IISS news 13 Global Strategic Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
The 8th IISS Global Strategic Review
‘Global Security Governance and the Emerging
Distribution of Power’, Geneva, 10–12 September 2010
(l–r) Dr Henry A. Kissinger,
Dr John Chipman and
Prof François Heisbourg
More than 300 ministers, diplomats, defence
and military professionals, leading strategists,
opinion-formers and business representatives
from over 40 countries assembled in Geneva
on 10–12 September for the 8th Annual IISS
Global Strategic Review (GSR). The GSR each
year gives expression to the research agenda of
the IISS, addressing the forces shaping strategic
change. Plenary speeches can be read in full at
www.iiss.org
Convened under the rubric ‘Global Security
Governance and the Emerging Distribution of
Power’, the 2010 GSR evaluated an evolving dis-
Key Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Non-proliferation and Disarmament . . . . . . . . 13
IISS Focus on Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
South Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
pensation in which established Western powers are
displaying signs of stress, while emerging powers,
driven by economic dynamism and a greater self-
consciousness, are seeking a fuller place on the
world stage for themselves. At issue in power
transitions is the coherence of the international
system. In his remarks to formally open the GSR,
IISS Director General Dr John Chipman noted the
Institute’s assessment, given in its recently pub-
lished Strategic Survey 2010, that while the financial
crisis beginning in 2008 initially inspired a glob-
ally coordinated inter-governmental response to
stave off a potential catastrophe, this solidarity had
 Sept. 2010
Russia–Eurasia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Transnational Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Defence and Military Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
IISS–US . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
IISS–Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
IISS–Middle East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
since fragmented into economic particularism. As
in the geo-economic domain, so in the geo-strategic
realm: the stuttering of large strategic projects
became apparent in 2010, and countries began
to focus more clearly on their parochial interests.
‘While the immediate risk of protectionism in the
economic realm has so far been averted’, Chipman
said, ‘strategic protectionism appears on the rise as
more countries define their national interests more
precisely and act accordingly’.
The Opening Keynote Address, on the sub-
ject ‘Power Shifts and Security’, was given by Dr
Henry A. Kissinger, former US Secretary of State
GLOBAL STRATEGIC RE VIE W
Dr Henry A. Kissinger, former US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser
and National Security Adviser. Kissinger noted
that where once the US-Soviet rivalry provided
a single fault-line around which strategy could
coherently be formulated and organised, no
comparable circumstances prevailed today. The
dominant trend was a shift in strategic gravity
from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
But across regions, powers were being animated
by differing impulses.
In Europe, unity had been achieved in a com-
plicated process that diminished the centrality
of the sovereign state and involved changes in
perceptions of the legitimate exercise of national
power. Public commitment to the sovereign state
had not been replaced, but it had become more dif-
ficult to frame policies in terms of national security
and the use of force for specific strategic objectives
when needed. A different attitude towards strat-
egy existed in Asia, Kissinger said. There ‘major
countries are emerging into confident nationhood,
and the term “national interest” has no pejorative
implication’. China had articulated non-negotiable
‘core interests’ for which it is prepared to fight,
while India had shown ‘a propensity for strategic
analysis more comparable to 19th century and early
20th century Europe than the dominant trends in
Europe today’. The concept of collective security
was hard to apply in such circumstances.
Nuclear proliferation provided a case in point.
Like the US and Europe, Russia and China had
no interest in a nuclear Iran and North Korea, but
they founded their policies on wider political cal-
culations. Seeing risks in confrontation, they only
entertained actions that stopped short of effec-
tiveness in halting proliferation. ‘In this manner’,
Kissinger said, ‘collective security begins to under-
mine itself’. Years of UN-backed negotiations with
2 | September 2010
Iran and North Korea had produced no significant
results, ‘or at least no results relevant to the reso-
lution of the problem’. They had instead become
a method by which proliferators gained time.
‘Negotiations on proliferation and sanctions come
to be defined by their attainability, not by their
consequences or results’, Kissinger argued. ‘The
passage of a Resolution is treated as an achieve-
ment, not its impact on the problem it is trying
to resolve’. Warning that ‘time is not neutral’,
Kissinger remarked that the present drift would
bring the international system to the point of decid-
ing whether it wants to take decisive measures that
will, in a finite period, resolve the problem or live
in a proliferated world, running the risk of nuclear
war becoming ‘an accepted pattern’.
Some of the cracks in the global system,
Kissinger said, had been obscured by the domi-
nant role of the United States. The scope for this
was shrinking, however. Any future military
engagements by the US would need to be founded
on clear objectives defined by their attainability
and related to timeframes that domestic political
processes can cope with: ‘wars will be risked pri-
marily for specific outcomes, not for abstractions’,
Kissinger said. This trend would be reinforced by
the climate of economic stringency.
While the US remained the strongest single
power and an ‘indispensable component’ of any
collective security system, however defined, it
would henceforth have to ‘share the responsibil-
ity for global order with emerging power centres’.
But Kissinger did not believe in the compartmen-
talisation of the international order into a system of
regional hegemons: the US could not be excluded
from East Asia, just as India and China could not
be excluded from the Middle East; and promi-
nent international challenges linked to energy and
environment could not be regionally delimited.
What was required in some areas was a ‘functional
approach’ to world order, ‘something between
a globalised approach and a regional approach’.
Taking the case of Afghanistan, Kissinger noted
that all of the neighbouring states had more vital
interests in a stable and coherent Afghan state than
did the US. But there was no correlation between
interests and commitment of resources to the objec-
tive. An essentially unilateral US role, Kissinger
argued, was unsustainable: ‘the long-term solution
must involve a consortium of countries in defining,
and then protecting and guaranteeing, a defini-
tion of status for Afghanistan compatible with the
peace of the world’.
A number of these topics were revisited in
the First Plenary Session, held on 11 September,
in a presentation given by US Deputy Secretary
of State James B. Steinberg under the theme ‘The
United States: Visions of Global Order’. The
Obama administration’s foreign policy, Steinberg
explained, was animated by two strategic prem-
ises: firstly, changes in the last two decades had
placed a premium on mobilising cooperation to
respond to shared opportunities and threats; and,
secondly, that this could not be achieved without
strong US leadership. At issue was how this lead-
ership was to be accomplished at a time when
American capacities were openly being doubted,
and how a commonality of interest among states
could be transmuted into commonality of action.
The answer contained a number of elements.
The first was to place continuing importance on
US strategic partnerships and alliances, and to
encourage their durability and adaptation to
circumstances much changed from those that
inspired them. The second entailed the building
of ‘new cooperative relations’ with India, Russia
and China, and other sizeable powers such as
Brazil, Indonesia and Turkey. But a US strategy
towards rising powers, Steinberg argued, would
need to be conceived more broadly. The US would
work to strengthen regional multilateral architec-
tures and international institutions into which
bilateral relationships could be embedded. More
flexible and nimble institutions, and in some cases
more representative ones, were needed. Stronger
and more concerted international institutional
responses were also demanded by climate change,
the opening up of Arctic resources, and nuclear
proliferation. American commitment to the ‘twin
pillars’ of global cooperation and US leader-
ship had moved important agendas forward:
‘ultimately, the decision to reinvigorate global
cooperation is not ours alone. But America’s
actions can powerfully shape the choices that
others face.’
IISS News

