BCSIA Annual Report, 1999-2000: ISP

BCSIA: 1999-2000 ANNUAL REPORT
4. International Security Program (ISP)

Members

Core Faculty and Staff

Graham T. Allison, Jr., Faculty Chair; Director, BCSIA; Douglas Dillon Professor of Government
Gretchen Bartlett, Assistant to Ashton Carter
Robert D. Blackwill, Belfer Lecturer in International Security
Ashton B. Carter, Ford Foundation Professor of Science and International Affairs
Kristina Cherniahivsky, Program Assistant
Paul Doty, Director Emeritus, BCSIA; Mallinckrodt Professor of Biochemistry, Emeritus
Richard A. Falkenrath, Assistant Professor of Public Policy
Jasmine Friedman, Staff Assistant, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Kristine Fringer, Assistant to Richard Falkenrath
Jess Hobart, Program Development Officer, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
John P. Holdren, Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy
Sean Lynn-Jones, Series Editor, BCSIA Studies in International Security
Brian Mandell, Lecturer in Public Policy
Ernest May, Charles Warren Professor of History
Diane McCree, Deputy Editor, International Security
Matthew S. Meselson, Thomas Dudley Cabot Professor of the Natural Sciences, Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology
Steven E. Miller, Program Director
Karen Motley, Executive Editor, BCSIA Studies in International Security
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean, Kennedy School of Government; Don K. Price Professor of Public Policy
Samantha Power, Executive Director, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Sarah Sewell, Project Director, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Shane Smith, Coordinator, Preventive Defense Project
Jessica Eve Stern, Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy
Rebecca Storo, Coordinator, Executive Session on Domestic Preparedness
Ingrid Tamm-Grudin, Research Assistant, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Monica Duffy Toft, Assistant Professor of Public Policy
Michelle Von Euw, Faculty Assistant to Stephen Walt
Stephen Walt, Evron and Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of International Affairs

Affiliated Programs
Harvard-Sussex Program on CBW Armament and Arms Limitations (Matthew Meselson, Director)
Program in Information Resources Policy (Anthony Oettinger, Director)
Harvard Ukrainian National Security Program (Ernest May, Chair)
Intelligence and Policy Project (Ernest May, Director)
Executive Session on Domestic Preparedness (Richard Falkenrath and Arn Howitt, Co-Chairs)

International Security
Steven E. Miller, Editor-in-Chief
Michael E. Brown, Editor
Owen R. Coté, Jr., Editor
Sean M. Lynn Jones, Managing Editor
Diane J. McCree, Deputy Editor
Meara E. Keegan-Zaheer, Editorial Assistant

Bcsia Studies In International Security
Sean M. Lynn-Jones, Series Editor
Steven E. Miller, Managing Editor
Karen Motley, Executive Editor
Kristina Cherniahivsky, Editorial Assistant

Research Fellows

Samina Ahmed, Postdoctoral Fellow, Managing the Atom Project; Ph.D., Australian National University; Consultant, The Asia Foundation, Pakistan

Nora Ahmetaj, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Ivan Arreguin-Toft, Postdoctoral Fellow, International Security Program
Stephen Black, Research Fellow, International Security Program
Laura Donohue, Postdoctoral Fellow, International Security Program and Executive Sessions on Domestic Preparedness

Colin Elman, Postdoctoral Fellow; Ph.D., Columbia University; Assistant Professor of Political Science, Arizona State University
Miriam Elman, Postdoctoral Fellow; Ph.D., Columbia University; Assistant Professor of Political Science, Arizona State University
Evan Feigenbaum, Postdoctoral Fellow, Managing the Atom Project
Markus Fischer, Postdoctoral Fellow, International Security Program
Chrystia Freeland, Research Fellow, International Security Program, Deputy Editor, Globe and Mail
Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, Research Fellow, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy

Peter Grose, Fellow; M.A., Oxford University; Former Editor, Foreign Affairs
Xingping Kang, Visiting Scholar, International Security Program, Associate Editor, Xinhua News Agency
Sergei Konoplyov, MPA, John F. Kennedy School of Government; Director, Ukrainian National Security Program, Harvard University
Ariel Merari, Senior Fellow; Ph.D., University of California at Berkeley; Director, Political Violence Research Unit, Tel Aviv University
Mitsuru Nodomi, Research Fellow, International Security Program, Lt. Col. Japanese Army
Jordan Seng, Postdoctoral Fellow, International Security Program
Brenda Shaffer, Postdoctoral Fellow, International Security Program, Director, Caspian Studies Program.
Peter Singer, Doctoral Fellow, International Security Program
Jessica Eve Stern, Postdoctoral Fellow; Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy
James Walsh, Postdoctoral Fellow, Managing the Atom Project; Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Alexander Yereskovsky, Research Fellow, International Security Program
Hui Zhang, Research Fellow, Managing the Atom Project

