The MacArthur Consortium workshop "Slaughter of the Innocents: Understanding Political Killing" focused on mobilization for large-scale killing and genocide. How does such violence become possible? Rather than concentrating on effect and prescription, participants devoted their attention to diagnosis and causal understanding. The workshop had three main areas of investigation:

1. the historical sociology of mobilization for large-scale killing,
   
2. the phenomenology of genocide, and
   
3. the role of memory in such mobilization.
   

In exploring a topic that has become highly problematic and pressing in the context of civil wars, the workshop addressed changing institutions of violence and issues of identity. The workshop aimed to raise as many questions as it answered, as well as to set an agenda for future interdisciplinary understanding.

The third Stanford-Livermore workshop in the series examining the protection of critical national infrastructures against cyber attack was held at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on February 26-27, 1998. The first two workshops were intended to provide informed inputs to the work of the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, and the third, which came soon after the publication of the Commission's report to the President (entitled Critical Foundations), was directed toward a critical review of that report and to developing suggestions for steps to implement its findings in four areas that are considered particularly important: criteria and priorities to guide near-term actions; creation of a public-private partnership; legal issues, with some emphasis on understanding impediments to cooperation; and facilitation of research and development planning, with a subtheme on the robustness of complex systems.

If high-performance computing (HPC) export control policy is to be effective, three basic premises must hold:

This study applies and extends the methodology established in Building on the Basics [1]. Its objective has been to study trends in HPC technologies and their application to problems of national security importance to answer two principal questions:

· Do the basic premises continue to be satisfied as the 20th century draws to a close?

· In what range of performance levels might an export-licensing threshold be set so that the basic premises are satisfied?

The study concludes that export controls on HPC hardware are still viable, although much weaker than in the past. In particular, while applications of national security interest abound, it is increasingly difficult to identify applications that strongly satisfy all three basic premises, i.e. are of extreme national security importance and would likely be effectively pursued by countries of national security concern and would be severely retarded without levels of computing performance that could be effectively controlled.

From the preface:

"Events in recent years have caused heightened concern about the security of weapons-usable nuclear material. The possibility of illicit trafficking in, or seizure of, such material, leading to nuclear terrorism, is a worry for all states and their citizens. And given the relatively small quantities required, material obtained in one part of the world could be made into a weapon in another and threaten lives in a third. It is truly a global problem.

Since the beginning of the nuclear era, the physical protection of fissile material has been a responsibility of the individual states possessing the material. These states have different organizational approaches for providing physical protection; and while cognizant of recommended general standards, they tend to follow their own practices, shaped by custom, costs, and threat perception. Moreover, the existence of military as well as civil programs in some states adds another dimension
to the physical protection issue.

Because physical protection is a sovereign matter and not part of an international regime (except for transit of civil material across borders), there has been less attention in much of the world community to the issues of physical protection than to the other elements of nuclear safeguards and controls. (An important exception to this situation is the effort being made to assist the states of the former Soviet Union in the disposition of their weapons-usable nuclear materials.) The lack of a general dialog about a problem of growing concern motivated us to hold a three-day workshop at Stanford University to develop a better understanding of some of the important underlying questions and issues, and to undertake a comparative examination of states' approaches to physical protection. We were pleased to have knowledgeable participants from a number of the countries and regions where physical protection of fissile materials is, or will become, a day-to-day matter.

The results of the workshop are reported in these Proceedings. It is our hope that this work will stimulate further analysis and discussion, and lead to greater interest in international standards, cooperation, and supporting programs.

James E. Goodby
1996-1997 Payne Distinguished Lecturer
Stanford University

Ronald F. Lehman II
Director of the Center for Global Security Research
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

William C. Potter
Director, Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Monterey Institute of International Studies"

Proceedings of a conference, "Preventing Deadly Conflict: Strategies and Institutions," held in Moscow Aug. 14-16, 1996," that was a joint undertaking of the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, the Institute of Universal History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Center for International Security and Arms Control at Stanford University.

Dr. Lapidus, who co-edited the report, wrote the conclusion, "Lessons from the Russian Experience."

This report on non-binding, non-treaty approaches to arms control draws upon research and discussion at the Center for International Security and Arms Control during 1990 and 1991, after the Cold War had ended but before the disintegration of the Soviet Union. It was apparent at the time that the traditional approach to arms control--through detailed treaties resulting from long negotiations--might not be adequate to deal with the new situation in which arms reductions could be made quickly but coordination would still be needed in order to preserve stability. We examined the possibility of using reciprocal unilateral measures (RUMs) in place of treaties as a mechanism for achieving arms control.

A striking example of the approach we were recommending was when Presidents Bush and Gorbachev announced major withdrawals of non-strategic nuclear weapons in September and October 1991 (We describe the Bush-Gorbachev RUMs in this paper.) The strategic picture changed dramatically soon after those measures were announced. The Soviet Union was replaced by the Russian Federation and 14 other newly independent states. For several years, the treaty method worked well in U.S.-Russian arms control, alongside other forms of cooperation such as the Nunn-Lugar program. We put aside our work on RUMs.

Although we are far from a resumption of the Cold War, U.S.-Russian relations are no longer as cooperative as they were in the early 1990s. Besides, the treaty method has slowed almost to a standstill. We have therefore returned to the draft final report of 1991 and drawn from it the history we thought is relevant to the current problem of reducing the strategic nuclear threat Russia and the United States pose to each other--and to the rest of the world.