James B. Steinberg, US Deputy Secretary of State
In the Second Plenary Session, entitled
‘Security Systems and Institutions: Regional
Perspectives’, attention was turned to Brazil,
India and the European Union. Ambassador
Celso Amorim, Foreign Minister of Brazil, said
South America was defined by ‘a new level of
self‑esteem and self‑assertion’, and by altered
relationships with interested external powers
and the wider world. Much of this was driven
by economic trends. In Brazil’s case, the impor-
tance of the United States as an export market
had declined and been eclipsed by China.
Within South America, Brazil had become an
increasingly important trading partner to its
neighbours. For all its imperfections, Amorim
Ambassador Celso Amorim, Minister of External Relations
of Brazil
IISS News September 2010 | 3
argued, Mercosur would further encourage
regional trade and investment integration.
The search for regional economic initiatives had
been accompanied by greater activism by South
American states in attempting to mediate and
resolve their own security problems. The Union of
South American Nations (UNASUR) had played
an important role in addressing recent conflicts
and tensions between Ecuador and Colombia and
between Venezuela and Colombia. External inter-
vention had not been required: ‘The more South
America is left to itself, the greater its chances of
finding peaceful solutions to its problems’. But
South America could be treated by others as a ‘new
source of economic and political support’ to deal
with challenges further afield. Brazil was inter-
esting itself in the regional security of the Middle
East, notably in attempting to break the impasse in
negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme. ‘As
non-permanent members of the Security Council’,
Amorim said, ‘we feel a responsibility to help in
world peace, and not only to vote on what others
propose.’
Representing Indian Foreign Secretary
Nirupama Rao at short notice, Ambassador
Jayant Prasad, Special Secretary of the Ministry
of External Affairs, said it was inevitable that the
altered geostrategic balance would impact exist-
ing security systems and global institutions,
into which emerging powers needed to be more
completely included. In Asia, a new security archi-
tecture was evolving and India intended to play a
full part in shaping it. He foresaw a number of pos-
sible features. Common interest in open maritime
trade routes, for example, made it conceivable that
a ‘concert of powers’ might in time manage mari-
Ambassador Jayant Prasad, Special Secretary, Ministry of
External Affairs, India
GLOBAL STRATEGIC RE VIE W
time security in Asia. The heterogeneity of Asian
powers, meanwhile, created ‘a natural disposition
towards multi-polarity, making it difficult for any
one power to impose its will on the entire region’.
Javier Solana, former European Union High
Representative for Common Foreign and Security
Policy, described Europe as a ‘permanent power’.
The passage of the Lisbon Treaty with its provi-
sions for a more coordinated and better resourced
foreign policy apparatus had opened up further
scope for the EU as an actor in global security.
He anticipated significant efforts to stabilise the
Eurozone and restore prospects for economic
growth in Europe. There was an opportunity for
the EU and NATO to engage Russia in a serious
discussion concerning Europe’s security architec-
ture.
The Third Plenary Session was devoted to ‘The
Evolving State/Non-State Nexus’ in international
security affairs, bringing a new dimension to
what had been a largely state‑centric approach to
discussions. Two case studies were analysed: the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
and the relationships between Hizbullah, Iran
and Syria. The first case was addressed by Nigel
Inkster, Director for Transnational Threats and
Political Risk at the IISS. Inkster described how,
for the last decade, FARC had pursued a strategy
of securing external support for its aim of over-
throwing the Colombian government. Since the
accession to power of President Hugo Chávez in
1999, Venezuela had evolved an official policy of
state support for FARC, with this taking the form
of safe havens in Venezuelan territory and other
forms of aid in kind, if not in cash. In the context
of military setbacks, continued Venezuelan sup-
Javier Solana, former European Union High
Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy
GLOBAL STRATEGIC RE VIE W

(l–r): Nigel Inkster, Director of Transnational Threats and Political Risk, IISS; Adam Ward, Director of Studies, IISS; and Emile Hokayem, Senior Fellow for Regional Security, IISS–Middle
East

port for FARC constitutes a moral boost which is
encouraging the organisation to persist in its objec-
tive of securing a military victory and discouraging
it from thinking of serious engagement in a politi-
cally negotiated solution.
In contrast to FARC’s dependence on Venezuela,
Emile Hokayem, Senior Fellow for Regional
Security based in the IISS–Middle East Office in
the Kingdom of Bahrain, noted that Hizbullah had
evolved beyond a proxy relationship to Iran and
Syria. A complex triangular relationship had now
emerged in which Hizbullah has become a partner
with considerable clout and autonomy in an alli-
ance. It was misguided to think, however, that this
loosening provided scope for the West and parts
of the Arab world to break the alliance. The alli-
ance was seen by all of its members as providing
strategic depth.
The GSR then divided into 14 off-the-record
breakout groups, each designed to examine a par-
ticular policy question. Breakout Group 1, chaired
by Dr Bastian Giegerich, Senior Researcher at
the Bundeswehr Institute for Social Sciences,
was entitled ‘The EU after the Lisbon Treaty: A
Credible Global Security Actor?’. The session
featured presentations from Vladimir Voronkov,
Director for All-European Cooperation, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation; Philip
Stephens, Associate Editor of the Financial Times;
Professor Lanxin Xiang, Graduate Institute of
International and Development Studies Geneva;
and Ambassador Pierre Morel, EU Special
Representative for Central Asia and EU Special
Representative for the Crisis in Georgia.
It was pointed out that the demands of imple-
menting the Lisbon Treaty provisions, such as
the creation of an EU External Action Service,
will continue to consume considerable energy.
Observers from outside the EU pointed to the posi-
tive example of European integration as proof that
states can overcome their differences. From this,
it was argued, the EU draws considerable norma-
tive power in international affairs. Other speakers,
however, pointed out that European soft power
would not be leveraged effectively if it were not
backed up by credible and proven military capac-
ity. Here, some participants feared, Europe was
entering a period of strategic retreat in light of
budget constraints and decreasing public appetite
for defence expenditure.
Breakout Group 2 asked ‘Does India have
a Grand Strategy?‘. The three panellists –
Ambassador Shyam Saran, Senior Fellow at the
Centre for Policy Research and former Foreign
Secretary of India, Ambassador Robert D.
Blackwill; Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations and former US Ambassador to India;
and Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, Senior Fellow for
South Asia at the IISS – were chaired by Sir Hilary
Synnott, Consulting Senior Fellow at the IISS.
Responses to the question depended some-
what upon definitions of terms. At one level, India
needed and indeed possessed such a strategy, even
if it appeared opaque. It centred on the expansion
of India’s strategic space, the management of its
periphery and ensuring that it had sufficient capa-

Group 1: The EU after the Lisbon Treaty: a credible global security actor? (l–r) Prof. Lanxin Xiang, Professor of International History and Politics, Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva; Vladimir Voronkov, Director for All-European Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation; Philip Stephens, Associate Editor, Financial
Times; Pierre Morel, EU Special Representative to Central Asia, Council of the European Union; and Dr Bastian Giegerich, Senior Researcher, Bundeswehr Institute for Social Sciences

4 | September 2010 IISS News

 GLOBAL STRATEGIC RE VIE W

Group 2: Does India have a grand strategy? (l–r) Ambassador Shyam Saran, Centre for Policy Research and Former Foreign Secretary of India; Ambassador Robert D. Blackwill, Henry
A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations; Rahul Roy-Chaudhury; Senior Fellow for South Asia, IISS; and Sir Hilary Synnott, Consulting
Senior Fellow, IISS

Group 3: Is Indonesia outgrowing ASEAN? (l–r) Ambassador Dian Triansyah Djani, Permanent Representative of Indonesia to the UN; Barry Desker, Dean, S. Rajaratnam School
of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; Andrew Shearer, Director of Studies, Lowy Institute for International Policy; and Dr Tim Huxley, Executive
Director, IISS–Asia

bility to maintain accessibility of the seas around
it. It took into account that, as a still developing
country, India was both a contributor and a deman-
deur. There were strategies for most of India’s
key interests, such as poverty alleviation, internal
insurgencies, and relations with China and the US,
but strategy in relation to Pakistan was less focused
(others suggested that these were in practice con-
ducted with moderation and relative restraint).
Another view was that India had not articulated a
grand strategy lest it be misunderstood or provoke
opposition.
Breakout Group 3 carried the title ‘Is Indonesia
outgrowing ASEAN?’. It was chaired by Dr
Tim Huxley, Executive Director, IISS–Asia; and
Director for Defence and Military Analysis.
Presentations were given by Ambassador Dian
Triansyah Djani, Permanent Representative of
Indonensia to the UN; Barry Desker, Dean of the
S. Rajarantnam School of International Studies,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; and
Andrew Shearer, Director of Studies at the Lowy
Institute for International Policy in Sydney.
The group heard that Indonesia’s impressive
recovery from many of the problems that had
seemingly threatened its national cohesion fol-
lowing the Asian financial crisis of 1997–98 and
the ouster of President Suharto, combined with
the challenges posed by a regional distribution
of power, raised questions about this emerging
power’s continued reliance on the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as the main
multilateral platform for protecting and advanc-
ing Jakarta’s interests. One alternative possibility
that has been suggested is a putative grouping of
the Asia-Pacific region’s key middle powers, link-
ing Indonesia with Australia and the Republic of
Korea. However, some speakers in the session
took issue with the idea that Indonesia was out-
growing ASEAN. Nevertheless, it was clear that
ASEAN needed quickly to develop its political
and security cooperation in order to accommodate
the interests of Indonesia, which was becoming
increasingly assertive within the Association as its
success in managing diverse internal challenges
was reflected in growing international confidence.
There was broad agreement that within the G20
and other global forums Jakarta is likely to advo-
cate positions reflecting the broadly-defined
interests of ASEAN.
Chaired by IISS Senior Fellow for Non-
proliferation Mark Fitzpatrick, Breakout Group 4
on ‘Iran, the US and the future of the Middle East’
served as a pre-launch event for The Sixth Crisis, a
soon-to-be published book on the Iranian nuclear
crisis and the US and Israeli response by Dr Dana
Allin, IISS Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy and
Transatlantic Affairs and Editor of Survival, and
Steven Simon, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle
Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Among other propositions explored in the book were
that US efforts to re-cast relations with the Muslim
world, to engage Iran, and to entice Israel to remove
the Palestine problem from the Iran equation have
not proven successful. This leaves containment and
deterrence policies as the fall-back options, though
questions were raised about whether this was a dis-
guise for appeasement, what might trigger a military
response, and whether game-changing engagement
has really been tried. The real crisis, in which Israel
has to decide whether to strike, may not come before
2012, but in the words of one speaker, Iran’s nuclear
programme is a time bomb.
Joining Allin and Simon on the panel, Emile
Hokayem, Senior Fellow for Regional Security at