Research Associates

Clark Abt, Chairman, Abt Associates Inc.
Michael, Cartney, Lt. Col., USAF
Walter C. Clemens, Jr., Professor of Political Science, Boston University
Charles Cogan, Senior Research Associate, John F. Kennedy School of Government

Owen R. Coté, Jr., Associate Director, Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Helen Fein, Executive Director, Institute for the Study of Genocide
Philip Fellman, Associate Professor of International Business, Graduate School of Business, New Hampshire College
Randall Forsberg, Founder and Executive director, Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies
Lisbeth Gronlund, Senior Staff Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists
Robert E. Hunter, Senior Advisor at RAND, Washington, D.C.
George N. Lewis, Associate Director, Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Michael Lippitz
Martin Malin, Program Director, Committee on International Security Studies, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Andrew Parasiliti, Deputy Director, Middle East Initiative
Barry R. Posen, Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Elizabeth Rogers, Independent Researcher; Instructor, Harvard Extension School
Jack Ruina, Professor Emeritus, Senior Lecturer, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Harvey Sapolsky, Director, Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Bernard Trainor, Lieutenant General, United States Marine Corps (Ret.)
Astrid S. Tuminez, Consultant, Carnegie Corporation of New York
Stephen Van Evera, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
David Wright, Senior Staff Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists

Background

Since its founding in 1973, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs has been the home to a substantial program focused on major problems of international security. The Belfer Center''s International Security Program (ISP) has rested on three pillars: a fellows program that brings to the Center pre- and postdoctoral scholars and occasional senior scholars; a vigorous publications program; and a research program aimed at producing policy-relevant work on the most important challenges to American and international security.

ISP has always embraced a broad definition of its substantive mandate, but traditional preoccupations of the program have included: security relations among the major powers, including Soviet-American relations during the Cold War and Russian-American relations subsequently; nuclear weapons, including questions of strategy, doctrine, force posture, and arms control and proliferation; America''s relations with major allies, particularly NATO and Japan; American policy, power, and role in the world; and regional security in various regional contexts.

Research Agenda And Policy Outreach

In recent years, the research and outreach activities of the International Security Program have fallen into six thematic areas. In each area, we seek to make a sustained commitment to large and important endeavors, and to build a stream of work that cumulates across time in terms of publications, activities, and individuals. The six themes that broadly governed our work during 1999-2000 are:

I. Weapons of Mass DestructionII. Internal Conflict III. Democracy and Peace IV. Regional Security V. Preventive Defense VI. Executive Programs for Russia and China
In what follows, we describe the evolution of our work in each area and highlight recent activities.

I. Weapons Of Mass Destruction

ISP''s research agenda focuses heavily on issues relating to weapons of mass destruction. It is pursuing five broad projects in this area: (1) the Soviet Nuclear Legacy: Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy; (2) Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD); (3) Managing the Atom; (4) Chemical and Biological Weapons; and (5) Nuclear Nonproliferation and Nonproliferation Dialogues.

The Soviet Nuclear Legacy: Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy
Background: Since 1991, ISP has had as one of its core concerns the fate of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. The abortive coup attempt in Moscow in August 1991 vividly raised the question of who was controlling the Soviet arsenal. The subsequent disintegration of the Soviet Union raised the question of who would inherit the Soviet nuclear arsenal. The ensuing and ongoing political instability and economic travails in Russia raised the question of the safety and security of the Russian nuclear arsenal and nuclear empire. In view of the fact that these weapons constitute the largest potential threat to the United States and its allies, and given the potential of Russian nuclear weapons and weapons-usable materials to fuel terrorism and nuclear proliferation, this is one of the most significant security issues of the post-Cold War era.

In 1996, ISP undertook the completion, publication, and promotion of its third book analyzing important dimensions of this problem: Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy: Containing the Threat of Loose Russian Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material. This book examined the threat that Russian nuclear weapons or weapons-usable materials might leak out of Russia; assessed the adequacy of U.S. policies aimed at reducing the threat of nuclear leakage; and made recommendations for improving U.S. policy.

The publication of this book was accompanied by a range of activities aimed at furthering the understanding of this grave problem, raising its salience in the policy debate, and promoting improved policies for addressing the nuclear leakage threat. Activities included a press briefing at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., hosted by Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar; Congressional Hearings of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on nuclear leakage at which BCSIA Director Graham Allison testified; a joint meeting in Washington with the Los Alamos National Laboratory to devise a comprehensive agenda for action by the United States and other governments; a conference on Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons Proliferation and Terrorism jointly presented with Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Monterey Institute of International Studies; and a collaborative conference in Helsinki, cosponsored by the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, the Swedish Institute for International Affairs, and the Institute for International Policy Studies (Tokyo, Japan), on Meeting the Nuclear Challenges of the Next Century. The book and its authors have been cited numerous times in newspaper and journal articles, and the authors were awarded the honor of a 1996 Laurel from Aviation Week and Space Technology for their "outstanding contributions to nuclear disarmament, controlling weapons of mass destruction, and the preservation of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty."

