Report Chapter

BCSIA Annual Report, 1996-1997: International Security Program

3. International Security Program


Core Staff
Steven E. Miller, Program Director
Graham T. Allison, Jr., Faculty Chair
Michael E. Brown, Associate Director
Owen R. Coté, Jr., Assistant Director
Dawn Opstad, Program Coordinator

Core Faculty
Graham T. Allison, Jr., Director, BCSIA; Douglas Dillon Professor of Government
Robert D. Blackwill, Lecturer in Public Policy
Albert Carnesale, Provost, Harvard University
Ashton B. Carter, Ford Foundation Professor of Science and International Affairs
James Cooney, Assistant Dean for International Student Programs
Paul Doty, Director Emeritus, BCSIA; Mallinckrodt Professor of Biochemistry, Emeritus
Jendayi Frazer, Assistant Professor of Public Policy
John P. Holdren, Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy
Brian Mandell, Lecturer in Public Policy
Ernest May, Charles Warren Professor of History
Matthew S. Meselson, Thomas Dudley Cabot Professor of the Natural Sciences, Department of Molecular
and Cellular Biology
Kalypso Nicolaïdis, Assistant Professor of Public Policy
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean, Kennedy School of Government; Don K. Price Professor of Public Policy
Philip Zelikow, Associate Professor of Public Policy

Senior Researchers
Marie Chevrier, Chemical and Biological Weapons
Richard A. Falkenrath, Executive Director, BCSIA
Shai Feldman, Regional Security
Sean M. Lynn-Jones, Editor, BCSIA Studies in International Security

Affiliated Programs
Harvard-Sussex Program on CBW Armament and Arms Limitations (Matthew Meselson, Director)
Middle East Institute (Leonard Hausman, Director)
Program in Information Resources Policy (Anthony Oettinger, Director)
Harvard Ukrainian National Security Program (Ernest May, Chair)
Intelligence and Policy Project (Ernest May and Philip Zelikow, Directors)

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

BCSIA Studies in International Security
Michael E. Brown, Series Editor
Sean M. Lynn-Jones, Series Editor
Steven E. Miller, Series Editor
Karen Motley, Executive Editor
Dawn Opstad, Editorial Assistant

Research Fellows
Alexei Arbatov, Visiting Fellow, Member Russian Duma
Gunther Bachler, Visiting Fellow; Director, Swiss Peace Research Institute
Karen Ballentine, Predoctoral Fellow; Columbia University
Sigve Brekke, Visiting Fellow; Adviser, Norwegian Defense Research Establishment
Renée de Nevers, Postdoctoral Fellow; Ph.D., Columbia University; Research Fellow, Center for
International Security and Arms Control, Stanford University
Sebastian Fries, Visiting Predoctoral Fellow; Free University of Berlin
Peter Grose, Visiting Fellow; M.A., Oxford University
Allison Macfarlane, Research Fellow; Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Assistant Professor,
George Mason University
Robert Newman, Research Fellow; B.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology; M.Sc., London School of
Economics; Science Applications International Corporation, Washington, D.C.

Elizabeth Rogers, Postdoctoral Fellow; Ph.D., Duke University; Assistant Professor, Case Western University
Brian Taylor, Predoctoral Fellow; Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Bradley Thayer, Postdoctoral Fellow; Ph.D., University of Chicago
Richard Weitz, Postdoctoral Fellow; Ph.D., Harvard University; Analyst, U.S. Department of Defense

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
The International Security Program pursued research and associated activities in eight thematic areas during the past year.

I. Weapons of Mass Destruction
II. Internal Conflict
III. Democracy and Peace
IV. Regional Security
V. Preventive Defense
VI. European Security
VII. America''s National Interests
VIII. Executive Programs for Russia and China
I. Weapons of Mass Destruction
ISP''s research agenda focuses greatly on work 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) Nonproliferation Dialogues.

The Soviet Nuclear Legacy: Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy
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.

The year 1996 witnessed the completion, publication, and promotion of the third ISP 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."

Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction
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). In 1996-97 a team of ISP researchers, led by BCSIA Executive Director Richard Falkenrath and including Research Fellows Robert Newman and Bradley Thayer, further pursued the issues raised in this conference. The study they conducted has 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. 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 will produce a book-length study of this issue in early 1998; the volume will be published in the BCSIA Studies in International Security series by MIT Press. The key feature of this book will be a comprehensive prescriptive agenda for the U.S. government, focusing both on how to ensure that acts of NBC terrorism and convert attack remain infrequent, and 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.

Managing the Atom
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 and international fissile material management and disposition. In 1996-97 ISP supported the work of Matthew Bunn on fissile material disposition, nuclear security in the former Soviet Union, and on U.S.-Russian nuclear relations; of Jennifer Weeks on U.S.-Chinese nuclear relations, and the domestic politics of nuclear issues in the United States; of postdoctoral fellow Allison Macfarlane''s work on nuclear waste disposal; and of Research Fellow Robert Newman''s work both on improving International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and on WMD terrorism.

Chemical and Biological Weapons
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. Meselson and Senior Research Fellow Marie Chevrier were both 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.

Nonproliferation Dialogues
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 is 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.

Similarly, since 1992 ISP has engaged in occasional collaborations with colleagues from Japan interested in the impact of nuclear issues on U.S.-Japan relations. In February 1997 BCSIA hosted another such meeting, the "U.S.-Japan Nonproliferation Dialogue," a small workshop with a delegation of leading Japanese experts on nuclear matters to engage in an intensive discussion of proliferation-related issues of relevance to U.S.-Japan relations. Topic 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.

II. Internal Conflict
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.

ISP has undertaken two projects, both led by 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 International Dimensions of 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.

Managing Ethnic Relations in Asia and the Pacific
ISP''s second major project on internal conflict is 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 is to produce a book that will undertake an analysis of what policies seem most effective at containing ethnic problems and preventing ethnic conflict. The book will consist 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.

The project''s case studies were commissioned in early 1996, and first drafts were reviewed at an authors'' workshop in July 1996. The editing and revision process took place during 1996-97, and the volume, Government Policies and Ethnic Relations in Asia and the Pacific, was published by MIT Press in the fall of 1997.

III. Democracy and Peace
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 1996-97 ISP engaged in three separate by linked projects that explore aspects of the connection between democracy and peace: Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer?; Should the United States try to Export Democracy?; and Democratization and War.

Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer?
This project aimed to qualitatively assess 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 distinguished experts and promising younger scholars examined how domestic norms and institutions influenced decisions for war or peace in past crises. The cases selected included crises between pairs of democracies, between a democracy and a nondemocracy, and between pairs of nondemocracies. Some of these crises escalated to war and others did not. The contributors to Paths to Peace examined the historical record to see if democratic processes reduced the likelihood of war and if the absence of democratic norms and institutions made states more bellicose. On the whole, the authors conclude that democracy does not necessarily lead to peace. Domestic factors influence decisions to go to war, but domestic politics can make some democracies more warlike. Further, some nondemocracies may even be less likely to go to war because of the absence of public pressure on their leaders. Paths to Peace thus suggests that the United States should be more cautious about basing policies on the premise that spreading democracy will cause peace. The book was published by MIT Press in August 1997.

Should the United States try to Export Democracy?
BCSIA''s second project on democracy and peace focuses on U.S. policy choices. In Should America Spread Democracy? A Debate, Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Christopher Layne engage in a spirited exchange of views on whether U.S. interests are advanced by U.S. attempts to promote democracy— a central issue in debates over the future of American foreign policy. Lynn-Jones, a research associate at BCSIA, presents the case for spreading democracy. He argues that democratic political systems benefit their citizens more than other types of political systems; the spread of democracy is likely to expand the zone of democratic peace; and America''s security and economic relations will be enhanced in a world of more democracies. Layne, who was a BCSIA postdoctoral research fellow in 1995-96 and is now a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School and a resident consultant at the RAND Corporation, takes the opposite view, arguing that the democratic peace is a myth and thus U.S. policies to spread democracy will not increase international peace. In his view, U.S. policies to export democracy will not work and will divert attention from important domestic priorities. He argues that the United States should focus on its national interests instead of attempting to control the domestic politics of other countries.