IISS News September 2010 | 5

GLOBAL STRATEGIC RE VIE W

Group 4: Iran, the US and the future of the Middle East (l–r) Emile Hokayem, Senior Fellow for Regional Security, IISS–Middle East; Steven Simon, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle
Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations; Mark Fitzpatrick, Senior Fellow for Non-proliferation, IISS; Dr Dana Allin, Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy and Transatlantic Affairs;
Editor of Survival, IISS; and Dr Ariel Levite, Non Resident Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

the IISS–Middle East office offered perspectives
on the regional response and Dr Ariel Levite, Non
Resident Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, spoke about Iran’s capa-
bilities, strategic contours and the diplomatic
front. It was suggested that Iran has been accorded
a greater strategic standing than is warranted –
hence the need for ‘right-sizing’. The region may
be able to live with a nuclear-capable Iran, if deter-
rent strategies are in place to respond to breakout.
The credibility of containment is undermined,
however, by failure to challenge Iran’s support
for Hizbullah. Regardless of whether Iran builds
nuclear weapons, the US will have to rely on a con-
tainment policy.
Breakout Group 5 addressed the question ‘How
can a South American Security System be Built?’.
It was noted that the region is unable to address
subtle modes of regime decay and their conse-
quences for the security of neighbours. Nor had
the region developed effective shared responses to
transnational security problems. South American
countries have historically seen the existence of
multilateral institutions and agreements as impor-
Group 5: How can a South American security system be built? (l–r) Dr David Mares, Professor, Political Science and
Director, Center for Iberian and Latin American Studies, University of California, San Diego; Dr John Chipman, Director-
General and Chief Executive, IISS; and James Lockhart-Smith, Research Associate, IISS
tant, but too seldom sought to ensure that these
actually fulfil their intended functions. Effective
regional security management required that extra-
regional powers play a constructive role. This
session was chaired by James Lockhart Smith, IISS
Research Associate, and featured presentations
from IISS Director General Dr John Chipman and
Dr David Mares of the University of California at
San Diego.
Breakout Group 6 – ‘Towards a New
Framework for the South Caucasus?’ – was
chaired by Oksana Antonenko, IISS Senior Fellow
for Russia and Eurasia, with presentations deliv-
ered by Peter Semneby, EU Special Representative
for the South Caucasus, Archil Gegeshidze, Senior
Fellow at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic
and International Studies and Ambassador Carey
Cavanaugh, Director of the Patterson School of
Diplomacy, University of Kentucky. Obstacles as
well as opportunities for a new framework for the
South Caucasus were explored. The region had
traditionally been viewed by interested powers
through the prism of a zero-sum geopolitical
contest. Conflicts straddled key strategic com-
munication routes and made for closed borders
instead of the valuable transit function the region
has historically performed. Outsiders such as the
EU faced a dilemma in deciding whether to treat
the three South Caucasus states collectively, or to
pursue multi-speed forms of bilateral cooperation
which might inhibit the growth of regionalism.
The militarisation of the region was growing, with
the arms race between Azerbaijan and Armenia
raising concerns over an escalation of Nagorno
Kharabakh conflict. It seemed that prospects for
the South Caucasus are increasingly linked to
other regional developments, such as growing
instability in the North Caucasus, the risk of a
conflict over Iran’s nuclear programme and the
transformation of Turkey’s relations with the West
and Russia.
Breakout Group 7, chaired by IISS Consulting
Senior Fellow for the Middle East and South
Asia Michael Crawford, dealt with the subject
‘Recalibrating International Law for 21st Century
International Security Challenges’. The three
speakers were Jonathan Sumption QC, Joint Head,
Brick Court Chambers; Jami Miscik, President
and Vice Chairman, Kissinger Associates, and
Professor Steven Haines of the Geneva Centre for
Security Policy.
The group identified various areas of present
difficulty for practitioners of international affairs:
the growing number and influence of political
non-state actors, a limbo world of unrecognised
near-states such as Somaliland or Gaza, ungov-
erned space, and the increasingly unreal distinction
between war, to which the law of armed conflict
or international humanitarian law applied, and
peace.
International law was itself in a state of flux,
with a changing balance between positivist and
natural law outlooks and the rapid development
of human-rights law. Natural law was reassert-
ing itself, and human-rights law, which had

6 | September 2010 IISS News

 GLOBAL STRATEGIC RE VIE W

Group 6: Towards a new framework for the South Caucasus? (l–r) Dr Archil Gegeshidze, Senior Fellow, Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies; Oksana
Antonenko, Senior Fellow for Russia and Eurasia, IISS; Peter Semneby, EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus; and Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh, Director, Patterson
School of Diplomacy, University of Kentucky

barely existed before 1945 and which belonged
to peacetime law, was intruding into areas pre-
viously regarded as governed exclusively by
the Law of Armed Conflict. Because of hybrid
warfare and anomalous near-states the distinc-
tion between international and non-international
armed conflicts was also breaking down, leading
to difficulties of categorisation and uncertainty of
application. It was inevitable that international law
would lag behind developments because it was
based on yesterday’s norms. It was also founded
on consent and lack of consensual support was a
political, not a legal, issue. The invasion of Iraq had
set back the development of an international con-
sensus by some years. There were precedents in
the treatment of non-state actors but international
law did not deal adequately with the implosion of
states. Often the only way to achieve normative
influence over non-state actors was through juris-
diction over individuals through tribunals but few
were brought to account. Private military compa-
nies were likely to be a growing issue.
There might or might not be something new
about the issues of today but for policymakers, mili-

Group 7: Calibrating International law for 21st-century international security challenges (l–r) Prof Steven Haines, Head, Security and Law Programme, Geneva Centre for Secuirty
Policy; Michael Crawford, Consulting Senior Fellow for the Middle East and South Asia, IISS; Jami Miscik, President and Vice Chairman, Kissinger Associates Inc.; and Jonathan
Sumption QC, Joint Head, Brick Court Chambers

Group 8: Can US global leadership be sustained? (l–r) Prof. Erik Jones, Professor of European Studies, SAIS Bolgna Center, Johns Hopkins University; Dr Dana Allin, Senior Fellow for
US Foreign Policy and Transatlantic Affairs; Editor of Survival, IISS; Prof. François Heisbourg, Chairman, IISS; and Ellen Laipson, President and CEO, Henry L. Stimson Center

IISS News September 2010 | 7

GLOBAL STRATEGIC RE VIE W

Group 9: Yemen, Somalia and beyond: statebuilding as counter-terrorism (l–r) Gregory Johnsen, Near Eastern Studies Department, Princeton University; Dr Ken Menkhaus,
Professor of Political Science, Davidson College; Robert Whalley, Consulting Senior Fellow, IISS; and Clare Lockhart, Director, Institute for State Effectiveness

Group 10: Has Turkey rejoined the Middle East? (l–r) Dr Henri Barkey, Bernard L. and Bertha F. Cohen Professor for International Relations, Lehigh University; Kemal Kaya, Senior
Fellow, Institute for Security and Development, Sweden; Karabekir Akkonyunlu, Department of Government, London School of Economics; and Dr Andrew Parasiliti, Executive
Director, IISS–US; Corresponding Director, IISS–Middle East

tary commanders and practitioners in international
affairs the law was at the centre of the equation and
no longer peripheral. It was not obvious by what
mechanism modernisation of international law
could occur in the short term, although ultimately
the answer was probably codification.
Breakout Group 8 entitled ‘Can US Leadership
be Sustained?’ was chaired by IISS Chairman
François Heisbourg. It provided a platform for
members to discuss an Adelphi book in progress
on the nature and future evolution of America’s
global role. The lead panellists were the book’s
co-authors Dana Allin, Editor of Survival as well
as IISS Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy and
Transatlantic Affairs, and Erik Jones, Professor of
European Studies at the SAIS-Bologna Center of
the Johns Hopkins University. The third panellist
was IISS Council Member Ellen Laipson, CEO of
the Stimson Center.
The discussion revolved around three ques-
tions. Firstly, if there are natural cycles to US
foreign policy, is it reasonable to conclude that
President Obama represents a sharp Realist
reaction to the Wilsonian cycle that started with
President Jimmy Carter and reached its apogee in
President George W. Bush? There was general
agreement that the pendulum swing from Bush
to Obama was particularly dramatic. Secondly,
what are the relevant metrics of national power?
US military power was hardly in dispute and
there was no real challenger on the horizon. On
the other hand, the metric of economic power
invites reflections on the seriousness of the cur-
rent economic crisis as well as the observation that
in terms of its physical infrastructure, ‘America
looks shabby’. On the metric of soft power, there
was a lively debate about whether ‘leadership’ is
a properly defined or understood term. Finally,
there was question of how the current polarization
and political gridlock in the United States affects
its ability to act upon the world stage in a coher-
ent fashion. Here there was a sharp disagreement.
One participant argued forcefully that the current
bitterness was no worse, and possibly better, than
the 1960s and 1970s, with riotous war protesters,
cities on fire, and two presidents destroyed by
the war. Others countered that, even if American
streets were calm, the political elites were divided
to a degree that is both dysfunctional and unprec-
edented.
‘Yemen, Somalia and Beyond: State Building as
Counter-terrorism’ was the title of Breakout Group
9, chaired by IISS Consulting Senior Fellow Robert
Whalley. The speakers were Clare Lockhart, Director
of the Institute for State Effectiveness; Gregory
Johnsen, of the Near Eastern Studies Department at
Princeton University; and Ken Menkhaus, Professor
of Political Science at Davidson College, North
Carolina. The main point for analysis was the extent
to which conventional concepts of state-building
were sustainable. One speaker estimated that the
effective sovereignty of up to 60 states was under
stress in some form. Another assessed Yemen to
be ‘on the brink of disaster’ as a result of resource
shortages, depletion of oil reserves, population
explosion and crumbling infrastructure. Political
fragmentation gave fertile ground for al-Qaeda to
exploit. Across the Gulf of Aden in Somalia a similar
pattern of ‘complete state collapse’ could be found,
partly as a result of heavy al-Qaeda influence over
many years, compounded by fear of central regimes
and distrust of attempts to create a state on a model
which had proved insufficiently flexible to meet
economic and social demands similar to those in
Yemen.