In subsequent years, ISP has continued to address these issues through a range of products and activities, driven by the fact that the problem persists on the policy agenda and the potential dangers remain acute. BCSIA Director Graham Allison continued to speak frequently and write actively on this subject. Products included several op-eds (for example, "Nuclear Dangers," which appeared in the Boston Globe on October 19, 1997, and "Why Russia''s Meltdown Matters," published in the Washington Post on August 31, 1998). He also coauthored (with Karl Kaiser and Sergei Karaganov) a short monograph, Towards a New Democratic Commonwealth, that highlighted the dangers of loose nukes and advocated multilateral efforts to address the problem. ISP Director Steven Miller delivered a paper, "Russia, Nuclear Leakage, and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime," at a meeting in Castiglioncello, Italy; this essay will be published as a chapter in the volume issuing from the conference. Miller also gave presentations that addressed dimensions of this set of issues at meetings in Geneva, Switzerland; Como, Italy; Arzamas-16, Russia; Stockholm, Sweden; Tokyo, Japan; and Tel Aviv, Israel. BCSIA Executive Director Richard Falkenrath lectured on nuclear security in Russia to several audiences in Cambridge and Washington, D.C. He also testified on this subject in Bonn, Germany, before a Parliamentary Commission of the German Bundestag.

BCSIA''s work on this subject was strengthened by the extensive efforts of STPP colleagues John Holdren and Matthew Bunn, whose work on U.S.-Russian nuclear relations, plutonium disposition, Russian nuclear cities, and nuclear smuggling (detailed elsewhere in this report) perfectly complements and augments ISP work on fissile material security in the former Soviet Union. Particularly notable in this context is their study "Managing Military Uranium and Plutonium in the United States and the Former Soviet Union," published in the Annual Review of Energy and Environment, 1997, which provides the most substantial and comprehensive survey of the issue since the publication of Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy.

ISP also helped organize and cosponsored two international conferences that were built largely around the its work on nuclear security in the former Soviet Union. The first, a conference on "Post-Cold War Non-Proliferation and Security Challenges and Their Implications for Security in the Nordic, Baltic, and East European Regions," was held in Parnu, Estonia, in March 1998. It drew together several dozen European and American experts to discuss this new security agenda. The second conference, cosponsored with the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Tel Aviv, was held in Tel Aviv, Israel, in June 1998. It focused on "Challenges to Global and Middle East Security." The ISP work on fissile material security in Russia was extensively exposed to a large segment of the Israeli security community and policymakers (including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu). Because many of the states that might benefit from nuclear leakage out of Russia are bitter enemies of Israel, this subject directly engages its vital interests, and hence the ISP work found a receptive audience. It seems likely that further collaboration on these issues with Israeli colleagues will result from this initial interaction.

In addition, ISP supported the work of Postdoctoral Fellows working in this area. Jason Ellis, for example, undertook research that was centered on U.S. efforts to forge policies that would help address, in a cooperative fashion, the nuclear leakage threat in Russia. He completed a book manuscript on this topic. Entitled Defense by Other Means: The Politics of U.S.-NIS Threat Reduction and Nuclear Security Cooperation, it examines the evolution of, and the U.S. domestic politics associated with the U.S. Nunn-Lugar Program.

During the summer of 1998, Russia plunged once again into deep crisis, reinvigorating fears that political instability and severe economic distress might lead to the leakage of nuclear weapons or fissile materials out of Russia. Most who follow this issue closed believe that the winter of 1998-99 was particularly dangerous phase of this problem, as Russia''s nuclear empire struggled with especially acute financial problems. Accordingly, this set of issues remained prominently on the ISP agenda.

BCSIA''s "Loose Nukes Task Force," formed in 1997, was meant to draw together those within the Center and in the Cambridge community with an interest in this subject. It continued to meet occasionally throughout the past several years, with its sessions normally focused on generating and assessing prescriptions that might at once be both feasible and useful. Members of the group were quite active in taking any good ideas that were generated (for example, the nuclear cities initiative) and advocating them before various policy communities in Washington and Moscow. Members of the Loose Nukes Task Force also benefit from a weekly "loose nukes" email news digest.

