Morton Abramowitz & Thomas Pickering "Making Intervention Work: Improving the UN's Ability to Act"(100-108) Foreign Affairs Vol.87/No.5(Sep/Oct 08):-official summary:"In the face of grave humanitarian crises in countries such as Myanmar and Sudan, the international community has failed to back up its rhetoric with deeds. To adequately address such situations, the United Nations must streamline its decision-making, strengthen its peacekeeping capabilities, and create a crisis-response force". Emphasized extracts:"International clamor must produce results, not simply more clamor". "The UN needs a limited force to respond to humanitarian disasters and prevent conflicts from spiraling out of control". Abramowitz is a Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation and former US Ambassador to Thailand and Turkey. Pickering is Vice Chair of Hills & Company and has served as US Ambassador to six countries and the UN.

James Adams, The Next World War: Computers Are the Weapons and the Front Line Is Everywhere(New York: Simon & Schuster 98):-not primarily about technology, but rather warning about (un)anticipated effects of accelerating revolution in many-faceted field of information warfare(IW). Uses many original sources to explain fundamental changes in nature of combat. Weapons can be disabling, non-lethal, long-distance, unmanned, multi-use, minuscule... Wars may be battlefield-less, electronic, adversary-ambiguous, instantaneous... Intelligence and surveillance will be pervasive/often decisive. At same time, vast technical lead -and complexity - of rich countries' forces/societies also creates immense (cyber)vulnerability. In global North-South terms, implies economically-advanced states will prefer to fight by exploiting their technology, while any less-advanced opponents will tend to concentrate their attackson that technology's weak points.[World community/UN will find "violent conflict" (formal inter-state war now very rare)not only creates multiple new diplomatic/legal issues(time/space limits, sanctions, intervention, lethality, causes, costs, crimes)but, most difficult of all, is increasingly ambiguous, in terms of "participants" (both initiators and intended enemies/victims), location(e.g. if electronic, disease-inducing, and/or delayed-action), aims(already true of terrorism), even very existence(e.g. cyber-, resource- or bio-conflict; deliberate/ accidental?).One major consequence then is that entire concept of conflict-resolution transformed.]

Salman Ahmed"No Size Fits All: Lessons in Making Peace and Rebuilding States"Foreign Affairs Vol.84/ No.1(Jan/Feb 05):-Review Essay by Senior Political Officer, Office of UN USG for Peacekeeping Operations who served in Cambodia, South Africa, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Afghanistan and Iraq. Providesanalysis of the argumentation of three books: Roland Paris At War's End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press 04); Kimberly Zisk Marten Enforcing the Peace: Learning From the Imperial Past(New York: Columbia Univ. Press 04); John Mueller The Remnants of War(Ithaca: Cornell Univ.Press 04). All three draw"attention to important lessons that deserve serious consideration from policymakers and practitioners...Still, these authors make too much of similarities among cases they study and not enough of differences. And by using them to extrapolate bold models for state reconstruction, authors belie inherent complexities of task...Specifics of...conflicts - their scale as well as their historical geopolitical/socioeconomic roots - should inform how peace brokered/maintained. Yet none...pays enough attention to such fundamental considerations."Essay is worth reading - as a survey of all the issues faced by the UN when easing post-crisis problems.

John B.Alexander Future War: Non-Lethal Weapons in Twenty-First Century Warfare(New York: St. Martin's Press 99):-excellent study of immense potential of non-lethal weapons, and impact of global trends on aims of security. Assumed US/NATO must(via UN)be world police force. Emerging threats for armed forces/police are: powerful criminal/terrorist organizations, together with transnational/religious bodies/ groups seeing themselves as politically, economically or socially deprived. Wide range of non-lethal weaponry includes acoustic, biological, chemical, electromagnetic weapons, physical restraints, low-impact projectiles, information warfare. Useful scenarios: peace support(UN)operations; technologicalsanctions; strategic paralysis; hostages or barricades. Issues addressed: practical limitations, strategicimplications, moral opposition, legal considerations, and constraints on "winning" .

