iiss newsletter september 2010

8/8/2019 IISS Newsletter September 2010

1/20

IISSnews Sept. 2010

More than 300 ministers, diplomats, defenceand military professionals, leading strategists,opinion-formers and business representativesfrom over 40 countries assembled in Genevaon 1012 September for the 8th Annual IISSGlobal Strategic Review (GSR). The GSR eachyear gives expression to the research agenda of

the IISS, addressing the forces shaping strategicchange. Plenary speeches can be read in full atwww.iiss.org

Convened under the rubric Global SecurityGovernance and the Emerging Distribution ofPower, the 2010 GSR evaluated an evolving dis-

pensation in which established Western powers aredisplaying signs of stress, while emerging powers,driven by economic dynamism and a greater self-consciousness, are seeking a fuller place on theworld stage for themselves. At issue in powertransitions is the coherence of the internationalsystem. In his remarks to formally open the GSR,

IISS Director General Dr John Chipman noted theInstitutes assessment, given in its recently pub-lished Strategic Survey 2010 , that while the nancialcrisis beginning in 2008 initially inspired a glob-ally coordinated inter-governmental response tostave o a potential catastrophe, this solidarity had

since fragmented into economic particularism. Asin the geo-economic domain, so in the geo-strategicrealm: the stu ering of large strategic projects became apparent in 2010, and countries beganto focus more clearly on their parochial interests.While the immediate risk of protectionism in theeconomic realm has so far been averted, Chipmansaid, strategic protectionism appears on the rise asmore countries de ne their national interests moreprecisely and act accordingly.

The Opening Keynote Address, on the sub- ject Power Shifts and Security, was given by DrHenry A. Kissinger, former US Secretary of State

Glo al Strategic Revie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

K e y A d d r e s s e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Non proliferation and Disarmament. . . . . . . . . 3

IISS Focus on Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Pu lications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

S o u t h A s i a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

R u s s i a E u r a s i a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Transnational Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Defence and Mili tary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

IISS US. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

I I S S A s i a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

IISS Middle East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

The 8 th IISS Global Strategic ReviewGlobal Security Governance and the EmergingDistribution o Power, Geneva, 1012 September 2010

(lr) Dr Henry A. Kissinger,Dr John Chipman andPro Franois Heisbourg


2/20

2 | SEPTEMbER IISS NEwS

GLObAL STRATEGIC REVIEw

and National Security Adviser. Kissinger notedthat where once the US-Soviet rivalry provideda single fault-line around which strategy couldcoherently be formulated and organised, nocomparable circumstances prevailed today. Thedominant trend was a shift in strategic gravityfrom the Atlantic to the Paci c and Indian Oceans.But across regions, powers were being animated by di ering impulses.

In Europe, unity had been achieved in a com-plicated process that diminished the centralityof the sovereign state and involved changes inperceptions of the legitimate exercise of nationalpower. Public commitment to the sovereign statehad not been replaced, but it had become more dif-

cult to frame policies in terms of national securityand the use of force for speci c strategic objectiveswhen needed. A di erent a itude towards strat-egy existed in Asia, Kissinger said. There majorcountries are emerging into con dent nationhood,and the term national interest has no pejorativeimplication. China had articulated non-negotiablecore interests for which it is prepared to ght,while India had shown a propensity for strategicanalysis more comparable to 19th century and early20th century Europe than the dominant trends inEurope today. The concept of collective securitywas hard to apply in such circumstances.

Nuclear proliferation provided a case in point.Like the US and Europe, Russia and China hadno interest in a nuclear Iran and North Korea, butthey founded their policies on wider political cal-culations. Seeing risks in confrontation, they onlyentertained actions that stopped short of e ec-tiveness in halting proliferation. In this manner,Kissinger said, collective security begins to under-mine itself. Years of UN-backed negotiations with

Iran and North Korea had produced no signi cantresults, or at least no results relevant to the reso-lution of the problem. They had instead becomea method by which proliferators gained time.Negotiations on proliferation and sanctions cometo be de ned by their a ainability, not by theirconsequences or results, Kissinger argued. Thepassage of a Resolution is treated as an achieve-ment, not its impact on the problem it is tryingto resolve. Warning that time is not neutral,Kissinger remarked that the present drift would bring the international system to the point of decid-ing whether it wants to take decisive measures thatwill, in a nite period, resolve the problem or livein a proliferated world, running the risk of nuclearwar becoming an accepted pa ern.

Some of the cracks in the global system,Kissinger said, had been obscured by the domi-nant role of the United States. The scope for thiswas shrinking, however. Any future militaryengagements by the US would need to be foundedon clear objectives de ned by their a ainabilityand related to timeframes that domestic politicalprocesses can cope with: wars will be risked pri-marily for speci c outcomes, not for abstractions,Kissinger said. This trend would be reinforced bythe climate of economic stringency.

While the US remained the strongest singlepower and an indispensable component of anycollective security system, however de ned, itwould henceforth have to share the responsibil-ity for global order with emerging power centres.But Kissinger did not believe in the compartmen-talisation of the international order into a system ofregional hegemons: the US could not be excludedfrom East Asia, just as India and China could not be excluded from the Middle East; and promi-

Dr Henry A. Kissinger, ormer US Secretary o State and National Security Adviser

nent international challenges linked to energy andenvironment could not be regionally delimited.What was required in some areas was a functionalapproach to world order, something betweena globalised approach and a regional approach.Taking the case of Afghanistan, Kissinger noted

that all of the neighbouring states had more vitalinterests in a stable and coherent Afghan state thandid the US. But there was no correlation betweeninterests and commitment of resources to the objec-tive. An essentially unilateral US role, Kissingerargued, was unsustainable: the long-term solutionmust involve a consortium of countries in de ning,and then protecting and guaranteeing, a de ni-tion of status for Afghanistan compatible with thepeace of the world.

A number of these topics were revisited inthe First Plenary Session, held on 11 September,in a presentation given by US Deputy Secretaryof State James B. Steinberg under the theme TheUnited States: Visions of Global Order. TheObama administrations foreign policy, Steinbergexplained, was animated by two strategic prem-ises: rstly, changes in the last two decades hadplaced a premium on mobilising cooperation torespond to shared opportunities and threats; and,secondly, that this could not be achieved withoutstrong US leadership. At issue was how this lead-ership was to be accomplished at a time whenAmerican capacities were openly being doubted,and how a commonality of interest among statescould be transmuted into commonality of action.

The answer contained a number of elements.The rst was to place continuing importance onUS strategic partnerships and alliances, and toencourage their durability and adaptation tocircumstances much changed from those thatinspired them. The second entailed the buildingof new cooperative relations with India, Russiaand China, and other sizeable powers such asBrazil, Indonesia and Turkey. But a US strategytowards rising powers, Steinberg argued, wouldneed to be conceived more broadly. The US wouldwork to strengthen regional multilateral architec-tures and international institutions into which bilateral relationships could be embedded. More

exible and nimble institutions, and in some casesmore representative ones, were needed. Strongerand more concerted international institutionalresponses were also demanded by climate change,the opening up of Arctic resources, and nuclearproliferation. American commitment to the twinpillars of global cooperation and US leader-ship had moved important agendas forward:ultimately, the decision to reinvigorate globalcooperation is not ours alone. But Americasactions can powerfully shape the choices thatothers face.


3/20

IISS NEwS SEPTEMbER | 3


In the Second Plenary Session, entitledSecurity Systems and Institutions: RegionalPerspectives, a ention was turned to Brazil,India and the European Union. AmbassadorCelso Amorim, Foreign Minister of Brazil, saidSouth America was de ned by a new level ofself-esteem and self-assertion, and by alteredrelationships with interested external powersand the wider world. Much of this was driven by economic trends. In Brazils case, the impor-tance of the United States as an export markethad declined and been eclipsed by China.Within South America, Brazil had become anincreasingly important trading partner to itsneighbours. For all its imperfections, Amorim

argued, Mercosur would further encourageregional trade and investment integration.

The search for regional economic initiatives had been accompanied by greater activism by SouthAmerican states in a empting to mediate andresolve their own security problems. The Union of

South American Nations (UNASUR) had playedan important role in addressing recent con ictsand tensions between Ecuador and Colombia and between Venezuela and Colombia. External inter-vention had not been required: The more SouthAmerica is left to itself, the greater its chances of

nding peaceful solutions to its problems. ButSouth America could be treated by others as a newsource of economic and political support to dealwith challenges further a eld. Brazil was inter-esting itself in the regional security of the MiddleEast, notably in a empting to break the impasse innegotiations over Irans nuclear programme. Asnon-permanent members of the Security Council,Amorim said, we feel a responsibility to help inworld peace, and not only to vote on what otherspropose.