Activities in 1999-2000: BCSIA''s major product in this area during the 1999-2000 academic year was the monograph by Matthew Bunn, The Next Wave: Urgently Needed New Steps to Control Warheads and Fissile Material. It is the latest in the series of BCSIA publications, dating back to 1991, that analyzes in detail the current situation with respect to nuclear security in Russia and makes recommendations about how remaining dangers can be reduced or eliminated. This work was undertaken in the context of the Managing the Atom Project, described elsewhere in this report. Related work is described in the Managing the Atom section.

ISP continued in 1999-2000 to support research fellows working in this area. Post-doctoral fellow James Walsh served as coordinator of the Loose Nukes Working Group and investigated the US domestic politics of nuclear assistance to Russia, seeking to identify opportunities of expanding and improving US policies aimed at addressing this problem.

ISP staff (along with STPP colleagues) continued to lecture and write widely on the "loose nukes" problem; presentations were given in the last year in Moscow, Tokyo, Como (Italy), Washington, D.C., Bonn, Cambridge, and elsewhere. Graham Allison wrote on loose nukes for Harvard Magazine and contributed op-eds to major newspapers. Steven Miller prepared testimony under the title, "Nuclear Peril in Russia: Proliferation Threats Remain, Remedies are Possible, Action is Required," that was subsequently delivered to Disarmament, Arms Control, and Nonproliferation Subcommittee of the German Bundestag.

The nuclear legacy left behind by the Soviet Union has turned out to be one of the persistent security problems of the post-Cold War era. It still looms high on the US policy agenda. It remains the single largest nuclear proliferation threat facing the international community. Many problems remain unresolved. Accordingly, ISP continues to give sustained attention to this issue. Terrorism And Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Background: ISP''s work on avoiding nuclear anarchy in Russia argued that there was a growing potential risk of nuclear terrorism. This proposition turned out to be one of the more contentious and controversial points raised in Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy. Disputation on this issue inspired ISP to undertake a more detailed and intensive look at the intersection of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. During academic year 1996-97, therefore, ISP launched a research project on this subject. A team of ISP researchers, led by BCSIA Executive Director Richard Falkenrath and including Research Fellows Robert Newman and Bradley Thayer, set out to produce a book-length analysis of WMD terrorism. The study they conducted focused not only on the technical feasibility of NBC terrorism and unconventional means of delivery by states, but also the potential motivations of covert mass destruction attacks by states and nonstate actors.

This research effort was buttressed by complementary activities. In May 1996, BCSIA, in collaboration with Los Alamos National Laboratory, sponsored a major national conference on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons terrorism and proliferation. This conference contributed to the passage of the Defense against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (also known as the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici amendment). To better understand the difficult issue of how nonstate actors might be motivated to use weapons of mass destruction, the Center sponsored a second conference, held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in February 1997, intended to take an in-depth look at the potential motives of NBC terrorism. Cosponsored with Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Monterey Institute of International Studies, the expert-level workshop gathered together a select group of the nation''s leading terrorism experts, policy analysts, and technical specialists with detailed knowledge of how to build and use weapons of mass destruction.

The research effort by Falkenrath, Newman, and Thayer resulted in the completion of the book America''s Achilles'' Heel: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Terrorism and Covert Attack, which was published in the spring of 1998 in the BCSIA Studies in International Security series by MIT Press. A key feature of this book is a comprehensive prescriptive agenda for the U.S. government, focusing both on how to ensure that acts of NBC terrorism and covert attack remain infrequent, and on how to respond to such acts if they do in fact occur. Over the course of 1996-97, Falkenrath also briefed the preliminary findings of this study to numerous government officials and expert gatherings, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Livermore Study Group, the Nonproliferation Center of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Science Board, and congressional staffs. In 1997-98, the contents and recommendations were widely disseminated through dozens of lectures, television appearances, briefings in Washington, and radio and newspaper interviews. Falkenrath also participated in the summer of 1997 in the Defense Science Board''s study (sponsored by the Department of Defense) of the terrorist threat to the United States. Falkenrath has also produced an article-length analysis of these issues, "Confronting Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Terrorism," which appeared in the autumn 1998 issue of Survival, a quarterly journal.

Subsequently, ISP continued work in this area on three tracks. First, there was substantial follow-on activity that flowed from the publication of America''s Achilles'' Heel. Project leader Richard Falkenrath lectured on WMD terrorism at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, spoke on that topic to the New England Public Health Association, the National Governor''s Association, the U.S. Naval War College, and the U.S. Department of Justice, and gave presentations to conferences in Switzerland and Washington, D.C. He contributed an essay on the subject to the winter 1998/1999 issue of the quarterly, Survival, and wrote papers for the conference in Switzerland, and for the U.S. National Intelligence Council. Second, 1998-99 witnessed the launch of a second major project, this one focused on domestic preparedness. With financial support from the U.S. Department of Justice, this project will undertake both research and workshops aimed at assessing and improving the capacity of the United States and other industrial democracies to cope with terrorist threats and terrorist activities. Third, as noted below, the Preventive Defense Project has included a strand of work devoted to the subject of "catastrophic terrorism." This work has resulted in both a published report and an article, co-authored by Ashton Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow, that appeared in the November/December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs.

