The rapprochement between Germany and Israel in the aftermath of the Holocaust is one of the most striking political developments of the twentieth century. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently referred to it as a ‘miracle’. But how did this ‘miracle’ come about? Drawing upon sources from both sides of the Iron Curtain and of the Arab–Israeli conflict, Lorena De Vita traces the contradictions and dilemmas that shaped the making of German–Israeli relations at the outset of the global Cold War. Israelpolitik offers new insights not only into the history of German–Israeli relations, but also into the Cold War competition between the two German states, as each attempted to strengthen its position in the Middle East and the international arena while struggling with the legacy of the Nazi past.
How inclusive are the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the European Union (EU)? The enlargement of both organisations seems to give some substance to the vision of a ‘Europe whole and free’ articulated at the Cold War's end. Yet more recently, enlargement's limits have increasingly come to be recognised, bringing an important debate on the balance to be struck between inclusion and exclusion. This book examines that sometimes awkward balance. Its analytical starting point is the characterisation of much of Europe as a security community managed by a system of security governance. The boundary of this system is neither clear nor fixed, but a dynamic of inclusion and exclusion can be said to exist by reference to its most concrete expression—that of institutional enlargement. On this basis, the book offers an elaboration of the concept of security governance itself, complemented by a historical survey of the Cold War and its end, the post-Cold War development of NATO and the EU, and case studies of two important ‘excluded’ states: Russia and Turkey.
This book focuses on the Western difficulties in interpreting Russia. It begins with by reflecting on some of the problems that are set in the foundations of Russia's post-Cold War relationship with the West. The book points to problems that emerge from linguistic and historical 'interpretation'. It looks at the impact of Russia's decline as a political priority for the West since the end of the Cold War and the practical impact this has had. It then reflects on the rising influence, especially, but not only, in public policy and media circles, of 'transitionology' as the main lens through which developments in Russia were interpreted. The book then examines the evolution of the West's relationship with Russia since the end of the Cold War, focusing particularly on the NATO-Russia relationship. It focuses on the chronological development of relations and the emergence of strategic dissonance from 2003. The book also looks at Russian domestic politics, particularly the Western belief in and search for a particular kind of change in Russia, a transition to democracy. It continues the exploration of domestic politics, but turns to address the theme of 'Putinology', the focus on Putin as the central figure in Russian politics.
Freedoms, set out in 1941,
provided particularly American inspiration for the post-war development of liberal global
governance. 1 But the principles of great-power
trusteeship and balancing, reflected in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals in 1944, were decisive in
the creation of the United Nations. 2 Despite
the early proliferation of liberal institutions under the aegis of the UN, ColdWar prerogatives
undermined cosmopolitan aspirations for world government. Cancelling each other out in the
Security Council, the US and the Soviet Union
collectively from a long battle within the American establishment, in which the military has, for
the time being, gained the upper hand over civil servants and career politicians, with their
cosmopolitan project of liberal order and rules-based global governance, initiated after the
Second World War and expanded after the ColdWar. If this victory is consolidated, it will bring
an end to the American messianism of the twentieth century, with its division of the world
between ‘good’ and ‘evil’, its globalising imperative to reorganise
the world through the
Uses and Misuses of International Humanitarian Law and Humanitarian
ColdWar, which is endangering both humanitarian teams and the operations they
conduct. References to ‘before’ have been heard since the mid-1990s,
in the wake of the Bosnian War and the Tutsi genocide. The mass killings in Bosnia
and Rwanda – coming on the heels of the Somali and Liberian civil wars
– created a landscape of widespread violence, ‘anarchic
conflicts’ in which not even humanitarian workers or journalists were safe.
People stressed the contrast with earlier
A Model for Historical Reflection in the Humanitarian Sector
Kevin O’Sullivan and Réiseal Ní Chéilleachair
effectively than attempting to find answers to such far-reaching questions in a
global context. Somalia was selected because of its pivotal role in redefining
humanitarian aid in the post-ColdWar era. The crisis in the region altered
understandings of humanitarian intervention as a tool of international security,
raised questions about NGO engagement with, or disregard for, local politics and
offered massive logistical challenges in the delivery of aid ( Harper, 2012 ). Its legacy still
especially as reformists of the centre left and right (Clinton, Blair) came to dominate the
party-political scene after Thatcher and Reagan embedded the neoliberal revolution of the 1980s.
After the ColdWar, in other words, the liberal world order was a fact of life. In Margaret
Thatcher’s immortal words, ‘there is no alternative’.
The consequences of this focus on private enterprise, mobile money, weakened unions, reduced
state welfare and regulation and lower taxes are all too visible today in areas like wealth
Security-risk management has long been a concern at Médecins du Monde (MdM),
as it was for other humanitarian agencies operating at the height of the ColdWar.
However, it was in the 1990s that security had to address its own set of issues. The
collapse of the Soviet bloc and the post-ColdWar conflicts created safety issues
for humanitarian agencies: a booming aid sector led to an increase in exposure,
together with a trend for
undermines existing obligations of all parties under international humanitarian law to allow civilians in areas affected by fighting to leave in search of safety and impartial aid to reach those in need. It is on that basis that the concept is not one which the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) wishes to promote, even though it acknowledges its possible necessity for other humanitarian organisations ( ICRC, 2003 ) and has resorted to it on occasions. 1
Numerous examples of failed corridors and safe zones becoming the target of attacks during the post-Cold