Should America Spread Democracy? will stimulate and inform further public debate on this important issue in U.S. foreign policy and is expected to be an invaluable teaching tool. The book will be published by MIT Press in the spring of 1998 as part of the Center''s Studies in International Security book series.

Democratization and War
The Center''s third project on democracy and peace is a study of the connection between the process of democratization and war. With BCSIA''s support, Professors Edward Mansfield of Ohio State University and Jack Snyder of Columbia University are writing a book that will build on their pathbreaking and controversial Summer 1995 International Security article, "Democratization and the Danger of War." In that article, Mansfield and Snyder argued that established democracies may enjoy a democratic peace, but states in the process of becoming democracies are more likely to be embroiled in war. The democratization process often creates nascent democracies without stable institutions. Leaders in such countries may be tempted to fan the flames of nationalism to achieve and maintain power, thereby creating a climate for aggressive war. In their book, which will be published by MIT Press as part of BCSIA''s book series, Mansfield and Snyder will offer an extensive quantitative analysis of the link between democratization and war, as well as detailed case studies of democratizing states and their decisions for war or peace.

IV. Regional Security
Many of the world''s security problems manifest themselves in regional settings. With the end of the Cold War, dilemmas of regional security have become even more prominent on the international security agenda. In recent years, ISP has sought to expand and strengthen its coverage of regional security issues, in part by selection of pre- and postdoctoral fellows working on security in specific regions and in part by recruitment of distinguished senior fellows. For the past two years, ISP''s efforts to address regional security have been led by and centered on the activities of Senior Fellow, Shai Feldman. His latest work has focused on the diplomacy of the peace process in the Middle East, and in particular on the unofficial, or Track II, discussions that have proceeded in parallel with, and sometimes instead of, the formal negotiations between the interested parties. The goal of this exercise is, in part, to describe the evolution of the Middle East peace process. Feldman''s work also draws general lessons from the record of the Track-II talks, which have been instrumental in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and to explore the possible implications of these lessons for other regions. This project builds on Feldman''s earlier studies of arms control and the security dialogue in the Middle East.

Track-II Talks and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East: Lessons for Other Regions
This study evaluates the various Middle East Track-II discussions held over the past 15 years and ascertains which of these efforts succeeded and which failed. More important, the study attempts to explain Track-II successes and failures. Within this context, particular emphasis is placed on examining whether the Middle East experience in Track-II talks could be applied to reducing the risks of conflict and war in East Asia. The results of this study, with particular emphasis on policy recommendations, are being distributed widely to decision makers and policy elites in the United States, the Middle East, and East Asia. The research team is comprised of two Israeli scholars— Feldman and Ze''ev Schiff, defense editor of Israel''s leading daily newspaper Ha''aretz— and two Arab scholars— Dr. Ahmad Khalidi and Dr. Hussein Agha.

Arms Control and Security Dialogue in the Middle East
In 1996-97 Dr. Feldman completed two projects that dealt with the changing security environment in the Middle East. First, he finished an extensive and comprehensive assessment of the problem of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, and of the potential arms control restraints on the nuclearization of the Middle East. This project gave rise to a book, Nuclear Proliferation and Arms Control in the Middle East, published by MIT Press in 1997 as part of the BCSIA Studies in International Security series. It is regarded as an essential source on that issue. Second, Feldman, along with coauthor, Dr. Abdullah Toukan (Science Adviser to His Majesty King Hussein of Jordan and Head of Jordan''s delegation to the Arms Control and Regional Security talks), brought to fruition an unprecedented effort to find middle ground between the Arab and Israeli perspectives on security in the Middle East. Their book, Bridging the Gap: A Future Security Architecture for the Middle East, published by the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict (which also supported their project), has been hailed as a remarkable and historic attempt to jointly explore the most sensitive security issues in the Middle East.

