Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: There is a “chicken or egg” debate about the order in which it is possible for US counter terrorism, counter narcotics and development goals to succeed in Afghanistan. If it is true that each mission is dependent on the success of the other two or that it is undermined by the others’ strategies, success is impossible. I answer the question: Given the current US foreign policy interests and strategies in Afghanistan, are the counter narcotics, counter terrorism and development missions best achieved simultaneously (the status quo) or sequentially? If sequentially, in what order should they be prioritized? _x000d_I analyze four characteristics of each of the three bi-nexus relationships (counter narcotics/counter terrorism, counter narcotics/development, counter terrorism/development). These characteristics are: 1) Shared mission, 2) Necessary conditionality, 3) Sufficient conditionality, and 4) Externalities of strategies. Qualitative data analysis informs my recommendation of a three-phase sequencing and prioritization scheme. This alternative to the status quo of simultaneous, continuous implementation leverages positive externalities, accounts for necessary conditionality and is more likely to secure US interests in Afghanistan.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The Labour government's post- 9/11 counter-terrorism policy for international terrorism has caused much controversy in the United Kingdom due to its similarity to pre- 9/11 counter-terrorism legislation for terrorism in Northern Ireland and its willingness to perpetuate the subjugation of civil liberties. Since 9/11 much has been made in academia, the press and within the US administration of the lessons that can be learned from the UK�s experience countering terrorism in Northern Ireland, but the validity of this experience must be questioned. This paper will assess the evolution of British governments� responses to domestic and international terrorism in the UK since 1969, to draw out common themes from counter-terrorism policy over forty years. The aim will be to determine what lessons (if any) were learned from the experience of countering terrorism in Northern Ireland and how these lessons were applied to the new threat from international terrorism post- 9/11. The focus of this paper will be on how counter-terrorism legislation may subjugate civil liberties and perpetuate the conditions on which terrorism thrives.

Publication Type: Panelist Abstract
Abstract: While many may view hip hop as a counter discursive measure, more often than not, popular representations of hip-hop culture reify notions of white supremacy. There may have been a moment when the major currency in hip-hop was its anti-establishment�social and political relevancy built upon the radical activism of the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements�when artists such as Afrika Bambaata, KRS-One, and Chuck-D advocated counter-hegemonic frameworks with dexterity for newer generations. Hip hop culture, however, in many ways has become truncated and immersed in the normalized rhetoric of American society. Contemporarily, American hip hop culture largely is a manifestation of neo-colonialism in a Fanonian perspective where the oppressed have become the oppressors. This research seeks to continue the dialogue regarding inconsistencies of �revolutionary consciousness� in hip hop when concerns of sexism, heterosexism, social and economic elitism and racial supremacy arise. Often productions and consumption of hip hop reveal consciousnesses in producers and consumers alike that are conterminous with the dominant culture despite a proverbial sense of denial. This essay will address the following primary question: How can and/or do hip hop artists speak against the structure of white supremacy while representing the structure and still be accountable to both community and their labor system?

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In Patterns of Democracy, Arend Lijphart not only contends that democracy is bipolar, but also that consensus democracies are �kindler, gentler� forms of institutional settings than majoritarian arrangements (Lijphart 1999). Although Lijphart�s analysis shows strong empirical support for his claims, his framework was never applied outside stable democracies. The present paper proposes to cover that gap by replicating Lijphart�s analysis in the post-communist context, therefore testing the relevance of his prescriptions to democratizing states. The proposed study evaluates Lijphart�s theory in two separate ways. First, if his posited split of democracies into two blocs appears in the post-communist world. Second if post-communist states with more �consensus-oriented� attributes actually enjoy greater political rights and civil liberties, with the following results.

The main finding of the paper is that by contrast with older democracies, there is no such thing as a two dimensional map of democracy in the case of post-communist countries: there is no regular pattern of correlations between indicators of consensus-majoritarian democracy in the post-communist context. Nevertheless, empirical verification reveals that some elements included in the consensus democracy framework should be introduced in new constitutions, but perhaps not as the monolithic cluster of basic laws of constitutions like Lijphart originally suggested. Hence this study casts a shadow on the relevance of the majoritarian versus consensus classification of democratic regimes.

Publication Type: Proceeding