Representing Indian Foreign SecretaryNirupama Rao at short notice, Ambassador Jayant Prasad, Special Secretary of the Ministryof External A airs, said it was inevitable that thealtered geostrategic balance would impact exist-ing security systems and global institutions,into which emerging powers needed to be morecompletely included. In Asia, a new security archi-tecture was evolving and India intended to play afull part in shaping it. He foresaw a number of pos-sible features. Common interest in open maritimetrade routes, for example, made it conceivable thata concert of powers might in time manage mari-

time security in Asia. The heterogeneity of Asianpowers, meanwhile, created a natural dispositiontowards multi-polarity, making it di cult for anyone power to impose its will on the entire region.

Javier Solana, former European Union HighRepresentative for Common Foreign and Security

Policy, described Europe as a permanent power.The passage of the Lisbon Treaty with its provi-sions for a more coordinated and be er resourcedforeign policy apparatus had opened up furtherscope for the EU as an actor in global security.He anticipated signi cant e orts to stabilise theEurozone and restore prospects for economicgrowth in Europe. There was an opportunity forthe EU and NATO to engage Russia in a seriousdiscussion concerning Europes security architec-ture.

The Third Plenary Session was devoted to TheEvolving State/Non-State Nexus in internationalsecurity a airs, bringing a new dimension towhat had been a largely state-centric approach todiscussions. Two case studies were analysed: theRevolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)and the relationships between Hizbullah, Iranand Syria. The rst case was addressed by NigelInkster, Director for Transnational Threats andPolitical Risk at the IISS. Inkster described how,for the last decade, FARC had pursued a strategyof securing external support for its aim of over-throwing the Colombian government. Since theaccession to power of President Hugo Chvez in1999, Venezuela had evolved an o cial policy ofstate support for FARC, with this taking the formof safe havens in Venezuelan territory and otherforms of aid in kind, if not in cash. In the contextof military setbacks, continued Venezuelan sup-

James B. Steinberg, US Deputy Secretary o State

Ambassador Celso Amorim, Minister o External Relationso Brazil

Ambassador Jayant Prasad, Special Secretary, Ministry o External A airs, India

Javier Solana, ormer European Union HighRepresentative or Common Foreign and Security Policy


4/20



port for FARC constitutes a moral boost which isencouraging the organisation to persist in its objec-tive of securing a military victory and discouragingit from thinking of serious engagement in a politi-cally negotiated solution.

In contrast to FARCs dependence on Venezuela,Emile Hokayem, Senior Fellow for RegionalSecurity based in the IISSMiddle East O ce inthe Kingdom of Bahrain, noted that Hizbullah hadevolved beyond a proxy relationship to Iran andSyria. A complex triangular relationship had nowemerged in which Hizbullah has become a partnerwith considerable clout and autonomy in an alli-ance. It was misguided to think, however, that thisloosening provided scope for the West and partsof the Arab world to break the alliance. The alli-ance was seen by all of its members as providingstrategic depth.

The GSR then divided into 14 o -the-record breakout groups, each designed to examine a par-ticular policy question. Breakout Group 1, chaired by Dr Bastian Giegerich, Senior Researcher at

the Bundeswehr Institute for Social Sciences,was entitled The EU after the Lisbon Treaty: ACredible Global Security Actor?. The sessionfeatured presentations from Vladimir Voronkov,Director for All-European Cooperation, Ministryof Foreign A airs, Russian Federation; PhilipStephens, Associate Editor of the Financial Times;Professor Lanxin Xiang, Graduate Institute ofInternational and Development Studies Geneva;and Ambassador Pierre Morel, EU SpecialRepresentative for Central Asia and EU SpecialRepresentative for the Crisis in Georgia.

It was pointed out that the demands of imple-menting the Lisbon Treaty provisions, such asthe creation of an EU External Action Service,will continue to consume considerable energy.Observers from outside the EU pointed to the posi-tive example of European integration as proof thatstates can overcome their di erences. From this,it was argued, the EU draws considerable norma-tive power in international a airs. Other speakers,however, pointed out that European soft power

would not be leveraged e ectively if it were not backed up by credible and proven military capac-ity. Here, some participants feared, Europe wasentering a period of strategic retreat in light of budget constraints and decreasing public appetitefor defence expenditure.

Breakout Group 2 asked Does India havea Grand Strategy?. The three panellists Ambassador Shyam Saran, Senior Fellow at theCentre for Policy Research and former ForeignSecretary of India, Ambassador Robert D.Blackwill; Senior Fellow at the Council on ForeignRelations and former US Ambassador to India;and Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, Senior Fellow forSouth Asia at the IISS were chaired by Sir HilarySynno , Consulting Senior Fellow at the IISS.

Responses to the question depended some-what upon de nitions of terms. At one level, Indianeeded and indeed possessed such a strategy, evenif it appeared opaque. It centred on the expansionof Indias strategic space, the management of itsperiphery and ensuring that it had su cient capa-

(lr): Nigel Inkster, Director o Transnational Threats and Political Risk, IISS; Adam Ward, Director o Studies, IISS; and Emile Hokayem, Senior Fellow or Regional Security, IISSMiddleEast

Group 1: The EU a ter the Lisbon Treaty: a credible global security actor? (lr) Pro . Lanxin Xiang, Pro essor o International History and Politics, Graduate Institute o International andDevelopment Studies, Geneva; Vladimir Voronkov, Director or All-European Cooperation, Ministry o Foreign A airs, Russian Federation; Philip Stephens, Associate Editor,Financial Times; Pierre Morel, EU Special Representative to Central Asia, Council o the European Union; and Dr Bastian Giegerich, Senior Researcher, Bundeswehr Institute or Social Sciences


5/20



bility to maintain accessibility of the seas aroundit. It took into account that, as a still developingcountry, India was both a contributor and a deman-deur. There were strategies for most of Indiaskey interests, such as poverty alleviation, internalinsurgencies, and relations with China and the US, but strategy in relation to Pakistan was less focused(others suggested that these were in practice con-ducted with moderation and relative restraint).Another view was that India had not articulated agrand strategy lest it be misunderstood or provokeopposition.

Breakout Group 3 carried the title Is Indonesiaoutgrowing ASEAN?. It was chaired by DrTim Huxley, Executive Director, IISSAsia; andDirector for Defence and Military Analysis.Presentations were given by Ambassador DianTriansyah Djani, Permanent Representative ofIndonensia to the UN; Barry Desker, Dean of theS. Rajarantnam School of International Studies,Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; andAndrew Shearer, Director of Studies at the LowyInstitute for International Policy in Sydney.

The group heard that Indonesias impressiverecovery from many of the problems that had

seemingly threatened its national cohesion fol-lowing the Asian nancial crisis of 199798 andthe ouster of President Suharto, combined withthe challenges posed by a regional distributionof power, raised questions about this emergingpowers continued reliance on the Association ofSoutheast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as the mainmultilateral platform for protecting and advanc-ing Jakartas interests. One alternative possibilitythat has been suggested is a putative grouping ofthe Asia-Paci c regions key middle powers, link-ing Indonesia with Australia and the Republic ofKorea. However, some speakers in the sessiontook issue with the idea that Indonesia was out-growing ASEAN. Nevertheless, it was clear thatASEAN needed quickly to develop its politicaland security cooperation in order to accommodatethe interests of Indonesia, which was becomingincreasingly assertive within the Association as itssuccess in managing diverse internal challengeswas re ected in growing international con dence.There was broad agreement that within the G20and other global forums Jakarta is likely to advo-cate positions re ecting the broadly-de nedinterests of ASEAN.

Chaired by IISS Senior Fellow for Non-proliferation Mark Fi patrick, Breakout Group 4on Iran, the US and the future of the Middle Eastserved as a pre-launch event for The Sixth Crisis , asoon-to-be published book on the Iranian nuclearcrisis and the US and Israeli response by Dr DanaAllin, IISS Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy andTransatlantic A airs and Editor of Survival , andSteven Simon, Adjunct Senior Fellow for MiddleEastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.Among other propositions explored in the book werethat US e orts to re-cast relations with the Muslimworld, to engage Iran, and to entice Israel to removethe Palestine problem from the Iran equation havenot proven successful. This leaves containment anddeterrence policies as the fall-back options, thoughquestions were raised about whether this was a dis-guise for appeasement, what might trigger a militaryresponse, and whether game-changing engagementhas really been tried. The real crisis, in which Israelhas to decide whether to strike, may not come before2012, but in the words of one speaker, Irans nuclearprogramme is a time bomb.