The Preventive Defense Project is a joint venture between Stanford University and Harvard University, begun during 1996-97 under the leadership of Professor Ashton Carter at BCSIA and Dr. William Perry at Stanford''s Center for International Security and Arms Control. The premise of Preventive Defense is that the absence of an imminent, major, traditional military threat to American security presents us with a unique challenge: to prevent new threats from emerging. While day-to-day crisis management preoccupies policymakers, Preventive Defense concentrates on identifying and forestalling developments that could pose new threats to U.S. vital interests. The Project is initially concentrating on avoiding worst-case scenarios with Russia, dealing with the lethal legacy of Cold War weapons of mass destruction, engaging an awakening China, and countering proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and grand terrorism. The Preventive Defense Project seeks to contribute to these four objectives through intensive personal interaction with defense and military leaders around the world and through the establishment of highly informed but nongovernmental "Track Two" initiatives that explore new approaches to our most pressing security problems. Among other activities, this project will produce a book on the concept of preventive defense, cosponsor a working group on grand terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and pursue a number of initiatives in Russia, China, and other newly independent states of the former Soviet Union to address and advance key security issues.

Transatlantic Relations and the Greater Middle East
ISP has a long-standing interest in U.S. relations with its NATO allies. In 1996-97 this interest was pursued primarily through a collaborative project between BCSIA and the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) in Ebenhausen, Germany. Led by BCSIA Board Member Robert Blackwill of the Kennedy School and Dr. Michael Stürmer, Director of SWP, this project examined and compared U.S. and European interests, perceptions, and policies with respect to major issues and pivotal geographic areas in the Greater Middle East— the region that encompasses all the states from the Maghreb to the Caspian. Particular attention was devoted to the potential for discord between Europe and the United States deriving from divergent preferences and policies toward the Greater Middle East. The project assembled a distinguished roster of European and American analysts to contribute essays on key topics. On February 14-15, 1997, the authors involved in this effort met with other Middle East experts at the Kennedy School to discuss drafts of their chapters. In sessions organized around each broad issue presented in the book, both the American and European authors addressed the topic covered in their chapters, critiqued their counterpart''s analysis, and engaged in discussion with the assembled group on the issues at stake. Through this process, differences in viewpoint were highlighted and prescriptions were sharpened. Ultimately, this project resulted in a book, Allies Divided: Transatlantic Policies for the Greater Middle East, edited by Blackwill and Stürmer, that was published by MIT Press in the summer of 1997.

Ukrainian Security
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, the role and fate of Ukraine has been one of the most significant issues on the agenda of European security. Ukraine is the largest and most important of Russia''s western neighbors, and is in population and territory a major European state. How Ukraine orients itself will have an important bearing on the nature of the post-Cold War European security order.

In 1996-97, with the support of the Christian A. Johnson Endeavor Foundation, ISP began a Ukrainian Security Working Group to examine Ukraine''s role, options, and prospects as the process of NATO enlargement was transforming the security environment in East Central Europe. Motivated in part by a perception that Ukraine''s concerns were being subordinated to NATO''s relations with new members, on the one hand, and to NATO''s preoccupation with Russia, on the other, ISP''s working group is intended to give sustained attention to issues of significance to Ukrainian security. Led by a core team including Graham Allison, Ashton Carter, Richard Falkenrath, and Steven Miller, the group''s initial activities focused on interaction with U.S. and Ukrainian officials during the period in which the NATO-Ukraine Charter was being negotiated, including a meeting between Ashton Carter and President Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine during the latter''s visit to Washington in the spring of 1997. Ongoing efforts include a book project on Ukraine''s security options and planned meetings on the role of Ukraine (and other so-called NATO "have-nots") in the emerging security environment in East Central Europe.