Graham AllisonNuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe(New York: Owl Books/Henry Holk & Co 05):-extremely expert/influential report argues in INTRODUCTION that:"Given the number of actors with serious intent, the accessibility of weapons or nuclear materials from which elementary weapons could be constructed, and the almost limitless ways in which terrorists could smuggle a weapon through US borders, [i]n my own considered judgment, on the current path, a nuclear terrorist attack on US inthe decade ahead is more likely than not"(15). First chapter concludes:"What all [major terrorist] groups have in common is a hatred of the US or the West, along with sophisticated organizational structuresand access to technical know-how. [U]ncomfortable fact is that being the world's only superpower isinevitably going to breed resentment of one form or another - and it is impossible to mollify every single group. Challenge to US is to prevent these organizations from acquiring the means to threaten us with nuclear attack"(42).Then describes"unique destructive power of these terrible weapons", how/where they could be obtained, and where/when/how attacks might take place(43-120). Then describes policy changes to reduce chance of attack. List: priority to issue; standard for secure nuclear weapons/material; globalalliance against nuclear terrorism; global clean-out of all dangerous fissile material; stop new national production of fissile material; shut down of nuclear black markets; block emergence of nuclear weaponsstates; full review of global nonproliferation regime; revise nuclear weapons' postures/pronouncements;global prosecuting war on terrorism(205). Emphasis is on US but essential involvement must be global.

Kofi A. Annan, "Two Concerns of Sovereignty: International Intervention in Humanitarian Crises" The Economist18 Sep 99(49-50):-UNSG gives his views on basic issues. Inaction in Rwanda and interventions in Kosovo(no authority) and East Timor(too little too late)all justify criticism. We need consensus "not only... that massive and systematic violations of human rights must be checked...but also on ways of deciding what action is necessary, and when, and by whom." Critical points: "intervention" should not be understood as referring only to use of force; we need redefinition of sovereignty and broader definition of national interests that "would induce states to find greater unity in pursuit of common goals and values...today,collective interest is national interest" ;if force is necessary, Council must uphold Charter; act "in defence of our common humanity" ;ceasefires do not end commitments (disarmament).

Kofi A. Annan, "Preventing War and Disaster: A Growing Global Challenge" , Annual Report on the Work of the Organization 1999, by the Secretary-General of the United Nations(New York: DPI/ 2058; Sales No: E.99.1.29-Sep 1999):-after a convincing plea for more cost-saving global efforts to foresee, prevent, or reduce human and natural crises, Annan summarizes all major UN activities over year to Sep 99, and selected plans and problems(in 130pp). Chapters address: peace and security; development; humanitarian issues; globalization; legal order; human rights; administration. Overall impression: hard-won progress implementing UN obligations/reforms/savings are frustrated by Members' selfishness/lack of political will/financial irresponsibility. On DISARMAMENT, discussion of UN issues(37-40)is sombre -and written priorto US rejection of CNTB treaty. Preventive disarmament initiatives are supported(mainly small-arms) but little progress reported elsewhere, except in banning anti-personnel landmines, and related activity.

Kofi A. Annan, "Common Destiny, New Resolve" , Annual Report on the Work of the Organization 2000, by the Secretary-General of the United Nations(New York: DPI/2153;Sales No.E.00.1.22-Sep 99):-UNSG begins by noting report to Millennium Summit, "We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century" (op.cit.), includes his assessment of humanity's progress and challenges at turn of millennium,and suggests ways in which international community can work together to" better lives of people still left behind" .Introduction, summarizing 130-page report on major UN activities over year to Sep 00, highlights: (1)Demands on UN humanitarian agencies far exceeded worst-case predictions; (2)Living standards in sub-Saharan Africa still declining; (3)AIDS pandemic spreads with frightening rapidity; needs stronger commitment to action; (4)Three new peace missions were created, straining UNHQ resources. (5)Reviewsanalysed UN failures in Srebrenica and Rwanda; offered recommendations. (6) controversial economicbenefits of globalization must be more inclusive/equitably shared. (7)Must be cooperative management ofglobal economic affairs through more effective governance. (8)Informal global policy networks involving governments, international institutions, civil society and private sector have great potential. Chapters: Peace/Security; Humanitarian Commitments; Development; International Legal Order/Human Rights; UNManagement.