8 | September 2010 IISS News


Group 11: Military capabilities: new trends in sea, land and air power (l–r) Douglas Barrie, Senior Fellow for Military
Aerospace, IISS; Brigadier Benjamin Barry, Senior Fellow for Land Warfare – Designate, IISS; Christian Le Mière, Research
Fellow for Naval Forces and Maritime Security, IISS
Discussion focused on alternative models
which might prove more successful. There was
much to be said for seeking to create minimalist
states under which political power and resources
were dispersed to local groupings and entities
that might be better able to deliver services on the
ground. While there were dangers in rewarding
or encouraging local warlords, there seemed little
prospect that conventional political and admin-
istrative structures would be able to meet the
rapidly growing demands of impoverished popu-
lations, let alone attain sufficient strength to enable
powerful terrorist movements or franchises to be
marginalised or defeated.
Breakout Group 10 asked ‘Has Turkey
Rejoined the Middle East?’. Panellists included
Dr Henri Barkey, Bernard L. and Bertha F. Cohen
Professor, Department of International Relations,
Lehigh University, and Visiting Scholar, Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace; Kemal
Kaya, Senior Fellow, Institute for Security and
Development Policy (Sweden); and Karabekir
Akkoyunlu, Department of Government, London
School of Economics, and freelance journalist. Dr
Andrew Parasiliti, Executive Director, IISS–US, and
Corresponding Director, IISS–Middle East, moder-
ated the panel. The group analysed and discussed
the rise of the ‘Anatolian Tigers’, the new Turkish
business elites; the primacy of export markets in
Turkish foreign policy; Turkey’s relationships with
Iraq, Iran, Israel and the United States; the evolu-
tion of AK Party and its thinking about the Middle
East; and the linkages between Turkish domestic
politics and foreign policy.
Breakout Group 11 on ‘Military Capabilities:
New Trends in Sea, Land and Air Power’, pro-
vided an opportunity for recently-appointed senior
research staff from the Institute’s new Defence and
Military Analysis Programme to provide assess-
ments of key contemporary trends in military
capabilities within their spheres of expertise. The
IISS News September 2010 | 9
speakers were Douglas Barrie, Senior Fellow for
Military Aerospace; Christian Le Mière, Research
Fellow for Naval Forces and Maritime Security;
and Brigadier Benjamin Barry, Senior Fellow for
Land Warfare.
The group heard that, against a background
of considerable cuts in many developed states’
defence budgets, crucial to the development of
military capabilities will be political and mili-
tary judgements on whether counter-insurgency
campaigns such as that now being waged in
Afghanistan are characteristic of future war-
fare. The perspective of land warfare specialists
emphasises the lessons of recent unconventional
conflicts in Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere as
well as Afghanistan, ‘the renaissance of infantry’,
the need for better protection for deployed land
forces in the face of improvised explosive devices
as well as rockets, mortars and artillery, and
personnel-related issues. The air power viewpoint,
though, expressed concern that overdrawing
the lessons of recent counter-insurgency might
lead to ‘distorted force structures’ in the United
States’ and other Western armed forces, and it
Group 12: Addressing the drugs trade as an international security threat (l–r) Rob Wainwright, Director, Europol;
Nigel Inkster, Director of Transnational Threats and Political Risk, IISS; and Daniel Rico Valencia, former Adviser to the
Colombian Defence Ministry on Counter-narcotics Policies
GLOBAL STRATEGIC RE VIE W
was pointed out that regional powers are likely
to continue to see potential inter-state conflict as
the proper basis for planning future air capability.
Nevertheless, the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts have
accelerated the development of unmanned aerial
vehicles. Major air powers will almost certainly
deploy heavily-armed unmanned combat aerial
vehicles in the future, though it is still unclear
to what extent they will replace manned combat
aircraft. For developed states’ navies, the key
question is how to reconcile fewer ships and other
assets with the likelihood of needing to respond
to international crises at least as often as in recent
years. Greater interoperability (as foreshadowed
in the Gulf of Aden counter-piracy operations)
and capacity-building in support of smaller
navies offer potential partial solutions.
Breakout Group 12 focused on ‘Addressing the
Drugs Trade as an International Security Threat’.
It was chaired by Nigel Inkster, IISS Director of
Transnational Threats and Political Risk, and fea-
tured presentations by Daniel Rico Valencia, former
Adviser to the Colombian Defence Ministry on
Counter-narcotics Policies, and Rob Wainwright,
Director, Europol.
The security threat posed by the drugs trade
was seen as growing in terms of scale and com-
plexity, resulting in a greater detrimental impact
on society and highlighting the need for better
international cooperation at both policy and law
enforcement levels. The EU represents an affluent
market for narcotics dealers where 30 million out
of 500m inhabitants use drugs and many more are
affected by the criminal activities related to the nar-
cotics trade. Indeed, the harm is in many instances
greater than European governments admit. This
reluctance to acknowledge the true extent of the
damage results in weak policy direction at the EU
level. Nonetheless, the Lisbon Treaty set a basis
for better cohesion and there was now hope for
more effective operational cooperation in the near
GLOBAL STRATEGIC RE VIE W

Group 13: Nuclear security (l–r) Dr Rajiv Nayan, Senior Research Associate, The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Dehi; Ken Luongo, President, Partnership for
Global Security; Dr Teng Jianqun, Director for the Centre of Arms Control, China Institute of International Studies; and Ben Rhode, Research Associate for Non-proliferation and
Disarmament, IISS

future, including agreements between the EU and
Latin American and West African countries.
The problems affecting drug producer and tran-
sit countries are different. They usually involve a
high level of violence made possible by the lack of
well-funded and adequately trained police forces.
Introducing measures such as legalisation in con-
sumer countries was unlikely to have a positive
impact on producer areas for three main reasons.
Firstly, the emergence of new markets such as
Asia, South America and Eastern Europe as well
as of new consumers among middle classes and
women. Secondly, the proliferation of new prod-
ucts together with the ability of certain countries
to produce drugs normally associated with other
regions ( e.g., Colombia’s poppy production). And,
thirdly, the low probability of finding international
consensus on counter-narcotics initiatives.
Breakout Group 13 was devoted to ‘Nuclear
security’: that is, the measures taken to prevent
nuclear terrorism. The speakers were Kenneth
Luongo, President of the Partnership for Global
Security; Dr Rajiv Nayan, Senior Research
Associate at the Institute for Defence Studies
and Analyses, New Delhi; and Dr Teng Jianqun,
Group 14: Ending wars, consolidating peace: the role of economics (l–r): James Cockayne, Director, New York office,
Center on Global Counterterrorism Cooperation; Mats Berdal, Professor of Security and Development, King’s College
London; and Dr Achim Wennmann; Researcher, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva
Director of the Centre of Arms Control, China
Institute of International Studies. The session was
chaired by Ben Rhode, IISS Research Associate for
Non-proliferation and Disarmament. Panellists
discussed the difficulties involved in meeting
President Obama’s goal of securing all vulner-
able fissile material worldwide within the next
four years. At present, the global fissile material
stockpile is stored at approximately 1,100 facili-
ties, many with unacceptable security practices.
Although the Obama administration has done
much to focus international attention on the
issue (most notably through the Nuclear Security
Summit in Washington in April 2010), panellists
noted the disparity between the rhetoric used to
describe the threat posed by nuclear terrorism and
the often uneven international action to prevent it.
The contrast was also drawn between the estimated
modest annual expenditure that would allow for
effective global nuclear security measures and the
severe economic effects of a successful nuclear ter-
rorist attack.
Panellists and delegates also discussed the
merits of rationalising the current nuclear secu-
rity framework, which consists of a patchwork of
overlapping instruments, and replacing it with an
international agreement. Other topics examined in
the session included the importance of including
radiological security at the next nuclear security
summit in the Republic of Korea in 2012; the likeli-
hood of a successful nuclear terrorist attack without
state support; problems associated with the emerg-
ing science of nuclear forensics and its relationship
to effective deterrence; and the need for coop-
eration between states (such as the UK, India and
China) on the establishment of nuclear centres of
excellence, particularly in regards to their nuclear
security components.
The launch of the Adelphi book entitled Ending
Wars, Consolidating Peace, edited by Professor
Mats Berdal of King’s College London and Dr
Achim Wennmann of the Graduate Institute of
International and Development Studies in Geneva,
provided the occasion for Breakout Group 14.
Berdal and Wennmann were joined on the panel
by James Cockayne of the Center on Global
Counterterrorism Cooperation. The discussion,
much like the book, focused on the deeper reasons
for the uneven and often poor record of interna-
tional efforts to assist countries transitioning from
war to peace in the post-Cold War era. It was noted
that insufficient attention has typically been given
by peace-builders to the transformative effects of
war on societies, especially to the ways in which
conditions of protracted armed conflict will always
spawn political, economic and development chal-
lenges that did not lend themselves to ‘templated’
solutions or business-as-usual approaches to eco-
nomic recovery once hostilities have formally
been brought to an end. Resources and political
will, while important, were not enough to steer
war-torn countries war towards lasting peace and
sustainable development. Equally important is an
understanding that war creates winners as well as
losers, and that many actors – at local, regional and
global levels – develop a vested interest in the con-
tinuation of armed conflict.

