Collapse of the Soviet Union and allied victory in the Persian Gulf War
James W. Peterson
The two unrelated events of the break-up of the Soviet Union and the allied victory in the Persian Gulf War made the year 1991 a significant turning point for both Moscow and Washington. A full fifteen nations emerged from the shell of the former Soviet Union, while revolutions in the formerly communist managed states of East Europe led to the emergence of democratic forms in all of them. The resulting Russian state was much smaller and weaker than the Soviet state that it supplanted. In contrast, American power surged forth with the coordinated victory in the Persian Gulf War over Iraq, after its invasion of Kuwait, that restored U.S. military credibility after the quagmire of the War in Southeast Asia. New doctrinal formulations emerged on both sides with the new Russian Constitution of 1993 that paralled the rise of the Yeltsin government, and with the New World Order as articulated for a time by the George H.W. Bush administration. The resulting imbalance of power was a major change from the dynamics of the Cold War but also a prod to the ambitions of Russian leaders like Vladimir Putin. However, balance remained with the mutual negotiations that characterized START diplomacy.
The Introduction will present key themes of each of the ten individual chapters to follow, in an effort to highlight the twists and turns of the Russian-American relationship in each. There will be particular importance placed on five analytical models as well as five theories that illuminate the key aspects of this evolving relationship. To what extent do the case studies, models, and theories explain either the convergence between the two powers or the erosion of good feeling between them? The images of their two symbolic eagles and parallel anthems will make memorable the analysis.
This introductory chapter identifies the rationale for a comparative study of the counterterrorism responses of non-Western states. It argues that much of the counterterrorism literature is biased towards Western perspectives, particularly those of the United States, United Kingdom and Israel, and tends to ignore the distinct counterterrorism approaches of non-Western states. This chapter defines what is meant by ‘non-Western’ in this volume, and identifies the drivers – historical, social, political, cultural and religious – that determine non-Western countries’ counterterrorism responses.
Saudi Arabia’s counterterrorism strategy of the first decade on the twenty-first century has been widely acclaimed as highly successful and presented as an example for other Muslim countries. The strategy was developed after the bomb attacks of al Qaida on the Arabian peninsula in 2003. The program is, however, deeply religious and is based on the reconversion of terrorists from a jihadi Salafism to a quietist and law-abiding version of Salafism. The chapter goes into the religious terminology of the Saudi counterterrorism programme, which labels terrorism as religious ‘deviation’, and radicals as people who have been led by their ‘passions’, are no longer rational and have diverted form the ‘middle way’. The chapter also shows how prominent religious scholars have become deeply involved in the state counterterrorism programme of ‘intellectual security’.
This chapter briefly summarises the experiences of the USA, Canada, Australia and Ireland in operating their written Constitutions. It highlights the difficulties involved in amending these documents and the contentiousness of their wording. IN some instances they are interpreted in accordance with the supposed intentions of their original drafters and so do not contain adequate sets of modern and clear rules. Relevant case law is cited and the role played by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 is emphasised. Until recently Ireland’s Constitution also struggled to keep up-to-date with society but in the last few years great strides have been made in that sphere. The chapter draws the conclusion that written Constitutions can be more problematic than they are worth.
The historic Russian interest in the Balkans cmpeted with the American-led, changed NATO mission to generate considerable conflict in the immediate aftermath of the 1991 break-up of Yugoslavia. During the ensurng Balkan Wars, American and Russian interests clashed continuously during the Bosnian civil war of 1992-95. Further, the distinctiveness of the Kosovo republic within the shrunken Yugoslavia intensified these American-Russian differences. NATO air strikes took place both under the sponsorship of Operation Allied Force in Bosnia and in response to Serbian military incursions its own republic of Kosovo that included a 90% Muslim population. Conversations continued sporadically after completion of the NATO-Russian Founding Act in 1997, but military initiatives by the West threw them off the tracks.
Both Russia and America perceived critical events in the 2007-09 period in different ways. President George W. Bush made the Missile Shield proposal in an effort to defend against rogue states that were developing a nuclear capability. Both the Czechs and the Poles were keystones in implementation of that proposal, bud Russian reactions were highly negative. They responded in many ways and threatened to build up defensive capabilities in their enclave of Kaliningrad. However, in fall 2009, President Obama cancelled the U.S. backed proposal and called for a substitution. The Arab Spring of 2011 created more controversy between Russia and America, for American support for revolutionary forces clashed with Russian anxiousness about popular demonstrations in Arab Spring states that were similar to the flower revolutions in former Soviet republics in the 2003-05 time frame. The war against Khadaffy in Libya was an allied engagement that provoked sharp Russian criticism. Further, both the uprising in Egypt and the civil war in Syria pushed Russian and American leaders apart and created misunderstandings that percolated into their future relationship.
This edited collection surveys how non-Western states have responded to the threats of domestic and international terrorism in ways consistent with and reflective of their broad historical, political, cultural and religious traditions. It presents a series of eighteen case studies of counterterrorism theory and practice in the non-Western world, including countries such as China, Japan, India, Pakistan, Egypt and Brazil. These case studies, written by country experts and drawing on original-language sources, demonstrate the diversity of counterterrorism theory and practice and illustrate that how the world ‘sees’ and responds to terrorism is different from the way that the United States, the United Kingdom and many European governments do. This volume – the first ever comprehensive account of counterterrorism in the non-Western world – will be of interest to students, scholars and policymakers responsible for developing counterterrorism policy.
Contrary to the rhetoric of the ‘War on Terror’, Indonesia’s counterterrorism policies are neither specific responses to transnational terror networks, nor simply a byproduct of the post-9/11 era. Rather, counterterrorism policies in Indonesia are entangled with historical state reactions to internal security challenges – ranging from social violence to terrorism and secessionism – since the country’s independence in 1945. While these different conflicts varied in nature, they are united as disputes over the basic institutions and boundaries of the state. While the state, in seeking to maintain its territorial integrity and defend its institutions, has responded in a variety of ways to these conflicts, the coercion and repression used under President Suharto contributed to the rise of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) and its splinter groups and left a legacy of mixed responses to terror. Terrorism and counterterrorism in Indonesia are rooted within this context of the disputed postcolonial state. While states like the US and UK have committed their militaries abroad in an effort to exterminate foreign militants, Indonesia has crafted responses to various sources of domestic violence – including different secessionist movements and JI – on an ad hoc basis and has utilized different security institutions, from the military to the police.