Kofi A. Annan "Courage To Fulfil Our Responsibilities" The Economist 04 Dec 04(23-5):-UNSG offers global action-urging essay built on his immediate reaction to report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. Following his urgent introduction is a brief summary of Annan's alreadyconcentrated and rearranged version of the panel report's many concerns/proposals. Its value is less to summarize the panel's views than to identify subjects they and/or he discuss. "We face a world of extraordinary challenges - and of extraordinary interconnectedness. We are all vulnerable to new security threats, and to old threats that are evolving in complex and unpredictable ways. Either we allow this array of threats, and our responses to them, to divide us, or we come together to take effective action to meet all of them on basis of a shared commitment to collective security. I asked the 16 members of [panel]- eminent people representing many nations and points of view - to analyse the threats to peaceand security our world faces; to evaluate how well our existing policies and institutions are meeting them; and to recommend changes to those policies and institutions, so as to ensure an effective collective response to those threats. Their report...makes 101 far-sighted but realistic recommendations. If acted on, they would address the security concerns of all states, ensure that UN works better, strengtheninternational rule of law and make all people safer" . First: threats. Event/process leading to deaths on large scale/lessening life chances or undermines states, should be viewed as threat to innatl peace/security.Clusters: economic/social, including poverty/disease; inter-state conflict/rivalry; internal violence: civil war/state collapse/genocide; nuclear/radiological/chemical/ biological weapons; terrorism; innatl crime.Threats interconnected to unprecedented degree; no state alone can defeat. Highly enriched uranium at size of 6 milk cartons could level medium-sized city as nuclear device. Such attack in US/Europe isstaggering cost for world economy. Security of developed states only as strong as ability of poor statesto respond to/contain new deadly infectious disease. Incubation period for most is longer than most air flights, so any one of 700m who travel airlines in year could unwittingly carry lethal virus to unsuspecting state. Today, virus similar to 1918 influenza could kill tens of millions in fraction of a year. In today's worldany threat to one is truly threat to all; applies to all categories of threats. Since real limits on self-protection,all states need collective-security system, committing all to act cooperatively against dangers. Givengravity/interconnectedness of threats, world needs more active prevention. Prevention can be highly effective(Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty);WHO helped halt SARS. Best prevention agents: capable states, acting/cooperating with others. Best preventive strategy: is development support. Millennium Development Goals to halve poverty/hunger by 2015 states' best security investment. It will save lives/reduce violentconflict and radicalism/bolster state ability against threats before real harm. HIV/AIDS shows danger ofinadequate prevention. Slow/ineffective global response allowed 20m killed/20 years; spread continues andworst to come. Ultimate cost will include shattered societies. Still not taking all needed steps to bring under control. Also need public-health facilities built in poor world. Not only poorer states benefit diseasetreatment/local prevention; whole world has better defence against bio-terrorism/large-scale naturalepidemics. UNSC should work with WHO to strengthen biological security via prompt, effective responses.Equal: greater environmental collective action, including beyond Kyoto protocol to better resources management in states at risk. Prevention also vital to protect against terrorism. New isrange/scale/intensity of threat(al-Qaeda can kill around world/has struck in 10+ UN members).Could acquire instruments of massive destruction: unprecedented danger. UN must better use assets in fight against terrorists: articulate a strategy respectful of laws/human rights. Definition of terrorism offered: any action intended to kill/seriously harm civilians/non-combatants, with purpose of intimidatingpopulation/compelling action by government/innatl organization. States should use to build consensus andstrengthen UN response to deadly scourge. Also urgent recommendations on non-proliferation/disarmament/ curbing supply of materials to reduce risk of nuclear/chemical/biological attacks by states/terrorist groups. States encouraged to end development of domestic uranium enrichment and urgedto voluntary time-limited moratorium on reprocessing plant construction. IAEA ability to monitor compliance with Non-Proliferation Treaty strengthened by standards in protocol for safeguards inspections. Since Cold War, UN far more engaged in preventing/ending civil wars; ended more through negotiation since 90 than in previous 200 years; developed expertise/learned hard lessons. As demand for UN blue helmets grows, need to boost peacekeeper supply/avoid 90s worst failures. Rich states should hasten efforts transforming existing forces for UN peace operations. UN must invest in mediation/support peace agreementimplementation. Demobilize combatants/reintegrate into civil life; otherwise civil wars not successfully ended/other goals(democracy/justice/ development) remain unmet. Often innatl community lost focus if crisishigh point past/peacekeepers left. Propose UNSC create Peacekeeping Commission; to give strategicfocus for work in states under stress/emerging from conflict. If prevention/peaceful resolution fails, UN must be able to rely on force. Whatever reason: all states/UNSC should bear in mind basic guidelines/ questions: (1)Seriousness of threat: does it justify force?