10 | September 2010 IISS News


(l–r) Dr Liam Fox, Secretary of State for Defence of the United Kingdom; and Dr John Chipman, Director-General and
Chief Executive, IISS, during the discussion following Saturday’s Special Address
A Special Address on ‘The Strategy for
Afghanistan’ was given by Dr Liam Fox, Secretary
of State for Defence of the United Kingdom, on
the Saturday evening, which marked the ninth
anniversary of the attacks of 9/11, which trig-
gered the coalition intervention. After nine years,
the Afghan government was not yet capable of
providing for its own security. In the absence
of the ISAF mission, a security vacuum would
emerge and the destabilisation of Pakistan and
other neighbouring states would be risked. Any
departure prior to 2015, by which time it was
estimated security goals could be attained, would
hand a propaganda triumph to re-energised
jihadists, damage the credibility of NATO and
undermine the United Nations. Fox argued that
the objective was not ‘a perfect Afghanistan’, but
one able to maintain its own security and prevent
the return of al-Qaeda. The momentum of the
Taliban-led insurgency had to be reversed and
smothered to the point where a better resourced
Afghan government could deal with it. Fox said
progress was being achieved in the training of
Afghan forces, not least through joint patrols
with ISAF forces. Efforts were being made to
support a political process of reconciliation and
reintegration in Afghanistan, upon which much
hinged. Developmental projects were moving
forward. But a prudent approach was needed:
‘The incremental process of handing over security
responsibility to Afghan control in all provinces
and districts by the time of President Karzai’s
stated ambition, by the end of 2014, Fox said,
‘must be based on an assessment [of] conditions
on the ground... we should not raise expectations
about the speed with which this change of role
will happen.’
IISS News September 2010 | 11
On 12 September delegates reassembled for
plenaries. The Fourth Plenary Session explored
‘Strengthening the Global Arms Control and Non-
Proliferation Regime’. Senator Mikhail Margelov,
Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the
Federation Council of Russia, Federal Assembly of
Russia, provided an assessment of Russian ratifi-
cation of New START, noting that proponents like
himself were criticised as pro-Western traitors.
Global arms control and the non‑proliferation
regime must work much better than at present, he
said, including limiting the proliferation of small
arms. It was particularly important to bring the
new START treaty into effect, as a first step in truly
resetting bilateral relations.
Laura Kennedy, Ambassador, US Delegation to the
Conference on Disarmament
GLOBAL STRATEGIC RE VIE W
The scheduled American speaker, Rose
Gottemoeller, US Assistant Secretary of State for
Verification, Compliance and Implementation,
had to cancel at the last minute because of on­going
negotiations in the US Senate over New START
ratification, which were described as touch-and-
go as the negotiation as the treaty itself. She had
an able substitute in Ambassador Laura Kennedy,
US Permanent Representative to the Conference
on Disarmament (CD), who reprised President
Obama’s Prague speech vision of a world without
nuclear weapons and provided a tour d ‘horizon
on the state of diplomatic initiatives across the
range of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
disciplines. Reflecting a frustration over the dead-
lock that has prevented any substantive work in
the CD for over a decade, Kennedy said that pa-
tience was running out and that new approaches
may be required.
The Fifth Plenary ‘Towards A Comprehensive
Global Energy Security’ was chaired by Dr
Andrew Parasiliti, Executive Director, IISS–US, and
Corresponding Director, IISS–Middle East. James
Smith, Chairman, Shell UK, said that the scale
of the challenge in the global energy system was
extremely large; that climate change represented
a threat to global security and that the world was
energy interdependent – notions of energy inde-
pendence led to ‘a dangerously false trail’. Smith
offered four suggestions to address these chal-
lenges: giving greater attention to energy efficiency
to maximise domestic resources; using collab-
orative approaches to international diplomacy on
energy security; making progress on measures
to limit the effects of climate change, even in the
absence of an international treaty in the near term
Mikhail Margelov, Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee,
Federation Council of Russia
GLOBAL STRATEGIC RE VIE W

James Smith, Chairman, Shell UK Richard Jones, Deputy Executive Director, International Oksana Antonenko, Senior Fellow for Russia and Eurasia,
Energy Agency IISS

to reduce carbon emissions; and building confi- were Dr Martin Libicki of the RAND Corporation cyber power were implausible. Tiirmaa-Klaar
dence in the markets as the best means to reinforce and Heli Tiirmaa-Klaar, Senior Advisor to the devoted her remarks to a description of the cyber
connections between producer and consumer. Defence Ministry of Estonia. Libicki drew atten- attacks Estonia was subjected to in 2007 during a
Ambassador Richard Jones, Deputy Executive tion to some of the attributes of cyber attacks: political dispute with Russia. While urging strong
Director, International Energy Agency, offered that their effects while potentially significant coordinated international defensive measures, she
four suggestions to improve global energy secu- were almost always temporary; that they are not warned against the excessive ‘militarisation’ of the
rity: curbing growth and demand through greater necessarily repeatable; and that their destructive- challenge in a way that would strangle the benefits
energy efficiency; increasing diversity of supply ness was a function of the level of ‘connectivity’ – societal and economic – which open cyberspace
through a more balanced mix of energy sources which targets chose to maintain. It was possible to provided.
and their distribution routes and networks; better build better defences, but deterrence could not be The IISS acknowledges and is grateful for the
coordinating regional electricity grid and gas mar- effected, owing to the profusion of state but also important support of the following Sponsors and
kets; and giving priority to energy investment to non-state actors with the capacity to launch cyber Corporate Patrons: The Swiss Confederation;
avoid tightness in supply and a peak in prices as attacks indirectly and in a non-traceable way. For Futurepipe Industries; SICPA; and the Centre for
economies recover. the same reason ‘arms control’ measures to limit the Democratic Control of the Armed Forces.
Oksana Antonenko, IISS Senior Fellow for
Russia and Eurasia, presented four parallel devel- Martin Libicki, Senior Management Scientist, RAND Heli Tiirmaa-Klaar, Senior Adviser to the Undersecretary,
opments related to energy security in Eurasia Corporation Ministry of Defence, Estonia
since 2006: the failure of ‘zero-sum’ approaches to
energy security between the West and Russia; the
correlation between energy and domestic trans-
formation in post‑Soviet countries; the linkages
between energy security and political instability
and conflict in the South Caucasus; and the influ-
ence of energy security on the development of
relations between Russia and Europe, including a
possible future role for NATO in energy security.
She made three recommendations to improve col-
laboration between Russia and Europe regarding
energy security: for the Russia–NATO Council to
address energy security; a more comprehensive
approach to maritime security; and the develop-
ment of joint capabilities to deal with accidents and
terrorist threats to energy infrastructure.
The final, Sixth Plenary Session addressed
‘Cyber Power and Strategy’ was chaired by IISS
Chairman François Heisbourg, and the speakers

