Counter-proliferating the rogue states
President George W. Bush, in his State of the Union speech in January 2002, described Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil” and accused them of seeking to acquire and develop weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological). Further, Under Secretary of State John Bolton said that Cuba, Libya and Syria could be grouped with these as “rogue states”. In doing so, the mere alleged acquisition, without any stated intent, of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) weapons and delivery systems was designated a threat to local, regional and global stability and security, given the terror and fear they invoked. The ensuing policy agenda and process of arms control (non-proliferation) and disarmament (counter-proliferation) was based on the vulnerability management of these capabilities. This was premised on the refusal of the labelled rogue states to accept the international norms of recognized arms control practices of diplomacy, international negotiation, compliance, regulation, transparency and verification. It is upon this assumption that the crux of the argument exists of a clear case for pre-emptive or preventive armed force against rogue states. On this basis, this article will, through its analysis, settle the outstanding question of whether war against rogue states can be considered a just war, based upon historical precedents. The first of such wars against a rogue state is that waged against Iraq (2003), where the alleged Iraqi WMD capability has not yet been shown to exist. Approaching this mandates rethinking basic notions and mannerisms of international defense and security. America cannot act as world policeman indefinitely. This projects the need for an alternative to unilateral counter-proliferation by way of pre-emptive military action; namely a “Hague Style Convention on Proliferation” to reintroduce the international community of nations to a self-regulatory multi-polar approach towards arms control and disarmament. Given the options, it is clear that there is a consensus to the ends. While the means to the end might be arguable, there is Defense & Security Analysis Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 343–354, December 2004
Promoting Democracy after Conflict: The Difficult Choices
This article examines the democratic reconstruction model advocated by western countries for postconflict societies. It finds that the model has not been implemented successfully, in part because of a lack of international political will and financial resources, in part because the model has grown too complex. As the international community learned from successive experiences with postconflict reconstruction, the model grew in sophistication and complexity. While this is good in theory, in practice it widens the gap between the ideal and what can actually be accomplished with limited international resources and weak local governments. Even in Bosnia, where international commitment has been large, this maximalist approach to state reconstruction has met with only limited success. The international community must rethink its approach to postconflict reconstruction and scale it down to something that can realistically be achieved.
Influence of filler addition, storage medium and evaluation time on biaxial flexure strength and modulus of adhesive systems
Abstract Objective. This study evaluated the effects of filler addition, storage medium and time on biaxial flexural strength and flexural modulus of six adhesive systems. Materials and methods. The adhesives were either unfilled resins: Single Bond, Prime&Bond 2.1 and One-Step; or filled resins: Single Bond Plus, Prime&Bond NT and One-Step Plus. Resin discs of each product (0.5 mm thick × 6.0 mm diameter) were prepared using silicon molds (n = 10). The discs were stored dry, in water, mineral oil or ethanol for 1 week or 3 months before biaxial flexural testing. Data were statistically analyzed by 3-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (α = 0.05). The specimens were tested in a universal testing machine at 1.27 mm/min until failure occurred. Results. In general, the storage in ethanol led to significantly lower flexural strength and flexural modulus values than the other storage conditions for all adhesives in both storage periods. Filler addition increased flexural strength and flexural modulus for Prime&Bond NT, when it was stored dry or in water for 1 week. For Single Bond Plus, the filler addition resulted in higher flexural modulus, when it was stored for 1 week in oil and in ethanol. No significant differences in flexural modulus were observed between One-Step and One-Step Plus in any storage medium. Conclusions. Results suggested that filler addition does not necessarily have to increase the flexural strength and flexural modulus. Ethanol and oil storages tended to yield opposite effects.