As Turkey readies sanctions against Syria, there is some confusion as to how one best reads the relationship between these two neighbors. Until this year, the government of Turkey led by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) appeared friendly with the Assad regime, and has spent the recent months diplomatically urging Bashar Assad to curb his violent crackdowns against protesters.
On both ‘sides’ of the war on terror, unrealistic assessments of the possible combined with controversially broad and value-laden conceptions of ‘self-defence’ look a lot like ideological warfare.
Putin will remain in power until 2024, barring assassination or revolution, and will become Russia’s longest ruling leader since Stalin. He is not known for his willingness to compromise or surrender Russia’s imperial gains, suggesting that a new time of troubles is looming on the horizon. This will indicate whether the West still sees Russia as a political part of Europe or has concluded that the country cannot be changed and the days of democratization have become a historical footnote.
Modernity-inspired international development has often failed when not taking into account local context, culture and belief. Failing to consider religion risks the failure of enduring social change. This seems a more productive and appropriate way of framing societies and people’s lives, rather than suggesting secularity should supersede other forms of faith.
Because of the deep concern on the part of many UN member states that RtoP could give rise to a regime change agenda and the equally deep global opposition to such an agenda, it is incumbent on us to explore the relationship more deeply in order to ascertain whether there are ways of maintaining a clear distinction between RtoP and regime change without sacrificing the protection of civilians.
Twenty years ago, the country known until then as Yugoslavia plunged into war. Over the next decade, a succession of armed conflicts on the territory of the “former Yugoslavia” would recurrently make headlines. The wars spelled the end not just of a multinational state, but of any prospect of a viable multinational society at a local level.
Recent developments in the South China Sea and China’s emphasis on the modernization of its military raise important issues for the future of U.S. strategic manoeuvring in the region. What can be done to sustain future U.S. presence in Asia while tactfully maintaining a favourable position for its interests and the stability in the region?
Throughout the history of Western political philosophy and politics, thinking about peace has been an important and constant effort. The spectrum of questions raised encompasses enquiries such as how to accomplish peace, how to justify the breaking of peace, and how to define peace; and relates to problems such as the relation between war and peace, just war, ius in bellum and ius at bellum.
We are routinely presented with the image of an angry bearded man, possibly a clip from a video linked to Al-Qaeda, and then an unspecific warning of an imminent threat. We are asked to be concerned, but not allowed to be informed. The implicit equivalence of margin with radical and radical with violence makes for perpetual insecurity in modern societies.
David Cameron’s mid-September visit to Moscow had three objectives: to revive the practice of top level contacts; to boost trade and investment; and to put down some markers about values. Choosing either greater central control or more liberal development has its risks. It is in the interests of Britain to work with Russia towards the second.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.