The Norwegian massacre has a potential to be a game-changer in European security. The phrase may be overused, it may be a cliché, and it may ultimately not be of any practical use beyond a symbolic show of empathy, but as Norway mourns, we can only intone: Today, we are all Norwegians.
The unspeakable tragedy in Norway is a wakeup call about the dangers of right wing political and religious extremism and Islamophobia which threaten the democratic fabric of American and European societies. They create a social cancer whose metastasis impacts not only the safety and security of Muslims but also, as the attacks in Norway demonstrate, all citizens.
Unfortunately, the events of the Libyan conflict have thus far only reinforced the lesson that there is no such thing as a “cheap” military solution to a political problem. To continue to operate under this seductive myth will only compound the error. By breaking the Libyan regime, the international community has bought its problems.
Iran has outmaneuvered the United States in Iraq at every turn. It has done this through its tremendous foresight as to the direction Iraq was heading at different moments, as well as its keen understanding of its American adversary. These past successes have, in turn, given Iran the upper-hand vis-à-vis the United States as Washington and Tehran battle to define the future of Iraq.
The notion that democracy in the region is in the interest of the US and its NATO allies was and continues to be an illusion and a fabrication. It becomes a dangerous fantasy when taken up by some liberal circles and champions of humanitarian intervention. This fantasy could kill a million people and destroy an entire country, as in Iraq, and might yet do the same in Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Iran.
For a long while, no logical connection was developed between the major IR theories and the study of FPA.The relationship can be investigated in three ways: through the role actors and bureaucracies play in shaping foreign policy, the process of decision-making, and the effect of international system on the conduct of foreign policy.
In August 2010, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad al-Badie set forward a new Muslim Brotherhood policy. Badie departed from the historic position that the group was still in the base-building stage and openly called for jihad and revolution.
Doubt and bitterness prevail amongst many non-Southern Sudanese on the eve of independence, but history is not destiny. The question is no longer whether secession should have happened or not; it is how the marginalised people of North and South can finally get on with their lives, instead of being sucked into open wars and micro-conflicts.
Those that believe that the popular uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East and bin Laden’s death have weakened Al Qaeda’s grip on the Arab psyche presuppose that it exercised such a grip in the first place. What seems to be most clear is that Osama bin Laden and his legacy will continue to haunt us from beyond the grave for some time yet.
Hamas is currently treading a very risky line. For the Salafi-Jihadists, Hamas has de-legitimised itself as an Islamic group and as a leader of the resistance against Israel. Rather ironically, Hamas will be better off in the short term continuing to simultaneously straddle positions of moderation and extremism – basically maintaining the status quo.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.