Results by title

The demise of the Soviet threat has compelled the United States and Europe to reassess how they deal with each other and with the rest of the world. For the past forty-five years, NATO has been the centerpiece of U.S.-European security relations, but some analysts now argue that the alliance can no longer survive. Should NATO states continue to rely on the NATO alliance for security? Several theories have been advanced to help answer this question. Nevertheless, After Bipolarity defends the argument that none of them---neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism, or cybernetic theory---is an entirely convincing account of past relations among NATO states and proposes a new theory based on disparate elements of these earlier theories. The author builds his case on twenty-one instances where alliance cooperation was sought, from the Suez crisis to Operation Desert Storm, representing a variety of issue areas: arms deployments, arms control, out-of-area operations, and alliance doctrine. Much of the data for the case studies comes from interviews with government and alliance officials and sheds considerable new light on certain key alliance decisions. After Bipolarity makes use of a variety of methods to test the key variables. Boolean algebra in particular is used to illuminate the author's theory, which contends that there is no unique set of necessary and sufficient conditions for cooperation but that there are alternate sets of conditions that may produce cooperative behavior. It is noteworthy that threat perception, a variable emphasized in widely accepted realist and neorealist theories, does not perform as well as other, less popular variables in explaining cooperation. Chernoff concludes that without a commonly perceived threat, continued trans-Atlantic cooperation will be possible but will require a more diligent management of intra-alliance relations. Fred Chernoff is Associate Professor of Political Science, Colgate University.

In the endless series of United States military interventions, the 'humanitarian' bombing of Yugoslavia played a key role in gaining support of the centre left for war as an instrument of policy.

Thanks to massive deception and self-deception by media and politicians, even the anti-globalisation movement failed to grasp the implications of the aggressive military globalisation pursued by the United States, from Iraq to Afghanistan and beyond.

In this study, Diana Johnstone identifies the common geopolitical interests running through all these past, present and future military interventions. She argues persuasively that outside intervention creates rather than solves problems and cannot be justified.

Johnstone shows that the 'War in Kosovo' was in reality the model for future destruction of countries seen as potential threats to the hegemony of the 'International Community', led by the United States.

 The conclusion of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) operations in Afghanistan in 2014 closes an important chapter in the history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In this volume, European and US experts examine a range of perennial issues facing the Alliance, including relations with Russia, NATO’s institutional organization and command structure, and the role of the United States in the Alliance, in order to show how these issues shape today’s most pressing debate—the debate over the balance between NATO’s engagement in security operations globally and traditional defense within the North-Atlantic region. The volume’s contributors propose that NATO can indeed find a viable balance between competing, but not inherently incompatible, strategic visions.