Activities in 1999-2000: This year witnessed the launching of a major new initiative, The Executive Session on Domestic Preparedness, under the leadership of Richard Falkenrath. The Kennedy School and the U.S. Department of Justice created the Executive Session on Domestic Preparedness to assist the government in examining the technical, legal, operational, and bureaucratic issues associated with preparing America for terrorism. The Executive Session focuses on preparedness for domestic terrorism, with particular emphasis on the possibility of a terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction.

Because domestic preparedness for terrorism requires expertise that goes far beyond the capability of any single organization, the Executive Session convenes a multi-disciplinary task force of leading practitioners from state and local agencies, senior officials from federal agencies, and academic specialists from Harvard University. The members bring to the Executive Session extensive policy expertise and operational experience in a wide range of fields - emergency management, law enforcement, national security, law, fire protection, the National Guard, public health, emergency medicine, and elected office - that play important roles in an effective domestic preparedness program. The project combines faculty research, analysis of current policy issues, field investigations, and case studies of past terrorist incidents and analogous emergency situations. Through its research, publications, and the professional activities of its members, the Executive Session intends to become a major resource for federal, state, and local government officials, congressional committees, and others interested in preparing for a coordinated response to acts of domestic terrorism.

The Executive Session held its inaugural meeting at the Kennedy School on December 2-4, 1999, and its second meeting on June 26-28, 2000. Both meetings focused on conceptualizing the challenges and opportunities of domestic preparedness.

The December Executive Session was anchored by three substantive sessions. A case study of the 1996 Centennial Olympics facilitated a discussion of threat assessment and the particular challenges associated with providing effective security for very large, high-profile events. U.S. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) spoke to the group, addressing the need for national priorities and a coordinated intergovernmental effort. Finally, Harvard Law Professor Phillip Heymann explored legal authority as an element of preparedness, and in doing so began to highlight the unique difficulties of responding to a biological event as opposed to a chemical event.

Several themes - event planning, threat assessment, and legal authority - continued into the June Executive Session in a particularly rich discussion of the Seattle/WTO and Washington, D.C./IMF-World Bank protests. This segment also stimulated focused discussions of the role of the press and the public and the importance of simulations. A case study on anthrax threats highlighted the distinction between chemical and biological events, and the need for unified incident command systems and intergovernmental coordination. A bioterrorism preparedness segment led to a discussion of federal, state, and local responsibilities in addition to laying out the unique difficulties of responding to a biological event. Martin Linsky, Lecturer in Public Policy at the Kennedy School, led a segment on the press which explored intergovernmental tensions while focusing on the role of the press in shaping public perceptions and policy decisions. Finally, General Meir Dagan (former head of Israel''s Counterterrorism Bureau) and BCSIA Research Fellow Ariel Merari presented a paper on counterterrorism in Israel that touched on threat assessment, command and control systems, and the utility of exercises.

Managing The Atom Background: Nuclear issues have always occupied a central place on the ISP agenda. During the Cold War, considerable attention was given to the nuclear doctrines and policies of the two superpowers, the nuclear arms control negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union, and nuclear proliferation (including closely related dimensions of the nuclear fuel cycle). Such concerns remain very much relevant today, despite the demise of the Cold War antagonism. But the dramatically new international context demands rethinking of core nuclear issues. There is no reason to suppose that the solutions of the Cold War period will be appropriate for the new age that now exists.

This notion inspired the creation of the Managing the Atom Project, a standing research group within BCSIA. It is pursued in close collaboration with the Belfer Center''s Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program and its Director, Professor John Holdren. ISP actively participates in the Managing the Atom Project, which is undertaking a thorough reassessment of key elements of both civilian and military nuclear programs in the aftermath of the Cold War. Initial priorities have included U.S.-Russia nuclear relations, international fissile material management and disposition, and nuclear non-proliferation.

