The stark choice facing the Ukrainian leadership is even bleaker than many in the West might recognize. The alternative is not only and not so much between a self-sacrificing war, on the one side, and denigrating peace-deal with Russia, on the other. Instead, Kyiv’s possible partial satisfaction of Moscow’s appetite entails secondary domestic and foreign dangers that could turn out to be, in their sum, larger than the hazards of a new armed escalation today.
by Pavlo Klimkin and Andreas Umland Deliberations on the political repercussions of the ongoing pandemic for international relations and Ukrainian foreign affairs In their seminal 2012 study Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, Daren Acemoglu and James A. Robinson identified the Bubonic Plague of 1346-1353 not only as one of the greatest […]
Co-written with Kostiantyn Fedorenko After the break-up of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, a geopolitical gray zone emerged between Western organizations on the one side, and the Russia-dominated space on the other. This model was always fragile, did not help to solve the Transnistria problem in eastern Moldova or the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in […]
Editor’s Note: The following article was recently published in SITREP, The Journal of the Royal Canadian Military Institute. Re-Published with Permission from SITREP, Issue #6 Nov – Dec 2013 by Reza Akhlaghi Silicon Valley in the southern region of the San Francisco Bay Area in Northern California has been home to America’s most innovative […]
Colombia is enjoying a growth spurt, thanks in large part to security gains made in recent years. The amount of coca cultivated in Colombia has decreased from 357,800 acres in 2001 to 140,847 acres in 2010. An international aid effort is helping the Colombian government. Notes an article in today’s Miami Herald: The alternative development […]
Zainab Jeewanjee discusses CNN coverage of Libya’s Gaddafi and recent uprisings. She weaves that story into a larger discussion of enemy, but rational world figures operating against American interests and how understanding their political objectives is key to an effective counterterrorism strategy post 9/11, specifically in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Zainab Jeewanjee continues on drones in Pakistan, with Part 3 in a series of articles on Unmanned CIA aircraft in Pakistan. She discusses the scarcely heard Pakistani perspective that the drones are actually welcome in Waziristan. Skeptical of the argument, Jeewanjee explains the consequences of dismissing valid concerns Pakistani’s have about drones.
Two years ago – February 2008 – Pakistan began its transformation to democracy with a general election that brought Benazir Bhutto’s PPP (Pakistan People’s Party) into power. The party decided to continue its policy, introduced by its slain leader Ms. Bhutto, of reconciliation with all political players. It formed a coalition government with its rival […]
We’re looking for a super intern who will devote 10 hours a week to our dear site. Main duties are writing posts and promoting Women and Foreign Policy in the blogosphere, the Diggosphere and beyond. This is perfect fit for an undergraduate or graduate student with an interest in international affairs who wants to gain […]
Zainab Jeewanjee addresses the idea that President Obama is “changing tones” on foreign policy. An article in DAWN news suggests he is not living up to expectations on his foreign policy to Pakistan. Jeewanjee explains that he however is. Hawkishness on his part was promised from the onset of his campaign trail.
Zainab Jeewanjee discusses Secretary Gates’ and Secretary Clinton’s respective plans for Afghanistan and Pakistan this week. While Secretary Gates suggested shared use of drone technology with Islamabad, he also called for a consolidated military approach to extremist groups. Secretary Clinton on the other hand, unveiled a civilian rooted plan aimed at reintegrating extremists back into the fold of society. Jeewanjee sides with Secretary Clinton on this issue and explains why Gates might have been hawkish in his stance.
Zainab Jeewanjee shares her experience in Pakistan and a couple BBC pieces documenting the horror of terrorist attacks carried out in Karachi Pakistan, in December 2009.
Zainab Jeewanjee comments on a DAWN article that talks about foreign “meddling” in Pakistani affairs. She discusses how foreign dealings in Pakistan could be a result of history wherein political infrastructure was never put in place, inevitably making Pakistan reliant on foreign assistance for development.
Zainab Jeewanjee contrasts Christopher Hitchens Slate.com piece: Why does Pakistan Hate the United States with Dr. Goodson’s article “Pakistan is the most dangerous place in the world”, published at the Strategic Studies Institute. Although both articles describe the problems of a “transactional relationship” between both countries, Jeewanjee says Dr. Goodson’s piece offers an accurate assessment of the issue.
Zainab Jeewanjee reports on Pakistan’s supreme court ruling that the National Reconciliation Ordinance be overturned. Originally put in place by General Pervez Musharraf, NRO will re-open thousands of top government officials corruption cases, but makes current President Asif Ali Zardari the main target of this ruling. Zainab Jeewanjee reports this is politicking in Pakistan as the Supreme Court’s ambitions may be more than noble: as the Foreign Policy Magazine notes, they could be a means to settling a political score with current leadership.