Joining Allin and Simon on the panel, EmileHokayem, Senior Fellow for Regional Security at

Group 2: Does India have a grand strategy? (lr) Ambassador Shyam Saran, Centre or Policy Research and Former Foreign Secretary o India; Ambassador Robert D. Blackwill, HenryA. Kissinger Senior Fellow or US Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations; Rahul Roy-Chaudhury; Senior Fellow or South Asia, IISS; and Sir Hilary Synnott, ConsultingSenior Fellow, IISS

Group 3: Is Indonesia outgrowing ASEAN? (lr) Ambassador Dian Triansyah Djani, Permanent Representative o Indonesia to the UN; Barry Desker, Dean, S. Rajaratnam Schoolo International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; Andrew Shearer, Director o Studies, Lowy Institute or International Policy; and Dr Tim Huxley, ExecutiveDirector, IISSAsia


6/20



the IISSMiddle East o ce o ered perspectiveson the regional response and Dr Ariel Levite, NonResident Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowmentfor International Peace, spoke about Irans capabilities, strategic contours and the diplomaticfront. It was suggested that Iran has been accordeda greater strategic standing than is warranted hence the need for right-sizing. The region may be able to live with a nuclear-capable Iran, if deter-rent strategies are in place to respond to breakout.The credibility of containment is undermined,however, by failure to challenge Irans supportfor Hizbullah. Regardless of whether Iran buildsnuclear weapons, the US will have to rely on a con-tainment policy.

Breakout Group 5 addressed the question Howcan a South American Security System be Built?.It was noted that the region is unable to addresssubtle modes of regime decay and their conse-quences for the security of neighbours. Nor hadthe region developed e ective shared responses totransnational security problems. South Americancountries have historically seen the existence ofmultilateral institutions and agreements as impor-

tant, but too seldom sought to ensure that theseactually ful l their intended functions. E ectiveregional security management required that extra-regional powers play a constructive role. Thissession was chaired by James Lockhart Smith, IISSResearch Associate, and featured presentationsfrom IISS Director General Dr John Chipman andDr David Mares of the University of California atSan Diego.

Breakout Group 6 Towards a NewFramework for the South Caucasus? waschaired by Oksana Antonenko, IISS Senior Fellowfor Russia and Eurasia, with presentations deliv-ered by Peter Semneby, EU Special Representativefor the South Caucasus, Archil Gegeshidze, SeniorFellow at the Georgian Foundation for Strategicand International Studies and Ambassador CareyCavanaugh, Director of the Pa erson School ofDiplomacy, University of Kentucky. Obstacles aswell as opportunities for a new framework for theSouth Caucasus were explored. The region hadtraditionally been viewed by interested powersthrough the prism of a zero-sum geopoliticalcontest. Con icts straddled key strategic com-

munication routes and made for closed bordersinstead of the valuable transit function the regionhas historically performed. Outsiders such as theEU faced a dilemma in deciding whether to treatthe three South Caucasus states collectively, or topursue multi-speed forms of bilateral cooperationwhich might inhibit the growth of regionalism.The militarisation of the region was growing, withthe arms race between Azerbaijan and Armeniaraising concerns over an escalation of NagornoKharabakh con ict. It seemed that prospects forthe South Caucasus are increasingly linked toother regional developments, such as growinginstability in the North Caucasus, the risk of acon ict over Irans nuclear programme and thetransformation of Turkeys relations with the Westand Russia.

Breakout Group 7, chaired by IISS ConsultingSenior Fellow for the Middle East and SouthAsia Michael Crawford, dealt with the subjectRecalibrating International Law for 21st CenturyInternational Security Challenges. The threespeakers were Jonathan Sumption QC, Joint Head,Brick Court Chambers; Jami Miscik, Presidentand Vice Chairman, Kissinger Associates, andProfessor Steven Haines of the Geneva Centre forSecurity Policy.

The group identi ed various areas of presentdi culty for practitioners of international a airs:the growing number and in uence of politicalnon-state actors, a limbo world of unrecognisednear-states such as Somaliland or Gaza, ungov-erned space, and the increasingly unreal distinction between war, to which the law of armed con ictor international humanitarian law applied, andpeace.

International law was itself in a state of ux,with a changing balance between positivist andnatural law outlooks and the rapid developmentof human-rights law. Natural law was reassert-ing itself, and human-rights law, which had

Group 5: How can a South American security system be built? (lr) Dr David Mares, Pro essor, Political Science andDirector, Center or Iberian and Latin American Studies, University o Cali ornia, San Diego; Dr John Chipman, Director-General and Chie Executive, IISS; and James Lockhart-Smith, Research Associate, IISS

Group 4: Iran, the US and the uture o the Middle East (lr) Emile Hokayem, Senior Fellow or Regional Security, IISSMiddle East; Steven Simon, Adjunct Senior Fellow or MiddleEastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations; Mark Fitzpatrick, Senior Fellow or Non-proli eration, IISS; Dr Dana Allin, Senior Fellow or US Foreign Policy and Transatlantic A airs;Editor o Survival , IISS; and Dr Ariel Levite, Non Resident Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment or International Peace


7/20



application. It was inevitable that international lawwould lag behind developments because it was based on yesterdays norms. It was also foundedon consent and lack of consensual support was apolitical, not a legal, issue. The invasion of Iraq hadset back the development of an international con-sensus by some years. There were precedents inthe treatment of non-state actors but international

barely existed before 1945 and which belongedto peacetime law, was intruding into areas pre-viously regarded as governed exclusively bythe Law of Armed Con ict. Because of hybridwarfare and anomalous near-states the distinc-tion between international and non-internationalarmed con icts was also breaking down, leadingto di culties of categorisation and uncertainty of

Group 7: Calibrating International law or 21st-century international security challenges (lr) Pro Steven Haines, Head, Security and Law Programme, Geneva Centre or SecuirtyPolicy; Michael Craw ord, Consulting Senior Fellow or the Middle East and South Asia, IISS; Jami Miscik, President and Vice Chairman, Kissinger Associates Inc.; and JonathanSumption QC, Joint Head, Brick Court Chambers

Group 6: Towards a new ramework or the South Caucasus? (lr) Dr Archil Gegeshidze, Senior Fellow, Georgian Foundation or Strategic and International Studies; OksanaAntonenko, Senior Fellow or Russia and Eurasia, IISS; Peter Semneby, EU Special Representative or the South Caucasus; and Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh, Director, PattersonSchool o Diplomacy, University o Kentucky

law did not deal adequately with the implosion ofstates. Often the only way to achieve normativein uence over non-state actors was through juris-diction over individuals through tribunals but fewwere brought to account. Private military compa-nies were likely to be a growing issue.

There might or might not be something newabout the issues of today but for policymakers, mili-

Group 8: Can US global leadership be sustained? (lr) Pro . Erik Jones, Pro essor o European Studies, SAIS Bolgna Center, Johns Hopkins University; Dr Dana Allin, Senior Fellow orUS Foreign Policy and Transatlantic A airs; Editor o Survival , IISS; Pro . Franois Heisbourg, Chairman, IISS; and Ellen Laipson, President and CEO, Henry L. Stimson Center


8/20



tary commanders and practitioners in internationala airs the law was at the centre of the equation andno longer peripheral. It was not obvious by whatmechanism modernisation of international lawcould occur in the short term, although ultimatelythe answer was probably codi cation.

Breakout Group 8 entitled Can US Leadership be Sustained? was chaired by IISS ChairmanFranois Heisbourg. It provided a platform formembers to discuss an Adelphi book in progresson the nature and future evolution of Americasglobal role. The lead panellists were the booksco-authors Dana Allin, Editor of Survival as wellas IISS Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy andTransatlantic A airs, and Erik Jones, Professor ofEuropean Studies at the SAIS-Bologna Center ofthe Johns Hopkins University. The third panellistwas IISS Council Member Ellen Laipson, CEO ofthe Stimson Center.

The discussion revolved around three ques-tions. Firstly, if there are natural cycles to USforeign policy, is it reasonable to conclude thatPresident Obama represents a sharp Realistreaction to the Wilsonian cycle that started withPresident Jimmy Carter and reached its apogee in

President George W. Bush? There was generalagreement that the pendulum swing from Bushto Obama was particularly dramatic. Secondly,what are the relevant metrics of national power?US military power was hardly in dispute andthere was no real challenger on the horizon. Onthe other hand, the metric of economic powerinvites re ections on the seriousness of the cur-rent economic crisis as well as the observation thatin terms of its physical infrastructure, Americalooks shabby. On the metric of soft power, therewas a lively debate about whether leadership isa properly de ned or understood term. Finally,there was question of how the current polarizationand political gridlock in the United States a ectsits ability to act upon the world stage in a coher-ent fashion. Here there was a sharp disagreement.One participant argued forcefully that the current bi erness was no worse, and possibly be er, thanthe 1960s and 1970s, with riotous war protesters,cities on re, and two presidents destroyed bythe war. Others countered that, even if Americanstreets were calm, the political elites were dividedto a degree that is both dysfunctional and unprec-edented.

