Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland
Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/7565
Browse
20 results
Search Results
Item The Localized Nature of Violence in Iraq(2007-08) Gulden, Tim; Steinbruner, JohnUnderstandably and perhaps inevitably, the ever more urgent effort to comprehend the causes of violence in Iraq has so far relied on familiar conceptions. The conflict occurring there is variously described as an insurgency, a civil war, and a manifestation of global terrorism. Standard religious and ethnic categories are used to identify the participants and impute their motives. It is becoming evident, however, that the pattern of violence reflects not only a collision of organized purposes but more fundamentally a profound disintegration of Iraq’s social fabric, a process that exposes innocent victims but also limits the capacity of predators. Violence resulting from the breakdown of legal order does not have the same character as that which occurs between managed opponents. Better understanding of that distinction is likely to be one of the more important lessons to be learned.Item Potentially Constructive Implications of Disaster in Iraq(2007-08) Steinbruner, JohnIt now appears likely that the invasion of Iraq will prove to be a seminal event in the evolution of international security generally. Legal order has evidently collapsed throughout the country, and the occupying forces have not been able to control the resulting pattern of predatory violence. The central reason is that the United States forfeited at the outset the critical asset of legitimacy necessary to establish and maintain consensual rule, and its continued presence undermines the indigenous institutions it is attempting to nurture. Similar breakdowns have occurred in other parts of the world, and the consequences have been tolerated over extended periods of time. Because of timing, location and the entanglement of the United States, however, intractable violence in Iraq can be expected to have much stronger global resonance. American forces alone are not likely to be able to master the situation but neither can they be withdrawn without intensifying internal violence and extending it into an already volatile region. The potential consequences of that dilemma are ominous, but for that reason the situation presents opportunity as well as danger. Calamity is sometimes a catalyst for greater wisdom.Item Controlling Dangerous Pathogens(2007-03) Steinbruner, John; Harris, Elisa D.; Gallagher, Nancy; M., StacyAdvances in science has led to a situation where dangerous pathogens that are enormously beneficial for research can also be greatly destructive. However, scientific institutions are not prepared to handle such a burden. Proposals advanced by scientific societies are voluntary by nature but do not alone provide robust global protection. This monograph outlines an advanced oversight arrangement, provisionally labeled the Biological Research Security System (BRRS), which is designed to help prevent destructive applications of biology, whether inadvertent or deliberate. Unfortunately, in order to provide adequate protection, constraints might be necessary on freedom of action at the level of fundamental research, and infringing on autonomy of researchers. In addition a great deal of conceptual innovation, legal specification, institutional design and political accommodation would admittedly be required to establish oversight processes. The author concludes that due to the demands and burdens imposed, that human societies might accept lesser standards of protection and rather acquiesce to more limited and incremental measures.Item Managing the Destructive Potential of Biotechnology(2006-12-08) Steinbruner, John; CISSMItem In the Name of Defence(2006-11-25) Steinbruner, John; CISSMItem The Argument for Oversight: Developments in the US(2006-05-13) Steinbruner, John; CISSMItem Controlling Dangerous Pathogens: A Prototype Protective Oversight System(2005-12-01) Steinbruner, John; Harris, Elisa D.; Gallagher, Nancy; Okutani, Stacy; CISSMAs has become increasingly evident in recent years, advances in biology are posing an acute and arguably unprecedented dilemma. The same basic science that could in principle be highly beneficial could also be enormously destructive, depending on how it is applied. Although the scope of actual consequence remains uncertain, the potential is clearly extraordinary with the health of individuals, the stability of societies and the viability of the global ecology all apparently at stake. Since compelling good and appalling harm cannot be disentangled at the level of fundamental science, a burden of management is being imposed that human institutions are not currently prepared to handle. The dilemma itself has been exemplified in several widely noted experiments1 and professionally acknowledged in reports issued by the United States National Academies of Science (NAS) and by the British Royal Society. Not surprisingly, however, and perhaps inevitably, efforts to devise an effective response are still at an embryonic stage. The proposals separately advanced by the two scientific societies are directed at their own communities and are largely voluntary in character. Those are natural initial steps but would not alone provide robust global protection. In an effort to encourage productive discussion of the problem and its implications, this monograph discusses an oversight process designed to bring independent scrutiny to bear throughout the world without exception on fundamental research activities that might plausibly generate massively destructive or otherwise highly dangerous consequences. The suggestion is that a mandatory, globally implemented process of that sort would provide the most obvious means of protecting against the dangers of advances in biology while also pursuing the benefits. The underlying principle of independent scrutiny is the central measure of protection used in other areas of major consequence, such as the handling of money, and it is reasonable to expect that principle will have to be actively applied to biology