Center For Strategic And International Studies Research Articles

Space policy challenges facing the Barack Obama administration

President Barack Obama faces space policy challenges in security, commercial and civil areas in an era in which the use of space assets for these ends is irreversible. The very future of space is linked to addressing the challenges within the first term of the Obama administration. This paper draws on, but does not attempt to summarize, discussions at the National Space Forum 2008 organized by the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies at the United States Air Force Academy and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC. The goal of the forum was to examine the key decisions that will need to be made in regard to space policy by facilitating debate among the security, commercial and civil space sectors, and the broader national policy community. The paper focuses on choices which, for budgetary or other reasons, cannot be delayed. A brief discussion of the issues surrounding each choice is presented, followed by the implications of pursuing different choices. One key assumption underlies everything: resources available for activities in space will not grow significantly in real terms over the course of the Obama administration.

Teaching & Learning Guide for: Sociology of Terrorism and Counterterrorism: A Social Science Understanding of Terrorist Threat

Over the last decade, increased attention has been paid to terrorism, particularly to the new wave of terrorist groups, fundamentalist movements, and extremist organisations such as Al-Qaeda. September 11 marked the beginning of a turbulent phase in which states face a new kind of threat made up of a complex network of insidious revolutionary and nationalist forces. Such transformations have given rise to an unprecedented number of publications. However, both political violence and terrorism remain sources of endless disputes and controversies because of their political implications. At the same time, in the scientific community, terrorism studies lack conceptual and methodological uniformity. In his article, Domenico Tosini synthesises and discusses some major findings from this research. Courses using such a review will be confronted with the four major topics that any analysis of terrorism, to be comprehensive, should take into account: the definition of terrorism; its history and classification; its explanations; and an assessment of the consequences of counterterrorism policies.

Commentary

Middle East PolicyVolume 13, Issue 2 p. 161-175 Commentary Robert Springborg, Robert Springborg Director, London Middle East Institute, SOAS, University of LondonSearch for more papers by this authorAnn Lesch, Ann Lesch Professor of political science and dean of humanities and social sciences, American University in Cairo (the views expressed here are those of the author, not the university)Search for more papers by this authorZiya Önis, Ziya Önis Professor of international relations, Koç University, IstanbulSearch for more papers by this authorShireen Hunter, Shireen Hunter Distinguished scholar and former director of the Islam program, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)Search for more papers by this author Robert Springborg, Robert Springborg Director, London Middle East Institute, SOAS, University of LondonSearch for more papers by this authorAnn Lesch, Ann Lesch Professor of political science and dean of humanities and social sciences, American University in Cairo (the views expressed here are those of the author, not the university)Search for more papers by this authorZiya Önis, Ziya Önis Professor of international relations, Koç University, IstanbulSearch for more papers by this authorShireen Hunter, Shireen Hunter Distinguished scholar and former director of the Islam program, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)Search for more papers by this author First published: 26 June 2006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4967.2006.00256.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume13, Issue2Summer 2006Pages 161-175 RelatedInformation

In the Aftermath of the Storm: US Foreign Policy in the Wake of 9/11 and its Implications for the Asia-Pacific region

In the following article, Kurt M. Campbell, senior vice-president and director of the International Security Program (ISP) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington, DC., and Yuki Tatsumi, ISP research associate at CSIS, explore the changes that have taken place in US foreign policy since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and how such changes might be reflected on its policy toward the Asia-Pacific region. They point out that the US will shift its focus to security at home and war on terrorism abroad. In the short-term, US focus will deviate from Northeast Asia to Southeast, Central and South Asia, but as the region will continue to be strategically important, the US will remain engaged in the region. It is up to the countries in the Asia-Pacific to ensure that the US engagement in their region is not dominated by unilateralism and excessive preoccupation with the war against terrorism.

Global Dialogues, Paradigmatic Shifts, and Complexity: Emergent Contours of Theory and Praxis in Telecommunications Policy

Dear Reader, The essay below began as an introspective piece after a year in residence (1997± 1998) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington DC. CSIS is one of the largest foreign policy think-tanks in Washington, with a centrist political philosophy and largely inhabited by former government of® cials (mainly drawn from the State Department, the Pentagon and Defense Department, the Executive Of® ces of the President, and various of® ces of the intelligence community). Having spent the past 20 years wandering the nexus of media history, international studies, and telecommunication policy this was a rare opportunity to both observe and occasionally participate in policy formation as practiced beyond the actual agencies of governance. In so doing, I became (and somewhat remain) a very minor member of a small and lively community with a vast range of opinions and ideologies who share a deep dedication toward trying to build a better world. I learned their old worldview of policy formation, based on a history of habits and actions shaped around the contours of the twentieth century and especially the Cold War, was disappearing before their eyes at an incredibly rapid rate. I learned that the disappearance of this old worldview was spurring a rich and diverse dialogue about the world that is arriving. The only constant in that dialogue was the need for new ways of thinking Ð about everything. While there was lively and occasionally contentious debate about the implementation of praxis, or policy formation, the ultimate questions for discussion often centered around questions of theory. I found, to my great surprise that more than a few participants (but far less than a majority) had more than passing familiarity with a vast range of late twentieth-century theorists. On occasion, the retired intelligence agency of® cial would suggest we think about issues rhizomatically. A career diplomat would muse on the difference between authenticity and simulation. Someone with a star or two on his shoulder would compare the netrocentric with the nomad. A lifelong wonk would return to the of® ce talking about his recent interviews with teenage hackers. Once, when I mentioned speeds and

Remembering and forgetting in East Asia: Strategic dimensions in history

In the following article, Professor Gerrit W. Gong, Freeman Chair and Director of the Asian Studies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington DC, explores how four themes of "remembering and forgetting" may shape East Asia's future and its influence on the alignment of the global system in the twenty-first century. Because the future remains to be determined, Gong argues, the past should be respected without holding the future hostage to perceptions or demands that may cause misalignment in East Asia or elsewhere in the global system.

The Future of U.S.—China Relations. By The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). [Washington, D.C.: CICS, 1992. 73 pp. $7.95.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Hong Kong in the MFN Debate. By The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). [Washington, D.C.: CICS, 1992. 75 pp. $7.95.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.