Yemen, Somalia and Beyond: State Building asCounter-terrorism was the title of Breakout Group9, chaired by IISS Consulting Senior Fellow RobertWhalley. The speakers were Clare Lockhart, Directorof the Institute for State E ectiveness; Gregory Johnsen, of the Near Eastern Studies Department atPrinceton University; and Ken Menkhaus, Professorof Political Science at Davidson College, NorthCarolina. The main point for analysis was the extentto which conventional concepts of state-buildingwere sustainable. One speaker estimated that thee ective sovereignty of up to 60 states was understress in some form. Another assessed Yemen to be on the brink of disaster as a result of resourceshortages, depletion of oil reserves, populationexplosion and crumbling infrastructure. Politicalfragmentation gave fertile ground for al-Qaeda toexploit. Across the Gulf of Aden in Somalia a similarpa ern of complete state collapse could be found,partly as a result of heavy al-Qaeda in uence overmany years, compounded by fear of central regimesand distrust of a empts to create a state on a modelwhich had proved insu ciently exible to meeteconomic and social demands similar to those inYemen.

Group 10: Has Turkey rejoined the Middle East? (lr) Dr Henri Barkey, Bernard L. and Bertha F. Cohen Pro essor or International Relations, Lehigh University; Kemal Kaya, SeniorFellow, Institute or Security and Development, Sweden; Karabekir Akkonyunlu, Department o Government, London School o Economics; and Dr Andrew Parasiliti, ExecutiveDirector, IISSUS; Corresponding Director, IISSMiddle East

Group 9: Yemen, Somalia and beyond: statebuilding as counter-terrorism (lr) Gregory Johnsen, Near Eastern Studies Department, Princeton University; Dr Ken Menkhaus,Pro essor o Political Science, Davidson College; Robert Whalley, Consulting Senior Fellow, IISS; and Clare Lockhart, Director, Institute or State E ectiveness


9/20



was pointed out that regional powers are likelyto continue to see potential inter-state con ict asthe proper basis for planning future air capability.Nevertheless, the Iraqi and Afghan con icts haveaccelerated the development of unmanned aerialvehicles. Major air powers will almost certainly

deploy heavily-armed unmanned combat aerialvehicles in the future, though it is still unclearto what extent they will replace manned combataircraft. For developed states navies, the keyquestion is how to reconcile fewer ships and otherassets with the likelihood of needing to respondto international crises at least as often as in recentyears. Greater interoperability (as foreshadowedin the Gulf of Aden counter-piracy operations)and capacity-building in support of smallernavies o er potential partial solutions.

Breakout Group 12 focused on Addressing theDrugs Trade as an International Security Threat.It was chaired by Nigel Inkster, IISS Director ofTransnational Threats and Political Risk, and fea-tured presentations by Daniel Rico Valencia, formerAdviser to the Colombian Defence Ministry onCounter-narcotics Policies, and Rob Wainwright,Director, Europol.

The security threat posed by the drugs tradewas seen as growing in terms of scale and com-plexity, resulting in a greater detrimental impacton society and highlighting the need for be erinternational cooperation at both policy and lawenforcement levels. The EU represents an a uentmarket for narcotics dealers where 30 million outof 500m inhabitants use drugs and many more area ected by the criminal activities related to the nar-cotics trade. Indeed, the harm is in many instancesgreater than European governments admit. Thisreluctance to acknowledge the true extent of thedamage results in weak policy direction at the EUlevel. Nonetheless, the Lisbon Treaty set a basisfor be er cohesion and there was now hope formore e ective operational cooperation in the near

speakers were Douglas Barrie, Senior Fellow forMilitary Aerospace; Christian Le Mire, ResearchFellow for Naval Forces and Maritime Security;and Brigadier Benjamin Barry, Senior Fellow forLand Warfare.

The group heard that, against a backgroundof considerable cuts in many developed statesdefence budgets, crucial to the development ofmilitary capabilities will be political and mili-tary judgements on whether counter-insurgencycampaigns such as that now being waged inAfghanistan are characteristic of future war-fare. The perspective of land warfare specialistsemphasises the lessons of recent unconventionalcon icts in Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere aswell as Afghanistan, the renaissance of infantry,the need for be er protection for deployed landforces in the face of improvised explosive devicesas well as rockets, mortars and artillery, andpersonnel-related issues. The air power viewpoint,though, expressed concern that overdrawingthe lessons of recent counter-insurgency mightlead to distorted force structures in the UnitedStates and other Western armed forces, and it

Discussion focused on alternative modelswhich might prove more successful. There wasmuch to be said for seeking to create minimaliststates under which political power and resourceswere dispersed to local groupings and entitiesthat might be be er able to deliver services on theground. While there were dangers in rewardingor encouraging local warlords, there seemed li leprospect that conventional political and admin-istrative structures would be able to meet therapidly growing demands of impoverished popu-lations, let alone a ain su cient strength to enablepowerful terrorist movements or franchises to bemarginalised or defeated.

Breakout Group 10 asked Has TurkeyRejoined the Middle East?. Panellists includedDr Henri Barkey, Bernard L. and Bertha F. CohenProfessor, Department of International Relations,Lehigh University, and Visiting Scholar, CarnegieEndowment for International Peace; KemalKaya, Senior Fellow, Institute for Security andDevelopment Policy (Sweden); and KarabekirAkkoyunlu, Department of Government, LondonSchool of Economics, and freelance journalist. DrAndrew Parasiliti, Executive Director, IISSUS, andCorresponding Director, IISSMiddle East, moder-ated the panel. The group analysed and discussedthe rise of the Anatolian Tigers, the new Turkish business elites; the primacy of export markets inTurkish foreign policy; Turkeys relationships withIraq, Iran, Israel and the United States; the evolu-tion of AK Party and its thinking about the MiddleEast; and the linkages between Turkish domesticpolitics and foreign policy.

Breakout Group 11 on Military Capabilities:New Trends in Sea, Land and Air Power, pro-vided an opportunity for recently-appointed seniorresearch sta from the Institutes new Defence andMilitary Analysis Programme to provide assess-ments of key contemporary trends in militarycapabilities within their spheres of expertise. The

Group 11: Military capabilities: new trends in sea, land and air power (lr) Douglas Barrie, Senior Fellow or MilitaryAerospace, IISS; Brigadier Benjamin Barry, Senior Fellow or Land War are Designate, IISS; Christian Le Mire, ResearchFellow or Naval Forces and Maritime Security, IISS

Group 12: Addressing the drugs trade as an international security threat (lr) Rob Wainwright, Director, Europol;Nigel Inkster, Director o Transnational Threats and Political Risk, IISS; and Daniel Rico Valencia, ormer Adviser to theColombian De ence Ministry on Counter-narcotics Policies


10/20



future, including agreements between the EU andLatin American and West African countries.

The problems a ecting drug producer and tran-sit countries are di erent. They usually involve ahigh level of violence made possible by the lack ofwell-funded and adequately trained police forces.Introducing measures such as legalisation in con-sumer countries was unlikely to have a positiveimpact on producer areas for three main reasons.Firstly, the emergence of new markets such asAsia, South America and Eastern Europe as wellas of new consumers among middle classes andwomen. Secondly, the proliferation of new prod-ucts together with the ability of certain countriesto produce drugs normally associated with otherregions ( e.g., Colombias poppy production). And,thirdly, the low probability of nding internationalconsensus on counter-narcotics initiatives.

Breakout Group 13 was devoted to Nuclearsecurity: that is, the measures taken to preventnuclear terrorism. The speakers were KennethLuongo, President of the Partnership for GlobalSecurity; Dr Rajiv Nayan, Senior ResearchAssociate at the Institute for Defence Studiesand Analyses, New Delhi; and Dr Teng Jianqun,

Director of the Centre of Arms Control, ChinaInstitute of International Studies. The session waschaired by Ben Rhode, IISS Research Associate forNon-proliferation and Disarmament. Panellistsdiscussed the di culties involved in meetingPresident Obamas goal of securing all vulner-able ssile material worldwide within the nextfour years. At present, the global ssile materialstockpile is stored at approximately 1,100 facili-ties, many with unacceptable security practices.Although the Obama administration has donemuch to focus international a ention on theissue (most notably through the Nuclear SecuritySummit in Washington in April 2010), panellistsnoted the disparity between the rhetoric used todescribe the threat posed by nuclear terrorism andthe often uneven international action to prevent it.The contrast was also drawn between the estimatedmodest annual expenditure that would allow fore ective global nuclear security measures and thesevere economic e ects of a successful nuclear ter-rorist a ack.

Panellists and delegates also discussed themerits of rationalising the current nuclear secu-rity framework, which consists of a patchwork of

overlapping instruments, and replacing it with aninternational agreement. Other topics examined inthe session included the importance of includingradiological security at the next nuclear securitysummit in the Republic of Korea in 2012; the likeli-hood of a successful nuclear terrorist a ack withoutstate support; problems associated with the emerg-ing science of nuclear forensics and its relationshipto e ective deterrence; and the need for coop-eration between states (such as the UK, India andChina) on the establishment of nuclear centres ofexcellence, particularly in regards to their nuclearsecurity components.