Activities in 1999-2000: The collaborative activities of the Managing the Atom Project are detailed elsewhere in this report, in the section devoted to the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program. In addition to the activities reported there, members of ISP continued to monitor developments in strategic arms control and U.S.-Russian nuclear forces. Steven Miller gave several lectures on these topics at international conferences in Europe. Miller also delivered a paper on nuclear arms control at the United Nations to the 2000 NPT Review Conference. It was subsequently published by the UN Department for Disarmament Affairs in Arms Control and Disarmament: A new Conceptual Approach. STPP colleague Matthew Bunn similarly followed these issues closely and developed an analysis of future directions for strategic arms control. Graham Allison continued his work related to the ratification of START II by the Russian Duma and interacted regularly with senior Russian officials in Moscow about this issue.Chemical And Biological Weapons
Background: ISP provides the Harvard base for the Harvard-Sussex Program on CBW (Chemical and Biological Weapons) Armament and Arms Limitation, run by the Faculty Chair, Professor Matthew Meselson. During the past year, its work has had two main focal points: the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the criminalization of the use of CBW weapons. Both Meselson and Senior Research Fellow Marie Chevrier were active in the public education effort in support of ratification of the CWC. Meselson led an effort to secure the signatures of members of the National Academy of Sciences on a letter supporting the treaty to Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.), and Chevrier provided expertise to editorial writers and appeared on talk radio around the country. She also lobbied Senate offices, addressed a rally at the Capitol during CWC education days, participated in strategy discussions of the Poison Gas Task Force, and worked with grassroots organizations to provide information and advice.

In the aftermath of the CWC''s ratification, the project hosted a panel discussion moderated by Chevrier, "CWC Ratification and the Future of Arms Control," that featured Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lori Esposito Murray, special assistant to President Bill Clinton, and Professor Meselson. Meselson also organized a working meeting on the criminalization of CBW weapons that was attended by senior international law and diplomacy experts in January 1997. The CBW Project also conducted a colloquium on CBW arms control research, new and emerging developments in the natural sciences that affect CBW policy, and international negotiations to prevent the development and use of these weapons. Colloquium speakers included Gordon Vachon, Department of Foreign Affairs, Canada; Jonathan Tucker, Monterey Institute of International Studies; Anne Harrington, U.S. Department of State; and Jessica Eve Stern, formerly at the National Security Council.

The aim of the Harvard-Sussex Program on Chemical and Biological Warfare Armaments and Arms Limitation (HSP) is to promote the global elimination of chemical and biological weapons and to strengthen the constraints against hostile uses of biomedical technologies. In 1997-98, following the U.S. Senate ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention in April 1997, HSP focused on the implementation of the CWC and strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) through research and education. In early 1999, the Center published the volume: Biological Weapons: Limiting the Threat, edited by Joshua Lederberg.

Activities in 1999-2000: The main focus this year was to continue the effort to develop and promote the adoption of an international legal instrument that would criminalize the use of chemical or biological weapons. The idea is that, under such a convention, individual leaders would be held personally accountable for ordering any such use. A stream of activities - lectures, workshops, and so on - flowed from this priority. In addition, the program continued to sponsor a weekly colloquium on CBW issues that attracted scholars from Harvard, MIT, and Tufts and included speakers from the U.S. Departments of State and Defense, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, and prominent scholars from research institutes and universities.

Nuclear Nonproliferation And Nonproliferation Dialogues
Background: In the post-Cold War era, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is one of the most pressing security concerns for the United States and has become a major issue in U.S. relations with its allies. ISP has sought to address the linkages between proliferation and allies by engaging in nonproliferation dialogues with colleagues from two of America''s most important allies, Germany and Japan. Thus, in 1996-97 ISP continued its ongoing series of discussions on nonproliferation issues in the U.S.-German Study Group on Nonproliferation, jointly hosted with the Research Institute of the Germany Society for Foreign Affairs in Bonn. The purpose of these talks was to facilitate high-level communication between the German and American security communities on nonproliferation, including both scholars and government officials. These meetings have been held twice a year for several years, alternating meeting sites between the United States and Germany. Topics addressed include the North Korean nuclear program and the international responses to it, the allegations about Iran''s nuclear aspirations, the role and findings of the UN Special Commission with respect to Iraq''s programs for acquiring weapons of mass destruction, the problem of fissile material security in the former Soviet Union, the threat of chemical and biological weapons proliferation, and the risk of terrorism with weapons of mass destruction.

Activities in 1999-2000: Since 1992, ISP has engaged in regular collaborations with colleagues from Japan interested in the impact of nuclear issues on U.S.-Japan relations. In February 2000, the seventh joint workshop, under the heading "U.S.-Japan Nonproliferation Dialogue," was held in Tokyo, Japan. This was a small workshop with a delegation of leading Japanese experts on nuclear matters engaged in an intensive discussion of proliferation-related issues of relevance to U.S.-Japan relations. Topics addressed included the controversy associated with the plutonium fuel cycle, problems of nuclear waste disposal, international concerns about long-term plutonium disposition, as well as North Korea''s nuclear program and other issues that could have an effect on U.S. and Japanese security interests in Northeast Asia. In addition, under the auspices of the Managing the Atom Project, ISP collaborated in a second workshop, focused on issues of plutonium disposition, that brought BCSIA researchers together with colleagues from the Department of Quantum Physics of the University of Tokyo.

