, moving from the state of direct confrontation to the philosophy of peace and peaceful coexistence. There is no doubt that security has been recognized as one of the main causes to the conflict over the last five decades between Israel and its Arab neighboring countries. Security concepts before the 1967 war were varied. The existence of Israel as a state was a first priority; however, security in this case is included. Just after 1967 and 1973 wars, the United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 were issued accordingly as land for peace. Security will serve as the acceptable and useful basis for the stability, prosperity, and development of societies in the region. Further more it will govern future relations in the region, politically, socially, and economically. Security for Israel is vitally important. It is very important for neighboring countries too. Through its history, Israel used to be more aware of security issues than its Arab partners, still under the influence of the Arab Israeli wars. Furthermore, Israeli political and security thinking is still captive to the fears of potential wars that threatens Israelis existence and expose the Israeli community to psychological violence. On the Arab side, the aftermath of war still forms vital elements in the concept of security.

This monograph evaluates the security issues in the Middle East. The paper supports the position that regional security is essential, and plays a pivotal role on the road to the real peace between Arabs and Israelis. Since early last decade, the Middle East region has witnessed a state of significant dynamic changes. These changes are expected to leave major impacts on shaping the political, social, and economic future of the countries in the region and to influence the intellectual structure. These changes are exhibited in the decisive strategic transformation process regarding the Arab Israeli conflict, moving from the state of direct confrontation to the philosophy of peace and peaceful coexistence. There is no doubt that security has been recognized as one of the main causes to the conflict over the last five decades between Israel and its Arab neighboring countries. Security concepts before the 1967 war were varied. The existence of Israel as a state was a first priority; however, security in this case is included. Just after 1967 and 1973 wars, the United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 were issued accordingly as land for peace. Security will serve as the acceptable and useful basis for the stability, prosperity, and development of societies in the region. Further more it will govern future relations in the region, politically, socially, and economically. Security for Israel is vitally important. It is very important for neighboring countries too. Through its history, Israel used to be more aware of security issues than its Arab partners, still under the influence of the Arab Israeli wars. Furthermore, Israeli political and security thinking is still captive to the fears of potential wars that threatens Israelis existence and expose the Israeli community to psychological violence. On the Arab side, the aftermath of war still forms vital elements in the concept of security.

This monograph evaluates the security issues in the Middle East. The paper supports the position that regional security is essential, and plays a pivotal role on the road to the real peace between Arabs and Israelis. Since early last decade, the Middle East region has witnessed a state of significant dynamic changes. These changes are expected to leave major impacts on shaping the political, social, and economic future of the countries in the region and to influence the intellectual structure. These changes are exhibited in the decisive strategic transformation process regarding the Arab Israeli conflict, moving from the state of direct confrontation to the philosophy of peace and peaceful coexistence. There is no doubt that security has been recognized as one of the main causes to the conflict over the last five decades between Israel and its Arab neighboring countries. Security concepts before the 1967 war were varied. The existence of Israel as a state was a first priority; however, security in this case is included. Just after 1967 and 1973 wars, the United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 were issued accordingly as land for peace. Security will serve as the acceptable and useful basis for the stability, prosperity, and development of societies in the region. Further more it will govern future relations in the region, politically, socially, and economically. Security for Israel is vitally important. It is very important for neighboring countries too. Through its history, Israel used to be more aware of security issues than its Arab partners, still under the influence of the Arab Israeli wars. Furthermore, Israeli political and security thinking is still captive to the fears of potential wars that threatens Israelis existence and expose the Israeli community to psychological violence. On the Arab side, the aftermath of war still forms vital elements in the concept of security.

This monograph evaluates the security issues in the Middle East. The paper supports the position that regional security is essential, and plays a pivotal role on the road to the real peace between Arabs and Israelis. Since early last decade, the Middle East region has witnessed a state of significant dynamic changes. These changes are expected to leave major impacts on shaping the political, social, and economic future of the countries in the region and to influence the intellectual structure. These changes are exhibited in the decisive strategic transformation process regarding the Arab Israeli conflict, moving from the state of direct confrontation to the philosophy of peace and peaceful coexistence. There is no doubt that security has been recognized as one of the main causes to the conflict over the last five decades between Israel and its Arab neighboring countries. Security concepts before the 1967 war were varied. The existence of Israel as a state was a first priority; however, security in this case is included. Just after 1967 and 1973 wars, the United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 were issued accordingly as land for peace. Security will serve as the acceptable and useful basis for the stability, prosperity, and development of societies in the region. Further more it will govern future relations in the region, politically, socially, and economically. Security for Israel is vitally important. It is very important for neighboring countries too. Through its history, Israel used to be more aware of security issues than its Arab partners, still under the influence of the Arab Israeli wars. Furthermore, Israeli political and security thinking is still captive to the fears of potential wars that threatens Israelis existence and expose the Israeli community to psychological violence. On the Arab side, the aftermath of war still forms vital elements in the concept of security.

This monograph evaluates the security issues in the Middle East. The paper supports the position that regional security is essential, and plays a pivotal role on the road to the real peace between Arabs and Israelis. Since early last decade, the Middle East region has witnessed a state of significant dynamic changes. These changes are expected to leave major impacts on shaping the political, social, and economic future of the countries in the region and to influence the intellectual structure. These changes are exhibited in the decisive strategic transformation process regarding the Arab Israeli conflict, moving from the state of direct confrontation to the philosophy of peace and peaceful coexistence. There is no doubt that security has been recognized as one of the main causes to the conflict over the last five decades between Israel and its Arab neighboring countries. Security concepts before the 1967 war were varied. The existence of Israel as a state was a first priority; however, security in this case is included. Just after 1967 and 1973 wars, the United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 were issued accordingly as land for peace. Security will serve as the acceptable and useful basis for the stability, prosperity, and development of societies in the region. Further more it will govern future relations in the region, politically, socially, and economically. Security for Israel is vitally important. It is very important for neighboring countries too. Through its history, Israel used to be more aware of security issues than its Arab partners, still under the influence of the Arab Israeli wars. Furthermore, Israeli political and security thinking is still captive to the fears of potential wars that threatens Israelis existence and expose the Israeli community to psychological violence. On the Arab side, the aftermath of war still forms vital elements in the concept of security.

This monograph evaluates the security issues in the Middle East. The paper supports the position that regional security is essential, and plays a pivotal role on the road to the real peace between Arabs and Israelis. Since early last decade, the Middle East region has witnessed a state of significant dynamic changes. These changes are expected to leave major impacts on shaping the political, social, and economic future of the countries in the region and to influence the intellectual structure. These changes are exhibited in the decisive strategic transformation process regarding the Arab Israeli conflict, moving from the state of direct confrontation to the philosophy of peace and peaceful coexistence. There is no doubt that security has been recognized as one of the main causes to the conflict over the last five decades between Israel and its Arab neighboring countries. Security concepts before the 1967 war were varied. The existence of Israel as a state was a first priority; however, security in this case is included. Just after 1967 and 1973 wars, the United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 were issued accordingly as land for peace. Security will serve as the acceptable and useful basis for the stability, prosperity, and development of societies in the region. Further more it will govern future relations in the region, politically, socially, and economically. Security for Israel is vitally important. It is very important for neighboring countries too. Through its history, Israel used to be more aware of security issues than its Arab partners, still under the influence of the Arab Israeli wars. Furthermore, Israeli political and security thinking is still captive to the fears of potential wars that threatens Israelis existence and expose the Israeli community to psychological violence. On the Arab side, the aftermath of war still forms vital elements in the concept of security.