The Capitalist Peace

It is widely accepted that democracies are less conflict prone, if only with other democracies. Debate persists, however, about the causes underlying liberal peace. This article offers a contrarian account based on liberal political economy. Economic development, free markets, and similar interstate interests all anticipate a lessening of militarized disputes or wars. This "capitalist peace" also accounts for the effect commonly attributed to regime type in standard statistical tests of the democratic peace.     

Peace Diplomacy and the Domestic Dimension of Norwegian Foreign Policy: The Insider's Accounts

By focusing on the internal conditions and rationale behind the development of Norwegian peace diplomacy (as seen by Norwegian diplomats and nongovernmental organisation representatives), this study argues that the high level of the country's engagement in international peace efforts and its success in pursuing a ‘niche diplomacy’ can be attributed to two factors. First, it is the ability of the Norwegian government to capitalise on the society's belief that Norwegians are a ‘Peace Nation’ with a missionary obligation. Second, it is the existence of the so‐called ‘Norwegian Model’, which allows creating efficient interactions between government, civil society and research institutions in specific foreign policy efforts. Both factors combined make Norwegian peace diplomacy a model example representing New Public Diplomacy, where domestic civil society remains both an audience (‘Norway as a Peace Nation’ notion) and a driver (Norwegian model of cooperation) of state public diplomacy efforts.     

The Role of Arab American Advocacy Groups in Shaping American Foreign Policy

This paper aims to offer some insights into the ways in which Arab-Americans experience the United States and adjust to its political institutions. It stresses how such a community still finds it difficult to consolidate its efforts and exert pressure on the decision making process. But to gain national visibility and recognition, they need first to voice its concerns throughout mainstream advocacy groups. In this regard, the term “Arab lobby” is a misnomer as very often it is used as a shorthand word for the loose coalition of organizations that seek to improve Arabs’ conditions in the U.S. and to influence American foreign policy in the Middle East. Notwithstanding, this study is meant to highlight the difference between what some termed the informal Arab lobby, sponsored by rich oil countries, and the formal Arab American lobby, represented today by the Arab American Institute (AAI) and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and headquartered in Washington D.C. However, while the different components of the pro-Arab lobby cannot represent “the Arabs” as a united political group, they have been able to share a common concern: Palestine. In effect, not only the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been a top priority and a principal focus of the Arab lobby as a whole, but it has also been viewed as a tool to measure its political efficacy. Last but not least, despite the very limited success achieved by the Arab lobby in its attempts to shape American foreign policy (compared to its pro-Israel counterpart), this study demonstrates that the members of the Arab and Jewish communities in the United States share common grounds on almost every issue central to Arab-Israel peace and U.S. policy in the Middle East, on top of them the two-state solution (Zogby International, 2007).     

Foreign Policy Analysis: British and American Orientations and Methodologies

This paper is concerned with examining the extent to which there is a geographical divide in the academic study of foreign policy analysis. Accepting that there are diverse approaches to that study in the academic communities of the United States and the United Kingdom, this paper argues that it is possible to distinguish between two ideal-types, each exemplified in one of the two communities. This paper outlines these–an American approach based on a desire to construct general theories of foreign policy behaviour, and a British approach which stresses the need for casestudies and eschews the possibility of general theory. The reasons for the development of these two approaches are then discussed, linking the study of foreign policy to the wider political arena, and the general academic orientation of the two countries. Finally, it assesses the possibility of arriving at a synthesis of the two approaches.     

Religious Pluralism and Democratic Inclusion: The American Recipe for Peace

There is no simple formula for religious peace in the United States, such as “separation of church andstate.” Instead, the US Constitution establishes two opposing principles -- religious freedom and civicinclusion -- that must be continually rebalanced. The legal result is a “serpentine wall” between church andstate that creates zones of cooperation as well as separation. Moreover, the relatively peaceful coexistence ofdiverse religious communities within the United States is due, not simply to the principles of the FirstAmendment, but also to the de-spatialized and de-ritualized character of American religion, and to the absence of explicitly confessional parties in the American polity.     

American Militarism and Blowback: The Costs of Letting the Pentagon Dominate Foreign Policy

"Blowback" is a CIA term first used in March 1954 in a report on the 1953 operation to overthrow the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. It is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of covert operations against foreign nations and governments. The suicidal attacks of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were instances of blowback from American clandestine operations in Afghanistan. They have greatly accelerated tendencies toward militarism in the United States, which is defined as the phenomenon in which a nation's armed services come to put their institutional preservation ahead of effectiveness in achieving national security or a commitment to the integrity of the governmental structure of which they are a part.     

The Nigerian Federation at the Crossroads: The Way Forward

This article reviews the first fifty years of federal experiencein Nigeria. It distinguishes three phases: an apprenticeshipto "true" federalism phase (1954–1965), a federal dominancephase under military rule (1966–1979 and 1984–1999),and a "muddling-through" phase under civilian rule (1979–1983and 1999 to date). The first phase was characterized by politicaldevolution and intergovernmental competition, during which regionalgovernments recorded tangible results. During the second phase,successive military regimes imposed centralism and federal dominancethat kept Nigeria united but arrested progress toward consolidatingfederal democracy. Civilian administrations under the thirdphase have sought to run the federation in a muddling-throughfashion, including serious political and social tensions, modesteconomic performance, and deepening poverty. Currently, therefore,the Nigerian federation is at a crossroads and has two options:devolution or death.     

Subnational Taxes in Developing Countries: The Way Forward

Both theory and experience in a variety of circumstances around the world suggest strongly that if fiscal decentralization is to produce sustainable net benefits in developing countries, subnational governments require much more real taxing power than they now have. Students of public finance have studied the subject, and practitioners in developing countries have installed many different versions of subnational government tax. In most developing countries there are potentially sound and productive taxes that subnational governments could use: personal income tax surcharges, property taxes, taxes on the use of motor vehicles, payroll taxes, and even subnational value‐added taxes and local “business value” taxes may all be viable options in particular countries. Still, there is no general consensus about what works and what does not. In this review paper, we try and pull together enough evidence to suggest the way forward. We also develop the argument that given political realities one cannot usually decentralize significant revenues to subnational governments without having in place an intergovernmental transfer system to offset at least some of the disequalizing effects that would otherwise occur. Nor does it make sense to think of decentralizing exactly the same package of tax choices to all subnational governments regardless of their scale and scope of operations.