as well. The monograph outlines an advanced oversight arrangement, provisionally labeled the Biological Research Security System (BRSS), which is designed to help prevent destructive applications of biology, whether inadvertent or deliberate. The arrangement is put forward with full realization that meaningful protection can only be achieved by imposing some constraint on freedom of action at the level of fundamental research, where individual autonomy has traditionally been highly valued for the best of reasons. Constraints of any sort on research will not be intrinsically welcome and will have to demonstrate that the protection provided justifies the costs entailed. A great deal of conceptual innovation, legal specification, institutional design and political accommodation would admittedly be required to establish such an oversight process, and there is very little precedent to work with. Because of the demands imposed and the inconvenience involved, the monograph concedes that human societies after due reflection might choose at least initially to accept lesser standards of protection and it discusses more limited incremental measures that might be undertaken. The central contention, however, is that the eventual outcome should be a fully considered choice and not the default result of inertia or neglect. John Steinbruner is the Director of the Center for International Security Studies at Maryland.Elisa D. Harris is a Senior Research Scholar at the Center. Nancy Gallagher is the Associate Director for Research at the Center. Stacy Okutani is a Graduate Fellow in the Advanced Methods of Cooperative Security Program.Item The Argument for Oversight(2006-02-18) Steinbruner, John; CISSMThe fundamental problem of managing biotechnology arises from two circumstances. First, it is evident that the momentum of discovery in molecular biology in particular is simultaneously enabling therapeutic and destructive applications of extraordinary potential consequence. But, second, no one is able to judge with assurance the exact character or extent of those consequences. That situation is likely to require competent but independent oversight of those areas of research that inherently pose extreme danger. An outline of an appropriate oversight arrangement will be presented.Item Dynamics of Islamic Politics(2002-02-22) Steinbruner, John; CISSMThis conference is part of a larger, joint project undertaken between the National Intelligence Council and the University of Maryland. This project aims to build alliances between scholars and practitioners in the field of national security, broadly defined. The project has helped produce a dialogue between the academic and intelligence communities, and with the policy community more broadly defined, by providing a portal through which members of these different communities can exchange information and discuss pertinent issues. This conference focused on the role of Islamic politics in the Middle East and in other Muslim countries around the globe. Presenters and participants discussed the development of Islam as a political force in the region, the numerous intersections of Islam with politics, economics and culture in the region, and ultimately the implications of these dynamics for U.S. national interests and national security. The first panel focused on questions about the relationship between politics and economics in the region. Discussion centered on the economic and demographic drivers of political liberalization and economic growth. The second panel focused on the cultural drivers of political change in the region. Questions centered on the seeming rise in anti-American sentiment and the potential for afuture clash of civilizations. Dr. Francis Fukuyama gave the keynote address, which provided insights into the relationship between democratization and modernization, as well as the prospects for the spread of democracy in the Islamic world and the potential obstacles such political liberalization faces in the region. The third panel addressed the role of Islam, more broadly speaking, in the political processes and discussions in the region. The final panelprovided some summary remarks and addressed some of the geopolitical strategic implications of Islamic politics and their impact on U.S. national security and foreign policy. This paper provides a summary of the panel presentations, the issues discussed, the points of contention, and the varying opinions about the role of Islam and the prospects for political change in the Middle East. John Steinbruner is the Director of the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland.Item U.S. National Security Policy: In Search of a Balance(2002-01-01) Kaysen, Carl; Steinbruner, John; Malin, Martin B.; CISSMOn September 17, 2002, the White House, under cover of a letter from PresidentBush, issued a thirty-page document entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States." Its "Overview" states: The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity. To achieve these goals, the United States will: champion aspirations for human dignity; strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends; work with others to defuse regional conflicts; prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction; ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade; expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy; develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and transform America"s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century. These goals are admirable. Many of the means proposed for achieving them -- each of which is developed in a separate chapter of the document -- have been features of U.S. policy for the past half-century or more. John Steinbruner is Director of the Center for International Security Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park. Carl Kaysen is David W. Skinner Professor of Political Economy Emeritus in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Martin B. Malin is Director of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences"s program on Science, Technology, and Global Security.