12 | September 2010 IISS News

 KEY ADDRESSES / non-proliferation programme
President of the Republic
of Rwanda Delivers Third
Oppenheimer Lecture
Paul Kagame, President of the Republic of Rwanda
The Brazilian National
Defence Strategy: an Army
Perspective
On 9 September, Lieutenant-General Gerson Menandro Garcia de Freitas,
Deputy Chief of Army General Staff (Policy and Strategy), Brazilian Army,
spoke on ‘The Brazilian National Defence Strategy: an Army perspective’.
In late 2008, Brazil’s Ministry of Defence published its National Defence
Strategy. A presentation at the IISS in October 2009 detailed key elements
of this document, the factors driving its development, and implications
for Brazil’s armed forces and defence industry. In this latest event, Gen.
Menandro discussed the implications of the Strategy for the Brazilian
Army and progress to date in implementing its recommendations. The
meeting was chaired by James Hackett, Editor of The Military Balance.
The discussion is recorded on the IISS website at http://www.iiss.org/
Gary Samore on US Non-Proliferation Agenda
(l–r) Dr Gary Samore and Mark Fitzpatrick, IISS Senior Fellow for Non-Proliferation
IISS News September 2010 | 13
The Rwandan President put the emphasis on home-grown solutions and
economic transformation in the plan for successful nation-building he
outlined during the 2010 Oppenheimer Lecture at Arundel House on 16
September. Paul Kagame, recently re-elected in a landslide victory, has won
much praise for turning around a country that was torn apart by genocide
in 1994, when 800,000 minority Tutsis and majority Hutu ‘collaborators’
were killed. Over the last five years Rwanda’s economy has grown on aver-
age by 7%.
Discussing ‘The Challenges of Nation-Building in Africa’, President
Kagame said that the process ‘can only be internally generated and led; it
cannot be achieved from the outside, however well-meaning… The most
effective remedies come from our own historical experience.’
Rwanda, he admitted, ‘has had its share of challenges’. However, govern-
ments since 1994 had worked hard to build state institutions and to bring justice
and reconciliation, by trying genocide suspects through Gacaca community
courts. Another major objective had been the ‘socio-economic transformation’
of the country through increased production, trade and investments. He said
African governments recognised the value of aid, but should aim to eventu-
ally wean themselves off it.
The transcript and a stream of the address and the Q&A session are available
via the IISS website at http://www.iiss.org/conferences/oppenheimer-lecture/
oppenheimer-lecture-2010-paul-kagame/
Lieutenant-General Gerson Menandro Garcia de Freitas
events-calendar/2010-events-archive/september-2010/the-brazilian-national-
defence-strategy-an-army-perspective/
The IISS welcomed Dr Gary Samore, Special Assistant to the President and
White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction,
Proliferation and Terrorism, for a discussion meeting on ‘An Update on the
Obama Administration’s Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Agenda’ on
17 September. Dr Samore outlined the Obama administration’s programme
for practical steps to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. This comes a
little more than a year after President Obama’s April 2009 speech in Prague, in
which he pledged his commitment to non-proliferation and multilateralism.
US ratification of ‘New START’, the status of the CTBT and today’s threats to
disarmament and non-proliferation, with particular emphasis on Iran, were
also discussed.
IIss focus on AFGHANISTAN / publications

‘Plan B: The De Facto Partition of Afghanistan’

Ambassador Robert D. Blackwill, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for US
Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign Relations, spoke on ‘Plan B: The De Facto
Partition of Afghanistan’ on 13 September.
Ambassador Blackwill argued that the Obama administration’s counter-
insurgency strategy in Afghanistan seems prone to failure, and that, in view of
alternative options, a de facto partition of Afghanistan is the best course open
to the United States and its allies. This would acknowledge that the Taliban
will inevitably control most of its historic stronghold in the Pashtun south. But
Washington could ensure that north and west Afghanistan do not succumb
to jihadi extremism, using US air power and special forces in combination
with the Afghan army and like-minded nations. De facto partition, he argued,
was clearly not the best outcome one could imagine: but it was now the best
outcome that Washington could achieve, consistent with its vital national
interests and the tolerances of US domestic politics. This meeting was moder-
ated by Adam Ward, Director of Studies, IISS. (l–r) Adam Ward and Ambassador Robert D. Blackwill

Strategic Survey Launch Focuses on Afghanistan Policy

Dr John Chipman and the panel of IISS experts during the launch of Strategic Survey 2010

Launching Strategic Survey 2010, Dr John Chipman,
Director-General and Chief Executive, advocated
a new strategy for the international presence in
Afghanistan. Western powers, he said, should
shift to a ‘containment and deterrence’ approach
that brought the focus back to the mission’s origi-
nal aim to deal with the threat from al-Qaeda.
The strategy would place reduced emphasis on
combating the Taliban, except where it became
involved in any attempted resurgence of al-Qaeda
in Afghanistan.
In his statement to the press conference at
Arundel House, Chipman said: ‘At present, the
counterinsurgency strategy is too ambitious, too
removed from the core security goals that need to
be met, and too sapping of diplomatic and military
energies needed both in the region and elsewhere.’
His statement reflected a close examination of
events and goals in Afghanistan in Strategic Survey,
the Institute’s annual review of world affairs.
Under the proposed strategy, NATO-led combat
forces would be redeployed from the south to
the north, and political efforts would be made
to encourage a more federal Afghanistan with a
better balance between Kabul and the provinces.
Chipman expanded on his remarks later in an
op-ed piece published in the International Herald
Tribune.
The press conference attracted considerable
comment and discussion in the international
media. The Daily Telegraph noted that the IISS was
the first major British think tank ‘to call time on
our military involvement in Afghanistan’. The
Financial Times said: ‘Few high-profile think tanks
have called for the US-led counterinsurgency
policy to be scrapped. But the institute’s judg-
ments carry weight and may have an impact on
the policy debate in Washington and London.’
Hamish McDonald of the Sydney Morning Herald
commented: ‘The institute is no surrender-monkey
pacifist outfit, but a red-blooded forum for realpo-
litik thinkers, as well as those interested in military
affairs and the boys’ toys of war. So when its latest
annual strategic survey calls the current policy in
Afghanistan profoundly mistaken, defence minis-
ters and generals around the world will sit up.’
Bronwen Maddox, chief foreign commentator
of the Times of London, analysed the IISS rec-
ommendations and also remarked that Strategic
Survey was: ‘A landmark of the think-tank land-
scape: a handbook for what to worry about for the
coming year’.
As usual, the book contains chapters on all the
world’s regions as well as special essays on US
nuclear policy, US defence policy and Europe’s
evolving security architecture. The Strategic
Geography section assesses subjects as diverse as
the extent of India’s Naxalite rebellion, Thailand’s
political turmoil, the effects of disasters such as the
Chilean and Haitian earthquakes, the position of
the so-called BASIC countries on climate change,
and the diversity of the territories from which al-
Qaeda and its franchises operate.

14 | September 2010 IISS News

 south asia programme / publications

India in the G20: Priorities ‘Talking to the Taliban:

and Challenges after the The Role of Afghanistan –
Toronto Summit Prospects and Portents’
Ahmed Rashid, freelance journal-
ist and author, spoke on ‘Talking to
the Taliban: The role of Afghanistan
– Prospects and Portents’ on 21 July.
Ahmed Rashid addressed the prob-
lems associated with talking to the
Taliban, regional tensions, the roles
played by Afghanistan and Pakistan,
the capacity of the Karzai govern-
(l–r) Jo Johnson MP; Rahul Roy-Chaudhury; and Dr Sanjaya Baru ment to win over the non-Pashtun
ethnic groups and the problems that
Dr Sanjaya Baru, Editor, Business Standard, India and Jo Johnson MP, former can occur with power sharing agree-
South Asia Bureau Chief, Financial Times spoke on ‘India in the G20: Priorities ments.
and Challenges after the Toronto Summit’ on 12 July. This meeting was This discussion was chaired by
chaired by Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, Senior Fellow for South Asia. Sir Hilary Synnott, Consulting Senior
An audio recording of the discussion is available via the IISS website at Fellow, IISS and it took place in the
http://www.iiss.org/events-calendar/2010-events-archive/july-2010/india-in- Lee Kuan Yew Conference Room at
the-g-20-priorities-and-challenges-after-the-toronto-summit/ Arundel House. Ahmed Rashid

Bangladesh Meeting ‘Perspective on Kashmir’

On 9 September, Radha Vinod
Raju, former Special Director-
General of Police, Jammu and
Kashmir, and former Director-
General, National Investigative
Agency, India spoke on
‘Perspective on Kashmir’,
including the need for political
and economic initiatives at the
General Ahmed and Rahul Roy-Chaudhury central and state levels, and the
requirement for an effective local
On 22 September, Major-General Monzur Ahmed, Director General, National police-led response.
Security Intelligence, Bangladesh, visited Arundel House. General Ahmed This meeting was chaired by
spoke in a private and off-the-record setting on Bangladesh’s counter-extrem- Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, Senior
ism and counter-terrorism policy and provided an update on its successes Radha Vinod Raju, former Special Director- Fellow for South Asia, IISS.
and challenges. General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir

Survival: Global Politics and Strategy

The cover story of the October–November issue of
Survival: Global Politics and Strategy is Hilary Synnott’s
Closing Argument on Pakistan’s future, ‘After the
Flood’. The issue also includes articles on Bosnia and
Kosovo from Christopher S. Chivvis, David Harland,
Spyros Economides, James Ker-Lindsay and Dimitris
Papadimitriou; articles by Simon Chesterman and Nigel
Inkster on intelligence and democracy and by Andrew
Parasiliti and Robert Hunter on rethinking Iran; commen-
taries on Myanmar’s nuclear ambitions and the situation
in Kyrgyzstan, Hew Strachan on ‘Obama, McChrystal
and the Operational Level of War’, and essays on path-
ogens and arms control; revisiting the bomb and the
philosopher economists.