VII. America''s National Interests
The Commission on America''s National Interests was founded to stimulate thinking on one central issue— what are U.S. national interests today?--and was supported in this endeavor by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom, and the RAND Corporation. BCSIA Director Graham Allison served as one of three Executive Directors on the project, which sought to assess American priorities and foreign policy options in the context of the dramatically changed post-Cold War international environment. The Commission, which included BCSIA Executive Director Richard Falkenrath and BCSIA Board Member Robert Blackwill, produced a report that featured a schematic summary of America''s national interests. It suggested that these interests should be ranked as vital, extremely important, just important, or secondary; and it discussed the content and implications of these priorities for the United States both at home and abroad. The finished report was released at a press conference attended by all participating Members of Congress, and was widely distributed to policymakers, journalists, and academics throughout the country. Graham Allison delivered several lectures on the Commission''s report in which he discussed the importance of defining U.S. national priorities, ways to think clearly about U.S. interests, and the challenges ahead for national interests as they have been defined.

The report generated by the Commission on America''s National Interests was produced and distributed under the auspices of BCSIA. It emphasized a number of core conclusions: American public attention and interest in foreign policy has sharply declined; the post-Cold War environment has left Americans confused abut the global role of the United States; there has been a frightening paradox of missed opportunities even as new threats continue to emerge; and a vital need exists to reorient American foreign policy and to align it not only with clearly defined national interests but interests clearly prioritized. The report articulates a set of priorities for the United States in the world arena, while assessing specific threats to and opportunities for U.S. national interests. It identifies five principle foreign policy challenges for the United States: coping with China''s entry onto the world stage; preventing the spread or loss of control of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons-usable materials; containing biological and chemical weapons proliferation; maintaining sound strategic partnerships with Japan and the European allies; avoiding Russia''s collapse into civil war or reversion to authoritarianism; and maintaining singular U.S. leadership, military capabilities, and international credibility.

VIII. Executive Programs for Russia and China
U.S.-Russian Security Relations
BCSIA Board Member Robert Blackwill is the Faculty Chair of the Kennedy School''s Executive Program for General Officers of the Russian Federation and the United States, an initiative sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the U.S. Department of Defense. In the first years of the program, participation was limited to Russian generals and the program was known as the Executive Program for General Officers of the Russian Federation. In January 1997 American generals and flag officers began to participate as well, a watershed for the project. The curriculum of the Program includes U.S.-Russian relations, arms control, U.S.-Russian national security priorities in the 1990s, and preventing ethnic conflict. It is designed primarily to enhance U.S.-Russian dialogue on these topics, but also to provide participants with knowledge that will assist them in managing the current challenges faced by both militaries. Experts from BCSIA, including Graham Allison, Ashton Carter, Richard Falkenrath, and Steven Miller, have frequently contributed to the Program as lecturers. Additionally, the Program has been a key vehicle for the development of strong ties between the Kennedy School and Russia''s national security elite.

U.S.-Chinese Security Relations
BCSIA Board Member Robert Blackwill is also the Faculty Chair of the Kennedy School''s Executive Program for Senior Chinese Military Officers. With the sponsorship of Harvard''s Nina Kung Initiative, this Program— the first of its kind in the West— began in January 1997, when 23 high-ranking military officers from the People''s Liberation Army traveled to Harvard for a two-week executive program that focused on political, economic, and security developments in Asia, U.S.-China relations, and geopolitical trends. The program is taught by Harvard faculty members and leading outside specialists. Lecturers in the program from BCSIA included Graham Allison, Ashton Carter, Richard Falkenrath, Steven Miller, and Philip Zelikow. Like the Kung Initiative of which it is a critical part, the Executive Program for Senior Chinese Military Officers is a central part of the Kennedy School''s strategy for strengthening its links with Chinese leaders, as well as for developing its core expertise on matters of Chinese foreign policy and national security strategy, and Asian affairs more broadly.