The launch of the Adelphi book entitled EndingWars, Consolidating Peace , edited by ProfessorMats Berdal of Kings College London and DrAchim Wennmann of the Graduate Institute ofInternational and Development Studies in Geneva,provided the occasion for Breakout Group 14.Berdal and Wennmann were joined on the panel by James Cockayne of the Center on GlobalCounterterrorism Cooperation. The discussion,much like the book, focused on the deeper reasonsfor the uneven and often poor record of interna-tional e orts to assist countries transitioning fromwar to peace in the post-Cold War era. It was notedthat insu cient a ention has typically been given by peace-builders to the transformative e ects ofwar on societies, especially to the ways in whichconditions of protracted armed con ict will alwaysspawn political, economic and development chal-lenges that did not lend themselves to templatedsolutions or business-as-usual approaches to eco-nomic recovery once hostilities have formally been brought to an end. Resources and politicalwill, while important, were not enough to steerwar-torn countries war towards lasting peace andsustainable development. Equally important is anunderstanding that war creates winners as well aslosers, and that many actors at local, regional andglobal levels develop a vested interest in the con-tinuation of armed con ict.

Group 14: Ending wars, consolidating peace: the role o economics (lr): James Cockayne, Director, New York o ce,Center on Global Counterterrorism Cooperation; Mats Berdal, Pro essor o Security and Development, Kings CollegeLondon; and Dr Achim Wennmann; Researcher, Graduate Institute o International and Development Studies, Geneva

Group 13: Nuclear security (lr) Dr Rajiv Nayan, Senior Research Associate, The Institute or De ence Studies and Analyses, New Dehi; Ken Luongo, President, Partnership orGlobal Security; Dr Teng Jianqun, Director or the Centre o Arms Control, China Institute o International Studies; and Ben Rhode, Research Associate or Non-proli eration andDisarmament, IISS


11/20



A Special Address on The Strategy forAfghanistan was given by Dr Liam Fox, Secretaryof State for Defence of the United Kingdom, onthe Saturday evening, which marked the ninthanniversary of the a acks of 9/11, which trig-gered the coalition intervention. After nine years,the Afghan government was not yet capable ofproviding for its own security. In the absenceof the ISAF mission, a security vacuum wouldemerge and the destabilisation of Pakistan andother neighbouring states would be risked. Anydeparture prior to 2015, by which time it wasestimated security goals could be a ained, wouldhand a propaganda triumph to re-energised jihadists, damage the credibility of NATO andundermine the United Nations. Fox argued thatthe objective was not a perfect Afghanistan, butone able to maintain its own security and preventthe return of al-Qaeda. The momentum of theTaliban-led insurgency had to be reversed andsmothered to the point where a be er resourcedAfghan government could deal with it. Fox saidprogress was being achieved in the training ofAfghan forces, not least through joint patrolswith ISAF forces. E orts were being made tosupport a political process of reconciliation andreintegration in Afghanistan, upon which muchhinged. Developmental projects were movingforward. But a prudent approach was needed:The incremental process of handing over securityresponsibility to Afghan control in all provincesand districts by the time of President Karzaisstated ambition, by the end of 2014, Fox said,must be based on an assessment [of] conditionson the ground... we should not raise expectationsabout the speed with which this change of rolewill happen.

On 12 September delegates reassembled forplenaries. The Fourth Plenary Session exploredStrengthening the Global Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Regime. Senator Mikhail Margelov,Chairman of the Foreign A airs Commi ee of theFederation Council of Russia, Federal Assembly ofRussia, provided an assessment of Russian rati -cation of New START, noting that proponents likehimself were criticised as pro-Western traitors.Global arms control and the non-proliferationregime must work much be er than at present, hesaid, including limiting the proliferation of smallarms. It was particularly important to bring thenew START treaty into e ect, as a rst step in trulyrese ing bilateral relations.

The scheduled American speaker, RoseGo emoeller, US Assistant Secretary of State forVeri cation, Compliance and Implementation,had to cancel at the last minute because of on goingnegotiations in the US Senate over New STARTrati cation, which were described as touch-and-

go as the negotiation as the treaty itself. She hadan able substitute in Ambassador Laura Kennedy,US Permanent Representative to the Conferenceon Disarmament (CD), who reprised PresidentObamas Prague speech vision of a world withoutnuclear weapons and provided a tour d horizonon the state of diplomatic initiatives across therange of nuclear, chemical and biological weaponsdisciplines. Re ecting a frustration over the dead-lock that has prevented any substantive work inthe CD for over a decade, Kennedy said that pa-tience was running out and that new approachesmay be required.

The Fifth Plenary Towards A ComprehensiveGlobal Energy Security was chaired by DrAndrew Parasiliti, Executive Director, IISSUS, andCorresponding Director, IISSMiddle East. JamesSmith, Chairman, Shell UK, said that the scaleof the challenge in the global energy system wasextremely large; that climate change representeda threat to global security and that the world wasenergy interdependent notions of energy inde-pendence led to a dangerously false trail. Smitho ered four suggestions to address these chal-lenges: giving greater a ention to energy e ciencyto maximise domestic resources; using collab-orative approaches to international diplomacy onenergy security; making progress on measuresto limit the e ects of climate change, even in theabsence of an international treaty in the near term

Laura Kennedy, Ambassador, US Delegation to theCon erence on Disarmament

(lr) Dr Liam Fox, Secretary o State or De ence o the United Kingdom; and Dr John Chipman, Director-General andChie Executive, IISS, during the discussion ollowing Saturdays Special Address

Mikhail Margelov, Chairman, Foreign A airs Committee,Federation Council o Russia


12/20



to reduce carbon emissions; and building con -dence in the markets as the best means to reinforceconnections between producer and consumer.

Ambassador Richard Jones, Deputy ExecutiveDirector, International Energy Agency, o eredfour suggestions to improve global energy secu-rity: curbing growth and demand through greaterenergy e ciency; increasing diversity of supplythrough a more balanced mix of energy sourcesand their distribution routes and networks; be ercoordinating regional electricity grid and gas mar-kets; and giving priority to energy investment toavoid tightness in supply and a peak in prices aseconomies recover.

Oksana Antonenko, IISS Senior Fellow forRussia and Eurasia, presented four parallel devel-opments related to energy security in Eurasiasince 2006: the failure of zero-sum approaches toenergy security between the West and Russia; thecorrelation between energy and domestic trans-formation in post-Soviet countries; the linkages between energy security and political instabilityand con ict in the South Caucasus; and the in u-ence of energy security on the development ofrelations between Russia and Europe, including apossible future role for NATO in energy security.She made three recommendations to improve col-laboration between Russia and Europe regardingenergy security: for the RussiaNATO Council toaddress energy security; a more comprehensiveapproach to maritime security; and the develop-ment of joint capabilities to deal with accidents andterrorist threats to energy infrastructure.

The nal, Sixth Plenary Session addressedCyber Power and Strategy was chaired by IISSChairman Franois Heisbourg, and the speakers

were Dr Martin Libicki of the RAND Corporationand Heli Tiirmaa-Klaar, Senior Advisor to theDefence Ministry of Estonia. Libicki drew a en-tion to some of the a ributes of cyber a acks:that their e ects while potentially signi cantwere almost always temporary; that they are notnecessarily repeatable; and that their destructive-ness was a function of the level of connectivitywhich targets chose to maintain. It was possible to build be er defences, but deterrence could not bee ected, owing to the profusion of state but alsonon-state actors with the capacity to launch cybera acks indirectly and in a non-traceable way. Forthe same reason arms control measures to limit

cyber power were implausible. Tiirmaa-Klaardevoted her remarks to a description of the cybera acks Estonia was subjected to in 2007 during apolitical dispute with Russia. While urging strongcoordinated international defensive measures, shewarned against the excessive militarisation of thechallenge in a way that would strangle the bene ts societal and economic which open cyberspaceprovided.

The IISS acknowledges and is grateful for theimportant support of the following Sponsors andCorporate Patrons: The Swiss Confederation;Futurepipe Industries; SICPA; and the Centre forthe Democratic Control of the Armed Forces.

Martin Libicki, Senior Management Scientist, RANDCorporation

Heli Tiirmaa-Klaar, Senior Adviser to the Undersecretary,Ministry o De ence, Estonia

James Smith, Chairman, Shell UK Richard Jones, Deputy Executive Director, InternationalEnergy Agency

Oksana Antonenko, Senior Fellow or Russia and Eurasia,IISS


13/20


KEY ADDRESSES / NON-PROLIFERATION PROGRAMM

President o the Republico Rwanda Delivers ThirdOppenheimer Lecture

The Rwandan President put the emphasis on home-grown solutions andeconomic transformation in the plan for successful nation-building heoutlined during the 2010 Oppenheimer Lectur e at Arundel House on 16September. Paul Kagame, recently re-elected in a landslide victory, has wonmuch praise for turning around a country that was torn apart by genocidein 1994, when 800,000 minority Tutsis and majority Hutu collaborators

were killed. Over the last ve years Rwandas economy has grown on aver-age by 7%.