In addition, ISP continued its tradition of supporting scholars working in the field of nonproliferation. During 1999-2000, ISP''s fellows program included James Walsh, working on the factors that inhibited proliferation in instances where states chose not to acquire nuclear weapons despite possession of an active nuclear weapons program, Samina Ahmed (from Pakistan), working on the implications of proliferation in South Asia, and Hui Zhang and Evan Feigenbaum, both working on aspects of Chinese nuclear weapons policy. Also relevant was the work of Stephen Black, former official historian of the UN Special Commission on Iraq, who was focused intensively on the lessons to be learned from the international community''s struggle to cope with Iraq WMD programs; and Jordan Seng, who explored whether so-called rogue states would be deterrable if they succeed in obtaining nuclear weapons.

II. Internal Conflict
Background: As events in places as far-flung as Bosnia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and Rwanda have demonstrated, internal conflict is a vexing international problem and a source of enormous human suffering. It is also unfortunately commonplace, with two or three dozen internal conflicts raging in any given year; internal conflict occurs far more frequently than war between states. Accordingly, this subject looms large in ISP''s work on preventing deadly conflict, which is supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and which operates in cooperation with the Carnegie Commission on the Prevention of Deadly Conflict.

Over the past several years, ISP has undertaken two projects, both led by former ISP Associate Director Michael Brown, that seek to examine the causes of and potential solutions to internal conflict, and that explicitly consider what instruments are available to national governments and to the international community for preventing or coping with internal conflict.

The first of ISP''s projects on internal conflict was a two-year study, involving nearly every resident ISP fellow as well as a number of outside experts, that sought to explore three sets of issues: the causes of internal conflict; the ways in which internal conflicts spread beyond the borders of a single state; and the efforts of the international community to prevent, manage, or resolve internal conflicts. Specific attention was given to the question of international involvement in internal conflicts, examining the international actors who get drawn into internal conflicts, or who thrust themselves into an internal conflict, and assessing as well the instruments available to outside actors seeking to intervene.

A working group, consisting of nine members of BCSIA, several colleagues from Harvard''s Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, and six scholars from outside Cambridge, was formed to address these topics. In addition, a regular speaker series on internal conflict was organized and two workshops were held to expose the efforts of the working group to critical scrutiny. The main purpose of the group was to produce an edited volume that would advance understanding of the problem of internal conflict. The group''s efforts culminated in the publication of the book The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict, which was published by MIT Press in 1996 to laudatory reviews by the Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, and World Politics.

ISP''s second major project on internal conflict was an exploration of the policy instruments available to national governments seeking to avert ethnic conflict and minimize ethnic friction. In 1996, in collaboration with Harvard''s Pacific Basin Research Center, ISP launched a project designed to examine policies pursued by Asian governments in their efforts to manage ethnic relations - a project that is, in a sense, a successor to the project and completed volume on internal conflict. The goal of this project was to produce a book that would undertake an analysis of what policies seem most effective at containing ethnic problems and preventing ethnic conflict.

The book Government Policies and Ethnic Relations in Asia and the Pacific was published by MIT Press in the fall of 1997. It consists of 12 case studies, each focused on a single Asian country, but carefully structured to provide the basis for comparative assessment of the impact and effectiveness of the ethnic policies of Asian governments. In its orientation, this project differs considerably from a growing number of ethnic conflict studies that examine existing or historical conflicts. The aim of this study has been to examine the instruments available to governments for averting or minimizing ethnic problems.

ISP''s preoccupation with the topic of internal conflict has also influenced its wider publications program. It has encouraged, induced, or attracted numerous articles on these topics for its quarterly journal International Security. Many of these pieces were collected in the International Security Reader, Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict, published by MIT Press in 1997. Intended to serve the teaching market, this book sold nearly 2,000 copies in its first year.

Activities in 1999-2000: The next major project in this area is that undertaken by former Associate Director Michael Brown, who initiated a further research project on internal conflict, this one aimed at producing a single-authored book on the causes of ethnic conflict. This project commenced in late 1997 and so far has included extensive field research in Sri Lanka, Bosnia, and Croatia, as well as an extensive literature review. Brown''s more recent research and field work focused on Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh.

During academic year 1999-2000, several ISP fellows did work that fell under this rubric. They included Brenda Shaffer, who followed internal conflicts in the greater Caspian basin and their implications for regional politics; Laura Donohue, who did detailed work - including completing a volume of legal analysis - on the impact of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland; and Ivan Arreguín-Toft, who worked on asymmetric conflicts such as might arise when outside powers get drawn into local or internal conflicts.

Problems associated with internal conflict have also loomed large in ISP''s Human Rights Initiative, described below.

Carr Center For Human Rights Policy

The Carr Center is a research, teaching and training program that critically examines the policies and actions of governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and other actors that affect the realization of human rights around the world. The Center was formally launched in June of 1999 through a gift from Kennedy School alumnus Gregory Carr, and established as a separate research center in July of 2000.