ISP possesses a vigorous publications program intended to provide outlets for work of the program and to provide venues in which important work in the field, wherever it may be produced, can receive visible and accessible publication. The publications arm of ISP generates four products: the quarterly journal, International Security, which contributes to the scholarly debate on all issues relevant to security studies; the BCSIA Studies in International Security book series, published by MIT Press, which produces both single-author books and edited volumes on a wide range of topics; International Security Readers, collections of journal articles gathered thematically and largely utilized in classrooms; and International Security Program discussion papers, which allow scholars affiliated with ISP to circulate their work for substantive feedback. These ISP publications represent a substantial contribution to the intellectual infrastructure of the field of international security studies. They feature much of the best policy-relevant scholarship in the field, including many books and articles by ISP researchers. Hence these publications give BCSIA a central role in shaping the policy and conceptual debates in international security studies. Articles in International Security often set the agenda for discussion of important security issues. Books in the BCSIA Studies in International Security series have offered timely analyses of contemporary policy problems and have been influential, for example, in the development of U.S. policy with respect to the nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union. International Security Readers have become standard texts in many universities.

International Security
The journal published four issues this year: Vol. 21, No. 1 (Summer 1996) featured articles on refugees and intervention as well as on relative economic gains; Vol. 21, No. 2 (Fall 1996) had a major section on ethnic nationalism, conflict, and war; Vol. 21, No. 3 (Winter 1996/97) included a section on nuclear proliferation and one dealing with state collapse in Africa.; and Vol. 21, No. 4 (Spring 1997) featured a section on U.S. foreign policy. Below are the tables of contents from each issue.

Volume 21, Number 1 (Summer 1996)
Weiner, Myron, "Bad Neighbors, Bad Neighborhoods: An Inquiry into the Causes of Refugee Flows"

Dowty, Alan and Gil Loescher, "Refugee Flows as Grounds for International Action"

Posen, Barry R., "Military Responses to Refugee Disasters"

Matthews, John C., III, "Current Gains and Future Outcomes: When Cumulative Relative Gains Matter"

Liberman, Peter, "Trading with the Enemy: Security and Relative Economic Gains"

Fetter, Steve and Devin T. Hagerty, "Nuclear Deterrence and the 1990 Indo-Pakistani Crisis"

Volume 21, Number 2 (Fall 1996)
Snyder, Jack and Karen Ballentine, "Nationalism and the Marketplace of Ideas"

Lake, David A. and Donald Rothchild, "Containing Fear: The Origins and Management of Ethnic Conflict"

Ganguly, Sumit, "Explaining the Kashmir Insurgency: Political Mobilization and Institutional Decay"

Kaufman, Stuart J., Spiraling to Ethnic War: Elites, Masses, and Moscow in Moldova''s Civil War"

Biddle, Stephen, "Victory Misunderstood: What the Gulf War Tells Us about the Future of Conflict"

Shambaugh, David, "Containment or Engagement of China? Calculating Beijing''s Responses"

Volume 21, Number 3 (Winter 1996/97)
Posen, Barry R. and Andrew L. Ross, "Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy"

Sagan, Scott D., "Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb"

Karl, David J., "Proliferation Pessimism and Emerging Nuclear Powers"

Herbst, Jeffrey, "Responding to State Failure in Africa"

Howe, Herbert, "Lessons of Liberia: ECOMOG and Regional Peacekeeping"

Gochman, Charles S., and Henry S. Farber and Joanne Garber, Correspondence on "Democracy and Peace"

Volume 21, Number 4 (Spring 1997)
Gholz, Eugene, Daryl G. Press, and Harvey M. Sapolsky, "Come Home, America: The Strategy of Restraint in
the Face of Temptation"

Mastanduno, Michael, "Preserving the Unipolar Moment: Realist Theories and U.S. Grand Strategy after the
Cold War"

Ruggie, John Gerard, "The Past as Prologue? Interests, Identity, and American Foreign Policy"

Bukharin, Oleg, "The Future of Russia''s Plutonium Cities"

Risse, Thomas, "The Cold War''s Endgame and German Unification (A Review Essay)"

Glaser, Charles L. and John C. Matthews, III, Correspondence on "Current Gains and Future Outcomes"