(2)Proper purpose: does proposed force halt/ avert threat?(3)Last resort: all non-military options explored/exhausted? (4) Proportional means: force proposed minimum necessary?(5)Balance of consequences: clear action not worse than inaction? No need to amend Art.51 of UN Charter: any state's right of self-defence against armed attack/pre-emptive action against imminent threat. However if states fear threats, neither imminent nor proximate, but which could culminate in horrific violence if left to fester, UNSC already powered to act/must be prepared to take action earlier than past, when asked/reliable evidence. Protection of civilians inside states long fraught with controversy. Yet recognized more widely that question better framed, not as intervene-right butprotection-responsibility - borne first/foremost by states. Panel agreed principle of non-intervention in internal affairs cannot protect committing genocide/large-scale ethnic cleansing/other comparableatrocities. I hope UN members agree/UNSC will act. UN(now nearly 60)born in very different time/world, so has under-appreciated record of adapting to new dangers, e.g. peacekeeping in world's civil wars/response to attack of Sep 01. Clearly needs far-reaching reform to prevent/respond to all current threats. Some propose via-UN collective response too difficult/not necessary. But all anti-threat actions impact beyond immediate context/all states benefit from shared global framework. Not mean UN needs to do everything. It must learn of share burdens/welcome help from others/work with them. Already does so; report recommends strengthened UN partnerships with regional organs/individual states. Great attention: UNSC reform. Objectives: make UNSC more effective/authoritative. Permanent membership devised(1945)to ensure active engagement of big powers to maintain peace/security. New permanent members matter of controversy/debate. Two suggestions, both expanding membership to 24; aim at: add those who contribute most to UN financially/militarily/diplomatically; ensure UNSC represents UN as whole; not expand veto, which would render decisions more difficult. Proposals offer chance breakthrough in year ahead. If acted on, UNSC more representative/better equipped for decisive action. Need strengthened UN secretariat that can support Peacebuilding Commission; implement UNSC/ committee decisions better on peacekeeping/mediating civil wars. Report envisages more concerted-action secretariat, with UNSGmore responsible for management/ accountability. Equally important: ECOSOC overhaul to strengthen role in social development/ improving knowledge on economic-social dimensions of security threats. Also, recommends Human Rights Commission better defender of rights of all. After 60 years, once again findworld mired in disillusionment and all too imperfect. Easy to stand at sidelines and criticise/talk endlessly about UN reform, but world no longer has that luxury. Time to adapt collective security system so it works efficiently/effectively/ equitably. Next year UN states reviewing progress on Millennium Declaration; world leaders' summit in Sep. Appropriate moment to act on some of most important recommendations in report.I will indicate which call for decisions at that level. Fervently hope world leaders will rise to challenge. Have all lived through period of deep division and sombre reflection. Must make 05 year of bold decision; all share responsibility for each other's security. Let's summon courage to fulfil responsibility." Complete text of "A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility" Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, plus initial comments by requester/addressee, UNSG Kofi Annan, can be read and even copied(99pp Acrobat Reader)from Secretary General's part of UN file (www.un.org). Executive Summary(8pp Acrobat)also available at same address. Capturing the 21st Century Security: Prospects for Collective Responses(Oct 04)collects reports from six Stanley Foundation conferences in 04 that dealt with UNSG panel. Report at http://reports.stanleyfoundation.org. Council on Foreign Relations "Q&A: Reforming the United Nations" 01 Dec 04:-originally available either by NYT>CFR>International>[title] or via CFR directly. This is expert interview with Lee Feinstein who" has spearheaded Council work on the United Nations" and studied the important UN report and its UNGA prospects.