The yawning gap between the apparent attractiveness of human rights ideals and their realization has prompted the Carr Center to focus on the tools and techniques for realizing existing norms. The next stage of human rights research also requires broadening into new areas of inquiry. The Center will focus on ways in which human rights policy issues intersect with other concerns such as military intervention, the role of non-governmental organizations, domestic politics, and the development of norms. Working effectively at the intersection of human rights and other disciplines also requires forging new relationships with those who are only just beginning to grapple with the human rights implications of their work, including multinational corporations, Internet entrepreneurs, public health professionals, political scientists, lawyers, military leaders, journalists, and development economists.

Non-governmental human rights organizations are rarely tailored to conduct objective analysis of their own tactics and strategies; academic initiatives concerned with human rights often are removed from the public policy debate or can reflect a narrow scholarly perspective. In the division of labor among human rights-related institutions, the Center occupies a unique niche. As an independent research center, it will offer a forum in which diverse views about human rights can be considered. The Center will draw new voices to the table, thereby extending and deepening the human rights dialogue.

The Carr Center''s location in a school of public policy allows it to draw upon a range of disciplines (e.g. international security, American government, law, and economics) and the case-based analytic approach for which the Kennedy School is known. The Center will develop programs that empirically and analytically address central issues in human rights policy and practice.

The Carr Center sponsors a speaker series, a film series, periodic conferences and workshops, and internal colloquia. It publishes an annual guide to human rights courses at Harvard that also is available on line. It has launched a working paper series with the release of "The Internet and Human Rights" by Sarah Sewall. It has also begun a book series with the publication of Realizing Human Rights: Moving From Inspiration to Impact, edited by Samantha Power and Graham Allison (St. Martin''s Press, 2000). More information about Carr Center activities and resources is available elsewhere on its website http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/cchrp/.

The Center is developing five substantive areas of focus: domestic human rights policy: compliance and constituency building; NGO effectiveness and accountability; human rights norms development; national security and human rights; and corporate responsibility. These topics, simultaneously overlapping and complementary, will create an integrated research agenda that reflects the Center''s links to both the academic and policy communities.

The domestic human rights policy program focuses on isolating and evaluating the leadership skills, the strategies, and the means employed in pursuit of human rights policy in the United States. It also seeks to understand how constituencies for human rights policy issues develop, and it evaluates approaches for encouraging U.S. compliance with international human rights norms. It will model human rights leadership training programs on the basis of its findings. The program is currently running a project in coordination with the Association of Idaho Cities to examine and support the work of municipal leaders in developing skills and strategies to mobilize a statewide effort to address local human rights issues and engage the broader human rights debates.

The national security and human rights program has launched a project, with the support of the Carnegie Corporation, on military strategies for humanitarian intervention. The inquiry will explore the factors shaping these strategies and their implications for international humanitarian law, for intervention objectives, and for the civilians in the target country. The project will seek to place the character and dilemmas of modern humanitarian interventions in a broader historical context as well as suggest lessons for future intervention.

Carr Center faculty and staff also teach several human rights courses within the Kennedy School of Government. Visiting Professor of Practice Michael Ignatieff is teaching a large lecture class in the fall, "Human Rights and International Politics: The Basic Policy Dilemmas," and a small spring seminar, "Human Rights, State Sovereignty, and Intervention." Executive Director Samantha Power and Program Director Sarah Sewall are teaching a spring course, "Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy."

III. Democracy and Peace
Background: Another strand of ISP''s work in the area of preventing deadly conflict focuses on the connection between democracy and peace. Is democracy a cause of peace? Would a democratizing world be a more peaceful world? Is the promotion of democracy an effective long-term strategy for preventing deadly conflict? For several years, ISP has had an ongoing commitment to conduct research on the relationship between democracy and peace, and, more specifically, the proposition that democracies never fight wars with one another. The apparent existence of a democratic peace has led many scholars and policymakers to claim that a world of democracies would be a world without war and that the United States should make the promotion of democracy the cornerstone of its foreign policy. BCSIA''s research in this area explores the theoretical underpinnings of the democratic peace as well as its implications for U.S. foreign and security policy. During the last several years, ISP engaged in several projects that explore aspects of the connection between democracy and peace.

The first of these efforts sought to undertake a qualitative assessment of the democratic peace hypothesis and resulted in the edited volume, Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer?, which offers a historically grounded empirical reconsideration of the democratic peace hypothesis. This approach contrasts sharply with other studies of the democratic peace, most of which rely on statistical analysis of a large sample of states and conflicts. Under the direction of Dr. Miriam Fendius Elman, a former BCSIA research fellow, a group of