Discussing The Challenges of Nation-Building in Africa, PresidentKagame said that the process can only be internally generated and led; itcannot be achieved from the outside, however well-meaning The moste ective remedies come from our own historical experience.

Rwanda, he admi ed, has had its share of challenges. However, govern-ments since 1994 had worked hard to build state institutions and to bring justiceand reconciliation, by trying genocide suspects through Gacaca communitycourts. Another major objective had been the socio-economic transformationof the country through increased production, trade and investments. He saidAfrican governments recognised the value of aid, but should aim to eventu-ally wean themselves o it.

The transcript and a stream of the address and the Q&A session are availablevia the IISS website at h p://www.iiss.org/conferences/oppenheimer-lecture/oppenheimer-lecture-2010-paul-kagame/Paul Kagame, President o the Republic o Rwanda

Lieutenant-General Gerson Menandro Garcia de Freitas

The Brazilian NationalDe ence Strategy: an Army

PerspectiveOn 9 September, Lieutenant-General Gerson Menandro Garcia de Freitas,Deputy Chief of Army General Sta (Policy and Strategy), Brazilian Army,spoke on The Brazilian National Defence Strategy: an Army perspective.In late 2008, Brazils Ministry of Defence published its National DefenceStrategy. A presentation at the IISS in October 2009 detailed key elementsof this document, the factors driving its development, and implicationsfor Brazils armed forces and defence industry. In this latest event, Gen.Menandro discussed the implications of the Strategy for the BrazilianArmy and progress to date in implementing its recommendations. Themeeting was chaired by James Hacke , Editor of The Military Balance.The discussion is recorded on the IISS website at h p://www.iiss.org/

events-calendar/2010-events-archive/september-2010/the-brazilian-national-defence-strategy-an-army-perspective/

Gary Samore on US Non-Proli eration AgendaThe IISS welcomed Dr Gary Samore, Special Assistant to the President andWhite House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction,Proliferation and Terrorism, for a discussion meeting on An Update on theObama Administrations Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Agenda on17 September. Dr Samore outlined the Obama administrations programmefor practical steps to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. This comes ali le more than a year after President Obamas April 2009 speech in Prague, inwhich he pledged his commitment to non-proliferation and multilateralism.US rati cation of New START, the status of the CTBT and todays threats todisarmament and non-proliferation, with particular emphasis on Iran, werealso discussed.(lr) Dr Gary Samore and Mark Fitzpatrick, IISS Senior Fellow or Non-Proli eration


14/20


IISS FOCUS ON AFGH ANISTAN / PUbLICATIONS

(lr) Adam Ward and Ambassador Robert D. Blackwill

Plan B: The De Facto Partition o A ghanistanAmbassador Robert D. Blackwill, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for USForeign Policy, Council on Foreign Relations, spoke on Plan B: The De FactoPartition of Afghanistan on 13 September.

Ambassador Blackwill argued that the Obama administrations counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan seems prone to failure, and that, in view ofalternative options, a de facto partition of Afghanistan is the best course opento the United States and its allies. This would acknowledge that the Talibanwill inevitably control most of its historic stronghold in the Pashtun south. ButWashington could ensure that north and west Afghanistan do not succumbto jihadi extremism, using US air power and special forces in combinationwith the Afghan army and like-minded nations. De facto partition, he argued,was clearly not the best outcome one could imagine: but it was now the bestoutcome that Washington could achieve, consistent with its vital nationalinterests and the tolerances of US domestic politics. This meeting was moder-ated by Adam Ward, Director of Studies, IISS.

Dr John Chipman and the panel o IISS experts during the launch o Strategic Survey 2010

Strategic Survey Launch Focuses on A ghanistan Policy

Launching Strategic Survey 2010 , Dr John Chipman,Director-General and Chief Executive, advocateda new strategy for the international presence inAfghanistan. Western powers, he said, shouldshift to a containment and deterrence approachthat brought the focus back to the missions origi-nal aim to deal with the threat from al-Qaeda.The strategy would place reduced emphasis oncombating the Taliban, except where it becameinvolved in any a empted resurgence of al-Qaedain Afghanistan.

In his statement to the press conference atArundel House, Chipman said: At present, thecounterinsurgency strategy is too ambitious, tooremoved from the core security goals that need to be met, and too sapping of diplomatic and militaryenergies needed both in the region and elsewhere.His statement re ected a close examination ofevents and goals in Afghanistan in Strategic Survey ,the Institutes annual review of world a airs.Under the proposed strategy, NATO-led combat

forces would be redeployed from the south tothe north, and political e orts would be madeto encourage a more federal Afghanistan with a be er balance between Kabul and the provinces.Chipman expanded on his remarks later in anop-ed piece published in the International HeraldTribune .

The press conference a racted considerablecomment and discussion in the internationalmedia. The Daily Telegraph noted that the IISS wasthe rst major British think tank to call time onour military involvement in Afghanistan. TheFinancial Times said: Few high-pro le think tankshave called for the US-led counterinsurgencypolicy to be scrapped. But the institutes judg-ments carry weight and may have an impact onthe policy debate in Washington and London.Hamish McDonald of the Sydney Morning Herald

commented: The institute is no surrender-monkeypaci st out t, but a red-blooded forum for realpo-litik thinkers, as well as those interested in military

a airs and the boys toys of war. So when its latestannual strategic survey calls the current policy inAfghanistan profoundly mistaken, defence minis-ters and generals around the world will sit up.

Bronwen Maddox, chief foreign commentatorof the Times of London, analysed the IISS rec-ommendations and also remarked that StrategicSurvey was: A landmark of the think-tank land-scape: a handbook for what to worry about for thecoming year.

As usual, the book contains chapters on all theworlds regions as well as special essays on USn uclear policy, US defence policy and Europese volving security a rchitecture. The StrategicGeography section assesses subjects as diverse asthe extent of Indias Naxalite rebellion, Thailandspolitical turmoil, the e ects of disasters such as theChilean and Haitian earthquakes, the position ofthe so-called BASIC countries on climate change,and the diversity of the territories from which al-Qaeda and its franchises operate.


15/20


SOUTH ASIA PROGRAMME / PUbLICATIONS

Bangladesh Meeting

On 22 September, Major-General Monzur Ahmed, Director General, NationalSecurity Intelligence, Bangladesh, visited Arundel House. General Ahmedspoke in a private and o -the-record se ing on Bangladeshs counter-extrem-ism and counter-terrorism policy and provided an update on its successesand challenges.

Perspective on KashmirOn 9 September, Radha VinodRaju, former Special Director-General of Police, Jammu andKashmir, and former Director-General, National InvestigativeAgency, India spoke onPerspective on Kashmir,including the need for politicaland economic initiatives at thecentral and state levels, and therequirement for an e ective localpolice-led response.

This meeting was chaired byRahul Roy-Chaudhury, SeniorFellow for South Asia, IISS.

India in the G20: Prioritiesand Challenges a ter the Toronto Summit

Dr Sanjaya Baru, Editor, Business Standard , India and Jo Johnson MP, formerSouth Asia Bureau Chief, Financial Times spoke on India in the G20: Prioritiesand Challenges after the Toronto Summit on 12 July. This meeting waschaired by Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, Senior Fellow for South Asia.

An audio recording of the discussion is available via the IISS website ath p://www.iiss.org/events-calendar/2010-events-archive/july-2010/india-in-the-g-20-priorities-and-challenges-after-the-toronto-summit/

Talking to the Taliban: The Role o A ghanistan Prospects and PortentsAhmed Rashid, freelance journal-ist and author, spoke on Talking tothe Taliban: The role of Afghanistan Prospects and Portents on 21 July.Ahmed Rashid addressed the prob-lems associated with talking to theTaliban, regional tensions, the rolesplayed by Afghanistan and Pakistan,the capacity of the Karzai govern-ment to win over the non-Pashtunethnic groups and the problems thatcan occur with power sharing agree-ments.

This discussion was chaired bySir Hilary Synno , Consulting SeniorFellow, IISS and it took place in theLee Kuan Yew Conference Room atArundel House. Ahmed Rashid

(lr) Jo Johnson MP; Rahul Roy-Chaudhury; and Dr Sanjaya Baru

General Ahmed and Rahul Roy-Chaudhury

Radha Vinod Raju, ormer Special Director-General o Police, Jammu and Kashmir

Survival: Global Politics and Strategy The cover story of the OctoberNovember issue ofSurvival: Global Politics and Strategy is Hilary Synno sClosing Argument on Pakistans future, After theFlood. The issue also includes articles on Bosnia andKosovo from Christopher S. Chivvis, David Harland,Spyros Economides, James Ker-Lindsay and DimitrisPapadimitriou; articles by Simon Chesterman and Nigel

Inkster on intelligence and democracy and by AndrewParasiliti and Robert Hunter on rethinking Iran; commen-taries on Myanmars nuclear ambitions and the situationin Kyrgyzstan, Hew Strachan on Obama, McChrystaland the Operational Level of War, and essays on path-ogens and arms control; revisiting the bomb and thephilosopher economists.


