Multilateral security in the Mediterranean post-Cold War: NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue and the EuroMed Partnership. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 7 No. 10 May 2007

[From the introduction]. In this paper I will compare and contrast how the multilateral efforts in terms of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue (“Dialogue”) program, involving i.a. U.S. interests in the Mediterranean, and the European Union’s (“EU”) EuroMed Partnership as the EU’s European Neighborhood Policy’s main approach to its Mediterranean neighbors (3) have affected Mediterranean security post-Cold War. This study takes place at the system level of analysis, exploring both bilateral and regional issues and interactions, including those of institutional and non-governmental actors (NGOs) (Neak 2003, 12). This paper takes a constructivist approach and, although acknowledging aspects of realism inherent in it such as rational actors (4), by contrasting the hard power and soft power approaches in the institutional analysis (in order to understand the history, culture and institutional dynamics post-Cold War) of the EMP and the Dialogue. Klotz and Lynch (2007, 3) write: The end of the Cold War shattered stable antagonisms and alliances… This destabilization widened the political and intellectual spaces - and increased the need – for scholars to ask questions about the cultural bases of conflict, alternative conceptions of national identity, [and] the ethics of intervention… Individuals and groups are not only shaped by their world but can also change it. People can … set into motion new normative, cultural, economic, social, or political practices that alter conventional wisdoms and standard operating procedures

Combining social network analysis and the NATO Approach Space to define agility. Topic 2: networks and networking

This paper takes the NATO SAS-050 Approach Space, a widely accepted model of command and control, and gives each of its primary axes a quantitative measure using social network analysis. This means that the actual point in the approach space adopted by real-life command and control organizations can be plotted along with the way in which that point varies over time and function. Part 1 of the paper presents the rationale behind this innovation and how it was subject to verification using theoretical data. Part 2 shows how the enhanced approach space was put to use in the context of a large scale military command post exercise. Agility is represented by the number of distinct areas in the approach space that the organization was able to occupy and there was a marked disparity between where the organization thought it should be and where it actually was, furthermore, agility varied across function. The humans in this particular scenario bestowed upon the organization the levels of agility that were observed, thus the findings are properly considered from a socio-technical perspective

Vortex of a Regional Security Complex: The EuroMed Partnership and its Security Relevance. EUMA Papers, Vol. 5, No. 11 May 2008

[From the introduction]. Studying the Mediterranean as a geo-political region, Pace (2003, 161) states that “the study of regions must in some way include the study of meaning and identity”. Other authors, such as Shamsaddin Megalommatis (2007) are of the opinion that, pertaining to the Arabic and Islamic neighbors of the EU, only Turkey and Iran matter at all. In this paper I seek to assess security-related dynamics in the EuroMed Partnership (EMP). To re-think the Mediterranean region (Euro-Med) in a relational, political context, Pace (2003, 161) suggests focusing on agency and structure in the analysis of the “processual” (emphasis mine) aspects of region making. This paper focuses on the Euro-Mediterranean region and the role of the European Union (EU) and its southern Mediterranean neighbors in “constructing” this space, and hereby giving it meaning, as well as potentially leading to reciprocal “re-construction” of their self-identity in the context of a potential Euro-Mediterranean Regional Security Complex (EMRSC). This would contrast with the Middle Eastern Regional Security Complex (MERSC) which Buzan and Waever (2003) had suggested, but rather this paper suggests a slight theoretical shift to Buzan and Waever’s Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT)

The Cold Peace: Russo-Western Relations as a Mimetic Cold War

In 1989–1991 the geo-ideological contestation between two blocs was swept away, together with the ideology of civil war and its concomitant Cold War played out on the larger stage. Paradoxically, while the domestic sources of Cold War confrontation have been transcended, its external manifestations remain in the form of a ‘legacy’ geopolitical contest between the dominant hegemonic power (the United States) and a number of potential rising great powers, of which Russia is one. The post-revolutionary era is thus one of a ‘cold peace’. A cold peace is a mimetic cold war. In other words, while a cold war accepts the logic of conflict in the international system and between certain protagonists in particular, a cold peace reproduces the behavioural patterns of a cold war but suppresses acceptance of the logic of behaviour. A cold peace is accompanied by a singular stress on notions of victimhood for some and undigested and bitter victory for others. The perceived victim status of one set of actors provides the seedbed for renewed conflict, while the ‘victory’ of the others cannot be consolidated in some sort of relatively unchallenged post-conflict order. The ‘universalism’ of the victors is now challenged by Russia's neo-revisionist policy, including not so much the defence of Westphalian notions of sovereignty but the espousal of an international system with room for multiple systems (the Schmittean pluriverse)

The myth of 'the myth of Irish neutrality': deconstructing concepts of Irish neutrality using international relations theories

A number of academics, journalists and political elites claim that Irish neutrality is a 'myth', and many also characterise public support for Irish neutrality as 'confused' and 'nonrational'. This 'unneutral' discourse in the academic literature and mainstream Irish media is based on an academic thesis, that of an Unneutral Ireland. The Unneutral thesis constructs a particular concept of neutrality in order to draw its conclusion that Ireland is 'unneutral'. Using a poststructuralist approach--a rarity in the discipline of International Relations (IR)--this paper deconstructs concepts of Irish neutrality using a framework of IR theories. The results show that the concept of neutrality put forward in the Unneutral Ireland thesis and the dominant discourses on Irish neutrality are based on a hegemonic IR theory, the theory of neorealism, rather than on seemingly 'objective' scientific research methods. The paper concludes that non-realist theories and approaches may provide a better understanding of Irish neutrality and of the dynamics of public support for Irish neutrality

COIN is dead - long live transformation

Donald Rumsfeld was right. Force transformation works. The techniques that led to the initial victories in Afghanistan in 2001 were precisely those that produced success in Libya in 2011.1 Small-scale deployments of special forces backed by precision strike and deep attack capabilities used to support an allied indigenous armed group proved an effective military tool for achieving specific strategic outcomes. In contrast, the results of large-scale troop deploy- ments as part of counterinsurgency (COIN), stabilization and nation-building activities over the past ten years in Iraq and Afghanistan have been less defini- tive. Despite intensive investment in blood, treasure, and military effort, the precise long-term outcomes of these two campaigns remain unclear and will be open to debate for years to come. This challenging operational experience has, however, highlighted some necessary and enduring truths about the use of military force. This paper explores those in light of the last ten years of counterinsurgenc

American hegemony or global governance? Competing visions of international security

An overview is given of two competing visions of contemporary international security: United States hegemony and security governance. According to these perspectives, the current generation is either witnessing the return to classical balance-of-power politics, in which the US as the sole surviving superpower can impose hegemonic or imperialist policies upon other nations, or the continuation of a new era of security governance that began after the end of the Cold War. To better understand these two visions, an attempt is made to clarify the concepts of hegemony and security governance and the hypotheses linked to these two approaches. Specifically, it is illustrated why the policies of the US since September 11 might not only be perceived as hegemonic, but also as imperialist within the context of neorealist theorizing