In July 1996, President Clinton established the Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP), with a charter to designate critical infrastructures, to assess their vulnerabilities, to recommend a comprehensive national policy and implementation strategy for protecting those infrastructures from physical and cyber threats, and to propose statutory or regulatory actions to effect the recommended remedies. The charter gave examples of critical infrastructures (most notably telecommunications, electrical power, banking and finance, and transportation systems), and the types of cyber threats of concern (electronic, radio-frequency, or computer-based attacks on the information or communications components that control critical infrastructures).

Some of the infrastructures are owned or controlled by the government, and hence the government can harden and restructure these systems and control access to achieve a greater degree of robustness. However, the President's Executive Order recognized that many of the critical infrastructures are developed, owned, operated, or used by the private sector and that government and private sector cooperation will be required to define acceptable measures for the protection and assurance of continued operation of these infrastructures.

To assist in planning for the implementation of the Commission's recommendations, this paper starts by revisiting some of the Commission's central premises, and suggests that while there is reason to believe that the Commission's concerns over the long term are valid, more work is needed on these issues to fully support the PCCIP recommendations. Next, the Commission's recommendations are examined from the standpoint of priority, in order try to provide a clear focus for early implementation efforts. Of the 72 recommendations, ten are identified as important first steps. Due to the private ownership of most infrastructure systems, the Commission proposes new partnership relationships between the public and private sectors to accomplish the goal of protection.

This paper questions and extends the Commission's thinking regarding the implementation of such arrangements. It concludes that the sharing of information between the public and the private sector will have to be carefully designed to protect the interests of all the parties involved. It also notes that while the nature of infrastructure systems makes them global in their operation, the Commission's Report treats the problem almost exclusively from a domestic viewpoint. This will work against organizing the international partners who will, of necessity, be an important part of the solution.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has grown up along with world politics and has, since 1945, offered a special perspective on issues of peace, security, and global well-being. Now its unique blend of international commentary on the arms race, accessible articles on scientific dimensions of politics, and acute political journalism is presented here in a way particularly suited to students of international relations and security studies. Widely known for his creative work in international affairs education, George A. Lopez joins with the former managing editor of the Bulletin, Nancy J. Myers, to select recent articles best illustrating a wide range of issues on peace and security. The volume editors shape and supplement these articles specifically for classroom use. Each chapter includes several thematically linked articles supplemented with maps, data charts, photos, editorial cartoons, and discussion questions. Completing the package of pedagogical features for the volume is a master chart of key terms and concepts in international relations showing their connection to the articles. This new text-reader zeroes in on the core of any international relations course and brings the controversies alive with informed, international voices and new views on age-old questions about the arms race, peace, security, and the prospects for a post-nuclear world politics.

Features articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Sientists, a unique teaching resource, selected and edited especially for students of international studies. Provides chapter introductions and thematic overviews by leading IR scholar and teacher linking these articles to core course content. Includes maps, figures, tables, high impact photos, and clever, specially-commissioned editorial cartoons. Presents discussion questions framed to show how text-reader content illuminates IR theory and current events. Offers a master chart of key IR terms and concepts as they appear within the reader. Incorporates a wide diversity of international authors, topics, and perspectives. Combines historical perspective with current events. Unlike other readers, Peace and Security is thematicaly unified and cohesive. prospects for a post-nuclear world politics.

Georgia--The Search for State Security

David Darchiashvili's working paper traces the attempts of the modern Georgian state to deal with issues of national security since independence. Darchiashvili outlines the nature of contemporary national security dilemmas for post-Soviet Georgia. The paper examines Georgia's present security threats, as well as its current relationships with Russia and the other countries of the region. The paper also presents an in-depth discussion of the situation of civil-military relations in Georgia and the impact of these relations on state security. The author analyzes the roots of Georgia's problems in developing a coherent and practical security policy. He proposes that the ad hoc character of current security policy has resulted in passivity in dealing with threats such as ethnic conflicts, including the war in Abkhazia. In his conclusion Darchiashvili makes a recommendation for the elaboration of a consistent national security concept for Georgia. The author proposes that this security concept will need to include a framework for relations between society and the military. According to Darchiashvili, in order to attain this goal Georgia needs to maintain internal stability and to secure support from international institutions.

European Security and Conflict Resolution in the Transcaucasus

Nerses Mkrttchian's working paper examines the issue of security in the Transcaucasus since the fragmentation of Europe's international landscape, and the emergence of a new cooperative European security system that followed the disappearance of the continent's political line of separation. Mkrttchian proceeds to analyze the security issues in the Transcaucasus region within broader European, Eurasian, and post-Soviet contexts. The paper examines the current security structure of Europe, its relationship to Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and how these new security structures can affect the regional conflicts in the Transcaucasus. Mkrttchian analyzes the prospects for establishing regional cooperation on security issues in the Transcaucasus, and the role of international organizations in this process. The author points to the need for the development of "cross-dimensional" cooperation as a way to resolve conflicts in the region.

There is a growing logjam of arms control treaties waiting for approval in both the Russian State Duma and the U.S. Senate. Without decisive action, this logjam will probably prevent approval by the world's two largest military powers of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II) of 1993, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996 (CTBT), amendments to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and the protocols of the Treaty of Pelindaba (creating an African nuclear-weapon-free zone (NWFZ)) and the Treaty of Rarotonga (creating a South Pacific NWFZ) before the end of the century. It will also prevent progress towards START III and further bilateral nuclear reductions.