16/20


RUSSIAEURASIA PROGRAMME / TRANSNATIONAL THREATS AND POLITICAL RISK

On 15 July, Nigel Inkster hosted Dr Chris C. Demchak, Associate Professorat the United States Naval War College, who delivered a speech on TheAssertion of Sovereignty in Cyberspace: Formation of Cyber Commands. The

IISS launches Caucasus Security InsightTo mark the second anniversary of the RussianGeorgian war of August 2008, the IISS Russia and EurasiaProgramme launched its Caucasus Security Insight webpage on 7 August. The webpage is the rst onlineplatform o ering a regular exchange of views among a unique spectrum of experts from Georgia, Russia,di erent parts of the Caucasus region as well as the US and Europe. The Caucasus Security Insight initiativewill be published on a regular basis. The second edition will aim to examine the engagement without recog-nition strategies towards Abkhazia and South Ossetia. All articles are available in both Russian and English.The initiative is part of the IISS GeorgianRussian Dialogue on Post-August war Challenges, a project funded by the European Union under its Instrument for Stability Programme. For more information, view the webpages at h p://www.iiss.org/programmes/russia-and-eurasia/about/georgian-russian-dialogue/caucasus-security-insight/

Dr Anna MatveevaOn 16 July, Anna Matveeva, Associate Senior Fellowat the Crisis States Research Centre, London Schoolof Economics, spoke on Into the quagmire? An over-

view of recent political developments in Kyrgyzstan.Dr Matveeva, who worked as a political analyst forthe OSCEODIHR Referendum Observation Missionin Kyrgyzstan, provided an assessment of the politicalcauses of the events leading up to the 7 April powerchange in Kyrgyzstan.

Her speech also focused on the prospects forachieving stability in the run-up to the parliamentaryelections scheduled for 10 October. This included anassessment of the increasing political and ethnic cleav-ages in southern Kyrgyzstan and what implicationsthis has had for the political process. Dr Matveevaconcluded by assessing the international response torecent developments in Kyrgyzstan.

NATORussia relationsThe IISS Russia and Eurasia Pro-gramme, led by Oksana Antonenko,and the Institute for Contemporary

Development (INSOR) in Moscow,directed by Igor Yurgens, a memberof the IISS Council, continue a jointproject assessing the prospectsfor the strategic transformation ofNATORussia relations. After IISSand INSOR co-hosted the rst expertgroup meetings in Moscow the twoinstitutes have prepared papers onpractical cooperation and enhancingtrust between NATO and Russia. These ideas have been discussed at the follow-up expert meet-ing which took place in Geneva, at the fringes of GSR. IISS and INSOR will publish their reportsand a joint paper in the coming months. We thank Total and BP for their generous support for thisproject.

Focus on Cyber Securityand Cyber War are

Nigel Inkster and Dr Chris C. Demchak

presentation dealt with the evolution in organisations, tools, social integrationsystems, and choices emerging in Western nations cybersecurity and deter-rence strategies, the creation or adaptation of cyber commands or equivalents,and organisational learning after experiences with cybered confrontations ora acks.

Nigel Inkster delivered a keynote speech at a meeting organised by theUK Ministry of Defences Cyber & In uence Centre on 3 August. The speechlooked at the nature and distribution of power on the Internet and at thesecurity implications of societies which had become highly dependent onInformation and Communications Technology.

Secret Intelligence in theIn ormation AgeThe Transnational Threats and Political Risk programme hosted a Colloquiumon Secret Intelligence in the Information Age: Expectations and Realities on16 July. This event brought together former and serving intelligence profes-sionals, policymakers, academics and representatives from the media andcivil society to examine some of the challenges facing the UK and US intel-ligence communities in the modern era.

(lr) Oksana Antonenko and Igor Yurgens


17/20


DEFENCE A ND MILITARY ANALYSIS

Douglas BarrieSenior Fellow for Military Aerospace

Douglas Barrie is an award-winning jour-nalist in the eld of military aerospace. Hisinterests lie at the intersection of airpowerstrategy, tactics and technology. He comesto the IISS from the leading Aviation Weekand Space Technology , where he was LondonBureau Chief from 2002. He was previouslythe European Editor of the leading US-basedDefense News. He holds an MA in EnglishLiterature and Language from the Universityof Edinburgh. He is a recipient of the CPRobertson Memorial Trophy and the Jesse H.Neal National Business Journalism Award.

Christian Le MireResearch Fellow for Naval Forces andMaritime Security

Christian Le Mire joined the IISS from Janes Information Group, where since 2006he had been Managing Editor and SeniorAnalyst for Janes Country Risk. He brings tothe IISS considerable expertise in electronicpublishing in the defence eld. Christiansearlier experience includes an assignment asa research intern at the IISS, working on theArmed Con ict Database (2001). He is pro -cient in Mandarin Chinese and holds an MAin War Studies from Kings College London.He graduated with a BA in PPE from theUniversity of Oxford.

In August the IISS launched a new Defence andMilitary Analysis Programme (DMAP), in whichnewly appointed research sta at Research

Fellow and Senior Fellow level will play majorroles. The essential tasks of DMAP will be two-fold. The rst is to carry forward the concertede orts by James Hacke , Editor of The MilitaryBalance , to improve the statistical and analyticalquality of this already highly-respected annualpublication; to ensure that it is as responsive aspossible to changes in the nature of con ict andemerging defence technologies, strategies, tacticsand doctrine and concepts; to provide a greaterunderstanding of the qualitative dimensions ofconventional and unconventional military capability (which accounts of equipment inventoriesalone necessarily cannot convey); and to devisenew ways, including electronic ones, in whichinformation and analysis generated by DMAP

can be presented to existing and new audi-ences.

The second key task is to develop DMAP as a

research programme that functions in the sameway as other research programmes at the Institute,with Senior Fellows and Research Fellows con-tributing widely as experts to IISS publications,databases and conference activities. They will playa prominent part in the work of other researchprogrammes to which their thematic and regionalexpertise is relevant, and will strengthen theInstitutes networks among national defence estab-lishments worldwide, and raise funding from thedefence-industrial, government, foundation andcommercial sectors to support their research activi-ties.

The overall objective of DMAP is to establishthe IISS as a principal international authority onquestions of defence policy.

IISS De ence and Military Analysis Programme (DMAP)

Brigadier Benjamin Barry OBESenior Fellow for Land Warfare

Before joining the IISS, Benjamin Barry servedas Head of the Iraq Land Lessons Unit at theLand Warfare Centre at Warminster, wherehe led the British Armys nal analysis of theIraq campaign. From 200709, he was Headof Streamlining Implementation at the UKdefence ministry, charged with formulatingand coordinating structural organisationalchanges there. This was preceded by appoint-ments as Director of Force Development,focusing on the armys long-term capabil-ity and force structure requirements, andCommander Multi-National Brigade inBosnia, commanding 4,000 troops. He is agraduate of the Royal Military Academy atSandhurst.

The new programme will be led by Dr TimHuxley as Director of Defence and MilitaryAnalysis, a post he will hold in conjunction with

that of Executive Director of the IISSAsia o cein Singapore. James Hacke , as Editor of The Military Balance , will work closely with the newly-appointed research sta and will have a key rolein DMAP activities. DMAP research sta willalso report to the IISS Director of Studies, AdamWard.

In combination, the establishment of DMAPand the new appointments represent an excitingdevelopment for the Institute that will strengthenand focus our capacities in a crucial area ofresearch, from which other research programmesat the Institute will bene t.

The senior research appointments made so farare as detailed below.


18/20

I ISSUS


Turkeys Momento InfectionOn 21 July, Henri Barkey, Bernard and Berta Cohen

Professor of International Relations at LehighUniversity, and Visiting Scholar at the CarnegieEndowment for International Peace, spoke onhis article, Turkeys Moment of In ection, in the JuneJuly issue of Survival . Dr Andrew Parasiliti,Executive Director of the IISSUS and Corresponding Director of the IISSMiddle East, moderated the discussion.

Developments in Iraq and IranProfessor Hadi Semati spoke on developments in Iran at the IISSUS

on 21 September. Andrew Parasiliti, Executive Director, IISSUS, andCorresponding Director, IISSMiddle East, moderated the programme.