IISS News September 2010 | 15

russia–eurasia programme / Transnational Threats and Political Risk

NATO–Russia relations Dr Anna Matveeva

The IISS Russia and Eurasia Pro- On 16 July, Anna Matveeva, Associate Senior Fellow
gramme, led by Oksana Antonenko, at the Crisis States Research Centre, London School
and the Institute for Contemporary of Economics, spoke on ‘Into the quagmire? An over-
Development (INSOR) in Moscow, view of recent political developments in Kyrgyzstan’.
directed by Igor Yurgens, a member Dr Matveeva, who worked as a political analyst for
of the IISS Council, continue a joint the OSCE–ODIHR Referendum Observation Mission
project assessing the prospects in Kyrgyzstan, provided an assessment of the political
for the strategic transformation of causes of the events leading up to the 7 April power
NATO–Russia relations. After IISS change in Kyrgyzstan.
and INSOR co-hosted the first expert Her speech also focused on the prospects for
group meetings in Moscow the two achieving stability in the run-up to the parliamentary
institutes have prepared papers on (l–r) Oksana Antonenko and Igor Yurgens elections scheduled for 10 October. This included an
practical cooperation and enhancing assessment of the increasing political and ethnic cleav-
trust between NATO and Russia. These ideas have been discussed at the follow-up expert meet- ages in southern Kyrgyzstan and what implications
ing which took place in Geneva, at the fringes of GSR. IISS and INSOR will publish their reports this has had for the political process. Dr Matveeva
and a joint paper in the coming months. We thank Total and BP for their generous support for this concluded by assessing the international response to
project. recent developments in Kyrgyzstan.

IISS launches Caucasus Security Insight

To mark the second anniversary of the Russian–Georgian war of August 2008, the IISS Russia and Eurasia
Programme launched its Caucasus Security Insight webpage on 7 August. The webpage is the first online
platform offering a regular exchange of views among a unique spectrum of experts from Georgia, Russia,
different parts of the Caucasus region as well as the US and Europe. The Caucasus Security Insight initiative
will be published on a regular basis. The second edition will aim to examine the ‘engagement without recog-
nition’ strategies towards Abkhazia and South Ossetia. All articles are available in both Russian and English.
The initiative is part of the IISS Georgian–Russian Dialogue on Post-August war Challenges, a project funded
by the European Union under its Instrument for Stability Programme. For more information, view the web
pages at http://www.iiss.org/programmes/russia-and-eurasia/about/georgian-russian-dialogue/caucasus-
security-insight/

Focus on Cyber Security

presentation dealt with the evolution in organisations, tools, social integration
systems, and choices emerging in Western nations’ cybersecurity and deter-

and Cyber Warfare

On 15 July, Nigel Inkster hosted Dr Chris C. Demchak, Associate Professor
at the United States Naval War College, who delivered a speech on ‘The
Assertion of Sovereignty in Cyberspace: Formation of Cyber Commands’. The
Nigel Inkster and Dr Chris C. Demchak
rence strategies, the creation or adaptation of cyber commands or equivalents,
and organisational learning after experiences with cybered confrontations or
attacks.
Nigel Inkster delivered a keynote speech at a meeting organised by the
UK Ministry of Defence’s Cyber & Influence Centre on 3 August. The speech
looked at the nature and distribution of power on the Internet and at the
security implications of societies which had become highly dependent on
Information and Communications Technology.

Secret Intelligence in the

Information Age
The Transnational Threats and Political Risk programme hosted a ‘Colloquium
on Secret Intelligence in the Information Age: Expectations and Realities’ on
16 July. This event brought together former and serving intelligence profes-
sionals, policymakers, academics and representatives from the media and
civil society to examine some of the challenges facing the UK and US intel-
ligence communities in the modern era.

16 | September 2010 IISS News


IISS Defence and Military Analysis Programme (DMAP)
In August the IISS launched a new Defence and
Military Analysis Programme (DMAP), in which
newly appointed research staff at Research
Fellow and Senior Fellow level will play major
roles. The essential tasks of DMAP will be two-
fold. The first is to carry forward the concerted
efforts by James Hackett, Editor of The Military
Balance, to improve the statistical and analytical
quality of this already highly-respected annual
publication; to ensure that it is as responsive as
possible to changes in the nature of conflict and
emerging defence technologies, strategies, tactics
and doctrine and concepts; to provide a greater
understanding of the qualitative dimensions of
conventional and unconventional military capa-
bility (which accounts of equipment inventories
alone necessarily cannot convey); and to devise
new ways, including electronic ones, in which
information and analysis generated by DMAP
Christian Le Mière
Research Fellow for Naval Forces and
Maritime Security
Christian Le Mière joined the IISS from
Jane’s Information Group, where since 2006
he had been Managing Editor and Senior
Analyst for Jane’s Country Risk. He brings to
the IISS considerable expertise in electronic
publishing in the defence field. Christian’s
earlier experience includes an assignment as
a research intern at the IISS, working on the
Armed Conflict Database (2001). He is profi-
cient in Mandarin Chinese and holds an MA
in War Studies from King‘s College London.
He graduated with a BA in PPE from the
University of Oxford.
IISS News September 2010 | 17
Defence and Military Analysis
can be presented to existing and new audi-
ences.
The second key task is to develop DMAP as a
research programme that functions in the same
way as other research programmes at the Institute,
with Senior Fellows and Research Fellows con-
tributing widely as experts to IISS publications,
databases and conference activities. They will play
a prominent part in the work of other research
programmes to which their thematic and regional
expertise is relevant, and will strengthen the
Institute’s networks among national defence estab-
lishments worldwide, and raise funding from the
defence-industrial, government, foundation and
commercial sectors to support their research activi-
ties.
The overall objective of DMAP is to establish
the IISS as a principal international authority on
questions of defence policy.
Douglas Barrie
Senior Fellow for Military Aerospace
Douglas Barrie is an award-winning jour-
nalist in the field of military aerospace. His
interests lie at the intersection of airpower
strategy, tactics and technology. He comes
to the IISS from the leading Aviation Week
and Space Technology, where he was London
Bureau Chief from 2002. He was previously
the European Editor of the leading US-based
Defense News. He holds an MA in English
Literature and Language from the University
of Edinburgh. He is a recipient of the CP
Robertson Memorial Trophy and the Jesse H.
Neal National Business Journalism Award.
The new programme will be led by Dr Tim
Huxley as Director of Defence and Military
Analysis, a post he will hold in conjunction with
that of Executive Director of the IISS–Asia office
in Singapore. James Hackett, as Editor of The
Military Balance, will work closely with the newly-
appointed research staff and will have a key role
in DMAP activities. DMAP research staff will
also report to the IISS Director of Studies, Adam
Ward.
In combination, the establishment of DMAP
and the new appointments represent an exciting
development for the Institute that will strengthen
and focus our capacities in a crucial area of
research, from which other research programmes
at the Institute will benefit.
The senior research appointments made so far
are as detailed below.
Brigadier Benjamin Barry OBE
Senior Fellow for Land Warfare
Before joining the IISS, Benjamin Barry served
as Head of the Iraq Land Lessons Unit at the
Land Warfare Centre at Warminster, where
he led the British Army’s final analysis of the
Iraq campaign. From 2007–09, he was Head
of Streamlining Implementation at the UK
defence ministry, charged with formulating
and coordinating structural organisational
changes there. This was preceded by appoint-
ments as Director of Force Development,
focusing on the army’s long-term capabil-
ity and force structure requirements, and
Commander Multi-National Brigade in
Bosnia, commanding 4,000 troops. He is a
graduate of the Royal Military Academy at
Sandhurst.
IISS–us

Turkey’s Moment
of Inflection
On 21 July, Henri Barkey, Bernard and Berta Cohen
Professor of International Relations at Lehigh
University, and Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, spoke on
his article, ‘Turkey’s Moment of Inflection’, in the
June–July issue of Survival. Dr Andrew Parasiliti,
Executive Director of the IISS–US and Corresponding Director of the IISS–
Middle East, moderated the discussion. (l–r) Andrew Parasiliti and Henri Barkey

The Kurdistan Region

and Iraq
Fuad Hussein, Chief of Staff to President Masoud Barzani of the Kurdistan
Region of Iraq, and Falah Mustafa Bakir, Minister and Head of the Department
of Foreign Relations of the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq, spoke at
IISS–US on 26 July on developments in the Kurdistan Region and Iraq. Qubad
Talabany, Representative of the Kurdistan Regional Government to the United
States, also participated in the programme.
Andrew Parasiliti, Executive Director, IISS–US and Corresponding
Director, IISS–Middle East, moderated the discussion. (l–r) Qubad Talabany; Andrew Parasiliti; Fuad Hussein and Falah Mustafa Bakir

Developments in Iraq and Iran

Raad Al-Kadiri, Senior Director for Country Strategies and Partner at PFC Professor Hadi Semati spoke on developments in Iran at the IISS–US
Energy, spoke on the developments in Iraq at the IISS–US on July 22. Andrew on 21  September. Andrew Parasiliti, Executive Director, IISS–US, and
Parasiliti, Executive Director, IISS–US and Corresponding Director, IISS– Corresponding Director, IISS–Middle East, moderated the programme.
Middle East, moderated the programme.

