Think Tanks dedicated to security affairs: the dynamic of networks

Abstract

First of all, I would begin by echoing what Alyson Bailes had said about the challenges facing think tanks in the post-Cold War, and about some of the reasons why the role of think tanks is evolving, if not declining in proportion to the increase of other actor's roles and influence in the system. Ms. Bailes also went on to present a number of reasons why think tanks should join forces in networks. And so, being networks the subject I'm to address, I'd like to pick up where she left off and highlight three basic points: points that are, in fact, more observations of what is already happening than very new ideas. The first thing I'd like to share with you is that I think that the rationale behind networks of foreign policy and security institutes in general is not dissimilar because both pool resources. Both try to build a common approach, at least a cooperative approach, in the way they work by using some form of division of labor. By this I mean each one, foreign policy or security institute, is supposed to do what they do best. Furthermore, networks of foreign policy institutes, not unlike security institutes themselves, are instruments, tools for dialogues. And we've all dwelt on dialogue as a need, as a must if we are going to address security today and in the future. At the same time, these kind of networks can also have (and indeed do play in some cases) a role in the building of confidence, which is a big part of what I hope to show you: how these kinds of networks contribute to building confidence among actors in the system concerning security issues.