The Kurdistan Regionand IraqFuad Hussein, Chief of Sta to President Masoud Barzani of the KurdistanRegion of Iraq, and Falah Mustafa Bakir, Minister and Head of the Departmentof Foreign Relations of the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq, spoke atIISSUS on 26 July on developments in the Kurdistan Region and Iraq. QubadTalabany, Representative of the Kurdistan Regional Government to the UnitedStates, also participated in the programme.

Andrew Parasiliti, Executive Director, IISSUS and CorrespondingDirector, IISSMiddle East, moderated the discussion.

(lr) Andrew Parasiliti and Henri Barkey

(lr) Andrew Parasiliti and Raad Al-Kadiri (lr) Andrew Parasiliti and Hadi Semati

(lr) Qubad Talabany; Andrew Parasiliti; Fuad Hussein and Falah Musta a Bakir

Armed ConfictDatabase

The IISS Armed Con ict Database (ACD) is an authoritative onlinesource of data and independent analysis on current and recent

con icts. It is an important and useful tool to anyone who workswith, or has an interest in, armed con icts, con ict prevention andpeace building, including government ministries, internationalorganisations, non-governmental organisations, academic and

nancial institutions.

Free trials

availa le!www.iiss.org/acd

For more information on the Armed Con ict Database,please visit www.iiss.org/acd or email [email protected]

Raad Al-Kadiri, Senior Director for Country Strategies and Partner at PFCEnergy, spoke on the developments in Iraq at the IISSUS on July 22. AndrewParasiliti, Executive Director, IISSUS and Corresponding Director, IISSMiddle East, moderated the programme.


19/20


IISSASIA / PUbLICATIONS

Adelphi Book Launch:Sanctions as

Grand Strategy Sanctions as Grand Strategy , an IISS Adelphi book, was launched in Singapore on 22 Julyas part of the IISSAsia Seminar Series. Theauthor, Brendan Taylor, addressed his books

main arguments and there was a subsequent lively discussion among theinvited audience which included local IISS members, Singapore-based schol-ars and journalists.

Seminar on China and theFuture Asian Security OrderOn 21 July, Professor Amitav Acharya from the American University in

Washington DC, spoke in the IISSAsia Seminar Series, sponsored by theAustralian Department of Defence, addressing the key question of whethertwenty- rst century Asia will be peaceful and prosperous or divided anddangerous, in a presentation entitled Between Confucius and Kant: ChinasAscent and the Future of Asias Security Order. He challenged those whoargue that Asias future might resemble Europes past (multipolar rivalry andmajor-power war), Americas past (Chinese regional hegemony and sphereof in uence, Monroe-Doctrine style), or a repeat of its own past (a benigntributary-system-like intra-regional relations), arguing instead that the foun-dations of Asian security order are undergoing a historic transformation fromeconomic nationalism, security bilateralism and political authoritarianismto economic liberalism, an emergent security multilateralism, and politicalchange. Bipolarity has given way to an asymmetric multipolarity. As such,Asia cannot be imagined as a Hobbesian anarchy, a Confucian hierarchy, or

a Kantian community. More likely is a consociational regional order marked by power-sharing, economic inter-connectedness, institutional arrangementsand shared normative beliefs.

Pro essor Amitav Acharya

(lr) Dr Tim Huxley and Brendan Taylor

Adelphi 412413Ending Wars, ConsolidatingPeace: Economic Perspectivesedited by Mats Berdal andAchim Wennmann

The transition from war to peaceis fraught with tension and therisk of a return to bloodshed. Withso much at stake, it is crucial thatthe international community andlocal stakeholders make sense ofthe complex mosaic of challenges,to support a lasting, inclusive andprosperous peace. Recent missions,

New Adelphi such as in Afghanistan, Somalia orSudan, have highlighted the factthat there can be no one-size- ts-all approach to steering countriesaway from violence and towardsstability.

This Adelphi o ers a series ofeconomic perspectives on con ictresolution, showing how the chal-lenges of peacebuilding can be moree ectively tackled.

From the need to marry dip-lomatic peacemaking withdevelopment e orts, and activatethe private sector in the service ofpeacebuilding aims, to the use oftaxes and natural-resource revenues

as a nancial base for sustainablepeace, this book considers how eco-nomic factors can positively shapeand drive peace processes. It exam-ines the complex ways in whichpower and order may be manifestedin con ict zones, where unpalatablecompromises with local warlordscan often be the rst step towards amore lasting se lement.

In distilling expertise from arange of disciplines, this Adelphiseeks to inform a more economicallyintegrated and responsive approachto helping countries leave behindtheir troubled pasts and take a fullerrole in constructing their futures.


20/20

I ISSMIDDLE EAST

IISS Global Perspectives

The IISS Global Perspectives Series is a regular forum drawing on the fullauthority and reach of IISS expertise to deliver facts and analysis on importantstrategic issues. Its purpose is to relate how trends and developments at theglobal level will a ect the interests of governments, businesses and society inthe Gulf and wider Middle East. The series exists also to give greater promi-nence to regional considerations and priorities in key strategic debates.

28 September Mr Michael Crawford, IISS Consulting Senior Fellowfor the Middle East and South Asia12 October Dr Adam Posen, External Member, Monetary PolicyCommi ee, Bank of England2 November Oksana Antonenko, Senior Fellow and ProgrammeDirector for Russia

AppointmentsCelis Joannes has completed his move from IISS headquarters in Londonto the new regional o ce in the Kingdom of Bahrain, where he has alreadyworked with colleagues and regional specialists to install and establish a stateof the art IT infrastructure that will support all IISS initiatives in the region.Celis will now be the IT Systems Supervisor for Asia and the Middle East andhis primary responsibilities will be the provision of full IT, AV and communi-cations support on all activities in these regions.

THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTEFOR STRATEGIC STUDIES

The IISS, the leading international think tank on international a airs and con ict,

has an editorial vacancy based at its regional o ce in Bahrain.

A E , A b P bl onsHaving recently established a regional o ce in the Kingdom of Bahrain, the IISS

is seeking a native Arabic speaker for the role of Assistant Editor to oversee the

translation and production in Arabic of selected IISS works.

The Assistant Editor will be based in Bahrain but will work closely with the IISS

Publications Department, which is located in IISS Headquarters in London. The

role will involve the translation, proofreading, editing, and typese ing of selected

materials. It will also involve establishing and updating a series of Arabic pages

on the IISS website.

The job requires a minimum of two years professional translation and/or editorial

experience, preferably with academic texts, and knowledge of international a airs

would give candidates a distinct advantage. A keen eye for detail is essential, aswell as the ability to edit and proofread with precision.

The IISS provides a full employment package and salary will re ect experience.

Information about the IISS and its publications can be found at www.iiss.org.

Candidates should email their CV (with references), and a le er explaining their

skills, to [email protected] by Thursday 21 October 2010. Only candidates

who are called for interview will receive a reply.

Bahrain Global Forum 2011Geopolitics and global economics are today moreinterdependent than ever before. For a globalinvestor, strategist, CEO, policymaker or politi-

cian, understanding how todays geopolitical shiftscreate tomorrows economic risks and opportunities and vice versa isessential. Strategic developments, including international political tensions,resource competition, arms races and con ict, can constrain the scope for eco-nomic development, the e ective management of the international economicsystem, and the e ciency of trade, investment and business regimes.

These interactions at the nexus of economics and global security are cap-tured in the term Geo-economic Strategy used by The International Institutefor Strategic Studies (IISS). From economic sanctions to sovereign risk, cur-rency union to piracy, trade to development, and global governance to statecapitalism, each of these global economic challenges have geopolitical rootsand geopolitical consequences.

The Bahrain Global Forum, launched in 2010, brings together annually theworlds leading nancial and economic actors with strategists and policymak-ers from the world of national security and defence. The Forum seeks to applythe perspectives and analyses of its unique mix of world-class participantsto inform what eventually may become a Bahrain consensus on policies topromote global economic growth, development and security.

The 2nd IISS Geo-economic Strategy Summit: The Bahrain Global Forumwill be convened in the Kingdom of Bahrain from 68 May 2011. The meetingwill draw together key delegates to debate current geo-economic trends andencourage a global perspective in new centres of economic power.

Manama Dialogue 2010

IRANS BALLISTICMISSILECAPABILITIESA net assessmentThe IISS Strategic Dossier on Irans Ballistic Missile Capabilities: a net assessment aims tocontribute to the policy debate about Iransstrategic challenges by establishing a shared understanding of the missileprogrammes. Produced by an international team of experts, the dossiero ers the most detailed information available in the public domain aboutIrans liquid- and solid-fuelled missiles and its indigenous productioncapabilities.

Pu lished th May ; ISbN 978 86 79 5 5; A4 paper ack; .

Buy online at www.iiss.org

The 7th IISS Regional Security Summit:The Manama Dialogue will be convened inthe Kingdom of Bahrain from 35 December2010.

The 7th meeting will draw together the highest concentration to dateof policymakers involved in regional security.

iiss newsletter september 2010

Documents