BCSIA Studies in International Security
In 1991 ISP created a new book series, BCSIA Studies in International Security, to provide an outlet for policy-oriented research and analysis in the field of international security. The first volume published in the series, Soviet Nuclear Fission: Control of the Nuclear Arsenal in a Disintegrating Soviet Union, attracted considerable attention and contributed directly to the passage of the original legislation (known as the Nunn-Lugar Act) authorizing the expenditure of U.S. funds to reduce the nuclear dangers in the former Soviet Union. Since that auspicious beginning, a further 15 titles have been added to the roster of the BCSIA series. These have covered a diverse array of topics, including other aspects of the nuclear dangers emanating from the former Soviet Union, the CFE treaty in Europe, Russian foreign and security policy, transatlantic relations, security in the Middle East, the democratic peace, and others. Now published by MIT Press, the BCSIA Studies in International Security series has expanded to publish six or more books per year. The titles that appeared in 1996-97 are as follows:

Allison, Graham T., Owen R. Coté, Jr., Richard A. Falkenrath, and Steven E. Miller, Avoiding Nuclear
Anarchy: Containing the Threat of Loose Russian Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material

Allison, Graham T. and Kalypso Nicolaïdis, eds., The Greek Paradox: Promise vs. Performance

Blackwill, Robert D. and Michael Stürmer, eds., Allies Divided: Transatlantic Policies for the Greater Middle

Brown, Michael E., ed., The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict

Elman, Miriam Fendius, eds., Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer?

Feldman, Shai, Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control in the Middle East

Shields, John M. and William C. Potter, eds., Dismantling the Cold War: U.S. and NIS Perspectives on the
Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program

A full docket of books are expected to be published in 1997-98, including:

Arbatov, Alexei, Abram Chayes, Antonia Handler Chayes, and Lara Olson, eds., Managing Conflict in the
Former Soviet Union: Russian and American Perspectives

Brown, Michael E., ed. Government Policies and Ethnic Relations in Asia and the Pacific

Hagerty, Devin T., The Consequences of Nuclear Proliferation: Lessons from South Asia

Kokoshin, Andrei, Soviet Strategic Thought, 1917-1991
International Security Readers
Since 1984 ISP has regularly collected together outstanding essays on important topics from International Security, which appear in volumes— known as International Security Readers— published by MIT Press. These volumes, produced at a rate of one or two per year, are aimed at the teaching market and are widely assigned in university classrooms. The International Security Readers that appeared in 1996-97 are:

America''s Strategic Choices

Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict

East Asian Security

International Security Discussion Papers
The International Security Discussion Papers are "works in progress" that provide a quick and convenient outlet for research papers written by Center faculty, staff, and fellows.

Arbatov, Alexei, "Military Reform in Russia: Dilemmas, Obstacles, and Prospects" (no. 97-01)

de Nevers, Renée, "Sustaining the Transition? Western Efforts to Support Democracy and Prevent Conflict in
Russia" (no. 96-03)

Rogers, Elizabeth, S., "Using Economic Sanctions to Prevent Deadly Conflict" (no. 96-02)

Special Publications
ISP occasionally engages in collaborations, undertakes or contributes to projects that result in publications that fall outside its in-house publication program. In 1996-97 this was the case with the following:

Allison, Graham, Karl Kaiser, and Sergei Karaganov, Towards a New Democratic Commonwealth (February

Allison, Graham, with the Commission on America''s National Interests, America''s National Interests (July

Blacker, Coit D., Ashton B. Carter, Warren Christopher, David A. Hamburg, William J. Perry, NATO after
Madrid: Looking to the Future (Stanford University: Center for International Security and Arms Control and
Institute for International Studies; Harvard University: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,


Go to:

OverviewDirector''s Foreword

International Security ProgramScience, Technology, and Public Policy Program Environment and Natural Resources Program Strengthening Democratic Institutions Project BCSIA Events BCSIA Publications Biographies Associate Fellows

For more information on this publication: Belfer Communications Office
For Academic Citation: BCSIA. “BCSIA Annual Report, 1996-1997: International Security Program.” In BCSIA Annual Report, 1996-1997. .