(l–r) Andrew Parasiliti and Raad Al-Kadiri (l–r) Andrew Parasiliti and Hadi Semati

Armed Conflict
Database
The IISS Armed Conflict Database (ACD) is an authoritative online
source of data and independent analysis on current and recent
conflicts. It is an important and useful tool to anyone who works
Free trials
available!
with, or has an interest in, armed conflicts, conflict prevention and
www.iiss.org/acd peace building, including government ministries, international
For more information on the Armed Conflict Database, organisations, non-governmental organisations, academic and
please visit www.iiss.org/acd or email acd@iiss.org financial institutions.

18 | September 2010 IISS News

 iiss–asia / publications

Seminar on China and the

Future Asian Security Order
On 21 July, Professor Amitav Acharya from the American University in
Washington DC, spoke in the IISS–Asia Seminar Series, sponsored by the
Australian Department of Defence, addressing the key question of whether
twenty-first century Asia will be peaceful and prosperous or divided and
dangerous, in a presentation entitled ‘Between Confucius and Kant: China’s
Ascent and the Future of Asia’s Security Order’. He challenged those who
argue that Asia’s future might resemble Europe’s past (multipolar rivalry and
major-power war), America’s past (Chinese regional hegemony and sphere
of influence, Monroe-Doctrine style), or a repeat of its own past (a benign
tributary-system-like intra-regional relations), arguing instead that the foun-
dations of Asian security order are undergoing a historic transformation from Professor Amitav Acharya
economic nationalism, security bilateralism and political authoritarianism
to economic liberalism, an emergent security multilateralism, and political a Kantian community. More likely is a consociational regional order marked
change. Bipolarity has given way to an asymmetric multipolarity. As such, by power-sharing, economic inter-connectedness, institutional arrangements
Asia cannot be imagined as a Hobbesian anarchy, a Confucian hierarchy, or and shared normative beliefs.

Adelphi Book
Launch:
Sanctions as
Grand Strategy
Sanctions as Grand Strategy, an IISS Adelphi
book, was launched in Singapore on 22 July
as part of the IISS–Asia Seminar Series. The
author, Brendan Taylor, addressed his book’s
main arguments and there was a subsequent lively discussion among the
invited audience which included local IISS members, Singapore-based schol-
ars and journalists. (l–r) Dr Tim Huxley and Brendan Taylor

New Adelphi such as in Afghanistan, Somalia or as a financial base for sustainable

Adelphi 412–413
Ending Wars, Consolidating
Peace: Economic Perspectives
edited by Mats Berdal and
Achim Wennmann
The transition from war to peace
is fraught with tension and the
risk of a return to bloodshed. With
so much at stake, it is crucial that
the international community and
local stakeholders make sense of
the complex mosaic of challenges,
to support a lasting, inclusive and
prosperous peace. Recent missions,
Sudan, have highlighted the fact
that there can be no one-size-fits-
all approach to steering countries
away from violence and towards
stability.
This Adelphi offers a series of
economic perspectives on conflict
resolution, showing how the chal-
lenges of peacebuilding can be more
effectively tackled.
From the need to marry dip-
lomatic peacemaking with
development efforts, and activate
the private sector in the service of
peacebuilding aims, to the use of
taxes and natural-resource revenues
peace, this book considers how eco-
nomic factors can positively shape
and drive peace processes. It exam-
ines the complex ways in which
power and order may be manifested
in conflict zones, where unpalatable
compromises with local warlords
can often be the first step towards a
more lasting settlement.
In distilling expertise from a
range of disciplines, this Adelphi
seeks to inform a more economically
integrated and responsive approach
to helping countries leave behind
their troubled pasts and take a fuller
role in constructing their futures.

IISS News September 2010 | 19

IISS–MIDDLE EAST

Bahrain Global Forum 2011 T he I nternational I nstitute

for S trategic S tudies
Geopolitics and global economics are today more
The IISS, the leading international think tank on international affairs and conflict,
interdependent than ever before. For a global
has an editorial vacancy based at its regional office in Bahrain.
investor, strategist, CEO, policymaker or politi-
cian, understanding how today’s geopolitical shifts Assistant Editor, Arabic Publications
create tomorrow’s economic risks and opportunities – and vice versa – is
Having recently established a regional office in the Kingdom of Bahrain, the IISS
essential. Strategic developments, including international political tensions,
is seeking a native Arabic speaker for the role of Assistant Editor to oversee the
resource competition, arms races and conflict, can constrain the scope for eco-
translation and production in Arabic of selected IISS works.
nomic development, the effective management of the international economic
The Assistant Editor will be based in Bahrain but will work closely with the IISS
system, and the efficiency of trade, investment and business regimes.
Publications Department, which is located in IISS Headquarters in London. The
These interactions at the nexus of economics and global security are cap-
role will involve the translation, proofreading, editing, and typesetting of selected
tured in the term ‘Geo-economic Strategy’ used by The International Institute
materials. It will also involve establishing and updating a series of Arabic pages
for Strategic Studies (IISS). From economic sanctions to sovereign risk, cur-
on the IISS website.
rency union to piracy, trade to development, and global governance to state
The job requires a minimum of two years’ professional translation and/or editorial
capitalism, each of these global economic challenges have geopolitical roots
experience, preferably with academic texts, and knowledge of international affairs
and geopolitical consequences.
would give candidates a distinct advantage. A keen eye for detail is essential, as
The Bahrain Global Forum, launched in 2010, brings together annually the
well as the ability to edit and proofread with precision.
world’s leading financial and economic actors with strategists and policymak-
The IISS provides a full employment package and salary will reflect experience.
ers from the world of national security and defence. The Forum seeks to apply
Information about the IISS and its publications can be found at www.iiss.org.
the perspectives and analyses of its unique mix of world-class participants
Candidates should email their CV (with references), and a letter explaining their
to inform what eventually may become a ‘Bahrain consensus’ on policies to
skills, to iiss-middleeast@iiss.org by Thursday 21 October 2010. Only candidates
promote global economic growth, development and security.
who are called for interview will receive a reply.
The 2nd IISS Geo-economic Strategy Summit: The Bahrain Global Forum
will be convened in the Kingdom of Bahrain from 6–8 May 2011. The meeting
will draw together key delegates to debate current geo-economic trends and

IISS Global Perspectives

encourage a global perspective in new centres of economic power.

Appointments
Celis Joannes has completed his move from IISS headquarters in London
to the new regional office in the Kingdom of Bahrain, where he has already
worked with colleagues and regional specialists to install and establish a state
of the art IT infrastructure that will support all IISS initiatives in the region.
Celis will now be the IT Systems Supervisor for Asia and the Middle East and
his primary responsibilities will be the provision of full IT, AV and communi-
cations support on all activities in these regions.
IRAN’S BALLISTIC
The IISS Global Perspectives Series is a regular forum drawing on the full
authority and reach of IISS expertise to deliver facts and analysis on important
strategic issues. Its purpose is to relate how trends and developments at the
global level will affect the interests of governments, businesses and society in
the Gulf and wider Middle East. The series exists also to give greater promi-
nence to regional considerations and priorities in key strategic debates.
• 28 September – Mr Michael Crawford, IISS Consulting Senior Fellow

MISSILE for the Middle East and South Asia

• 12 October – Dr Adam Posen, External Member, Monetary Policy
CAPABILITIES Committee, Bank of England

A net assessment • 2 November – Oksana Antonenko, Senior Fellow and Programme

Director for Russia
The IISS Strategic Dossier on Iran’s Ballistic

Manama Dialogue 2010

Missile Capabilities: a net assessment aims to
contribute to the policy debate about Iran’s
strategic challenges by establishing a shared understanding of the missile
programmes. Produced by an international team of experts, the dossier The 7th IISS Regional Security Summit:
offers the most detailed information available in the public domain about The Manama Dialogue will be convened in
Iran’s liquid- and solid-fuelled missiles and its indigenous production the Kingdom of Bahrain from 3–5 December
capabilities. 2010.
The 7th meeting will draw together the highest concentration to date
Published 10th May 2010; ISBN 978-0-86079-205-5; A4 paperback; £20.00
of policymakers involved in regional security.
Buy online at www.iiss.org

20 | September 2010 IISS News