|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 05/05/07
November 2006
Breaking the covenant: governance of the British army in the twenty-first century ANTHONY FORSTER
This article argues that the military covenant between senior army commanders and soldiers is breaking down for two reasons: first, British forces are being engaged in new and controversial wars of choice, putting new and distinct pressures on the covenant; and second because senior military commanders have not fully appreciated the changes to their authority and power in governing the British army. It further suggests that military commanders, central staff and ministers need to acknowledge the scale of the internal challenges to the military covenant and develop appropriate responses. Drawing on examples from gender equality and sexual orientation, allegations of war crimes in Iraq, the military's duty of care and the proposed launch of a British Armed Forces Federation, this article argues that these challenges show that the military leadership has no choice but to rethink its outdated approach to governance of the British army, if it is to remain fi t for purpose. Without appropriate adaptation, army chiefs will have themselves contributed to the breaking of the military covenant, between the army and the individual soldier.
What are armed forces for? The changing nature of military roles in Europe TIMOTHY EDMUNDS
European armed forces are currently undergoing a profound series of shifts in relation to their core roles. These changes are increasingly challenging long-held assumptions about what armed forces are for and how they should be structured and organized. This article argues that these changes have not primarily occurred in response to an objective, functional reassessment of the nature of the threat, as is assumed in much of the civil—military relations literature. Instead, new military roles are emerging as a consequence of domestic and international socio-political infl uences that shape states' perceptions of what their armed forces should look like and the purposes they should serve.
The commentariat and discourse failure: language and atrocity in Cool Britannia DAVID MARTIN JONES and M. L. R. SMITH
Recent terrorist events in the UK, such as the security alerts at British airports in August 2006 and the London bombings of July 2005 gained extensive media and academic analysis. This study contends, however, that much of the commentary demonstrated a wide degree of failure among government agencies, academic and analytic experts and the wider media, about the nature of the threat and continues to distort comprehension of the extant danger. The principal failure, this argument maintains, was, and continues to be, one of an asymmetry of comprehension that mistakes the still relatively limited means of violent jihadist radicals with limited political ends. The misapprehension often stems from the language that surrounds the idea of 'terrorism', which increasingly restricts debate to an intellectually redundant search for the 'root causes' that give rise to the politics of com placency. In recent times this outlook has consistently underestimated the level of the threat to the security of the UK. This article argues that a more realistic appreciation of the current security condition requires abandoning the prevailing view that the domestic threat is best prosecuted as a criminal conspiracy. It demands instead a total strategy to deal with a totalizing threat. The empirical evidence demonstrates the existence of a physical threat, not merely the political fear of threat. The implementation of a coherent set of social policies for confronting the threat at home recognizes that securing state borders and maintaining internal stability are the fi rst tasks of government. Fundamentally, this requires a return to an understanding of the Hobbesian conditions for sovereignty, which, despite the delusions of post-Cold War cosmopolitan multiculturalism, never went away.
Will the 'global war on terrorism' be the new Cold War? BARRY BUZAN
The Bush administration is trying to persuade itself and everyone else that the 'global war on terrorism' (GWoT) will, like the Cold War, be a 'long war' requiring sustained mobilization against an implacable foe. It has had some success in projecting this idea, and if it takes root the GWoT could indeed become a durable, dominant, unifying idea that would enable Washington to reassert and legitimize both its special claims as the sole superpower and US leadership of global security. The question is: how likely is this to happen? By looking at the surrounding events and contexts that could support or undermine the elevation of the GWoT to the status of the new Cold War, the author argues that it is not all that likely. Many factors could undermine it, not least that most of the strategies on off er corrode the liberal values that they are supposed to defend.
Islamism revisited MAHA AZZAM
While contemporary Islamism is a response to the domestic political situation in many Muslim countries, as well as to US and western policies in the Muslim world, it is also about religious assertion and the forging of an alternative ideology, not only as a means of empowerment but also as a means of establishing a particular social order. The debate is as much an internal one as it is a global one and in many ways mirrors the struggles of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries for political and cultural independence.
Battle over the box: international election observation missions, political competition and retrenchment in the post-Soviet space RICK FAWN
The organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's international election observation missions (OSCE IEOMs) have fuelled a new political competition in the post-Soviet space. Even if previously largely ignored, OSCE evaluations have highlighted diff erences in political values between the West and several post-Soviet republics. Recently, however, they have gained political, and even strategic, importance in the region by contributing to political change in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. IEOMs have also provoked resistance from several post-Soviet governments. This has taken several forms, including contesting the apparent western terms of democratization and the creation of alternative rules and practices for democratization and election observation. These challenges risk corrupting the whole practice of IEOMs, and the OSCE has sought to respond. IEOMs have also contributed to changes in Russian foreign policy, including its policy towards the OSCE. In addition, attitudes towards IEOMs within some post-Soviet governments are adding to evidence of a deepening divide between non-democratizing polities and the West.
Books reviewed in this article:
International Relations theory
International law and organization
Foreign policy
Conflict, security and armed forces
Politics, democracy and social affairs
Political economy, economics and development
Ethnicity and cultural politics
History
Europe
Russia and Eurasia
Middle East and North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Asia and Pacific
North America
Latin America and Caribbean