"Anonymous"Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror(DullesVA: Brassey's 04):-author is a senior US intelligence official with nearly 20 years experience in national security issues related to Afghanistan and South Asia. This strong critique of arrogant US/allies' policies towards Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda, and military action against Afghanistan/Iraq, proved quickly influential in many respects, and advocates less US loyalty to Israel/corrupt Muslim regimes or presence in Mideast. Motivation of Muslim terrorists is identified not as hatred/fear of Western national systems but of their broadly negative actions against Islamic peoples. All complex chapter titles: (1)Some Thoughts on the Power of Focused, Principled Hatred. (2) An Unprepared and Ignorant Lunge to Defeat - The US in Afghanistan. (3) Not Down, Not Out: Al Qaeda's Resiliency, Expansion, and Momentum. (4) The World's View of bin Laden: A Muslim Leader and Hero Coming into Focus? (5) Bin Laden Views the World: Some Old, Some New, and a Twist. (6) Blinding Hubris Abounding: Inflicting Defeat on Ourselves - Non-War, Leaks, and Missionary Democracy. (7) When the Enemy Sets the Stage: How US's Stubborn Obtuseness Aids Its Foes. (8) The Way Ahead: A Few Suggestions for Debate. Epilogue: No Basis for Optimism.

Associated Press, "UN Council Endorses Gun Control" New York Times 24 Sep 99:-on 24 Sep Security Council unanimously endorsed report by SG Annan on ways to reduce global stock of 500m handguns, rifles, shotguns and assault weapons. "Sweeping gun-control measures" reportedly included ban on private ownership of assault rifles presumably in wording US could accept. Nevertheless purpose of action while not binding, is "to increase pressure on world governments to impose stricter gun control measures and reduce arms trade." Significant, with 200m+ firearms owned by US citizens, that Annan stated clearly: "easyavailability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence..." US Secretary of State apparently only spoke of tightening international/illicit arms traffic. Over 3m, mostly civilians, have been killed since 89in conflicts fought with only small arms.

Associated Press, "Activists Seek Cluster Bomb Ban" New York Times 08 Aug 00:-British arm of International Campaign to Ban Land Mines has called for global moratorium on use, manufacture and sale of cluster bombs, pending in-depth review of their legality and impact. While designed to scatter immediately-exploding "bomblets" over large area, significant numbers of bomblets fail to explode on first impact; so effectively become land mines. By causing civilian casualties for years after hostilities end, charged their use is "indiscriminate and in clear breach of international humanitarian law." Group calls for laws requiring clearance after combat, compensation of civilian casualties and deployment records.Reuters, "UK Anti-Land Mine Group Seeks Ban on Cluster Bombs" NYT 8 Aug :- gives similar facts, but adds bomblets can blight farmland, impede economic recovery, grow in lethality over time.

Associated Press "U.S. Troops in Asia Undergo Transformation"New York Times 16 Nov 05:-"North Korea's military power hasn't suddenly changed. It claims to have nukes and its million-man army is ready to roll. China, meanwhile, is engaging as the new Asian military leader, and terrorism is flaring upall over the region. But at US' s major Asian outposts, some serious downsizing under way... US position isn't weakening, say officials and analysts; cutbacks will be counterbalanced by improved equipment, organization and cooperation... In its biggest reorganization in two decades, US will shed 12,500 of its32,500-strong force in Korea over next 3 years, reduce its number of bases by about 75% and hand overmajor elements of troops' mission to their Korean counterparts, who will 'play larger and larger role', US Defense Secretary said on recent Asia tour. Similar restructuring afoot in Japan, where nearly 50,000US troops are stationed. US and Japan just agreed to most sweeping changes in deployments there..., plan that... includes withdrawal of about 7,000 of 18,000 Marines on crowded island of Okinawa... Ananalyst...says aim is to streamline, but not undermine, the alliance... Changes in Korea in line with shifts now taking place within entire Army, moving toward combat teams 'smaller but fully capable and fully lethal packages that can be deployed faster', said [chief of force development and plans for 8th US Army in Korea]... By end of 2005, 8th Army will have shed 8,000 troops. Another 3,500 will leave by 2008, along with 1,000 Air Force... Facing increased demands on its own troops in Iraq/elsewhere, Washington pushing Seoul and Tokyo to assume bigger role in regional security and in their own defense - and both appear willing... Under new accord... Japan will defend itself, deal with such threats as ballistic missilesand commando attacks and invasion of its own islands. US will deploy latest missile defense radar".

Associated Press"Maritime Authorities OK Tracking Measure"New York Times 19 May 06:-"Maritime authorities have agreed upon new legislation that will allow for long-range tracking of merchant ships - a key measure in tackling the threat of seaborne terrorist attacks, the UN International Maritime Organization said [19 May]. A total of 166 countries have agreed to the new rules for merchant vessels, which would also allow countries to conduct surveillance on vessels suspected of carrying illicit cargo.Organization said signatory governments had provisionally agreed to the changes in the Safety of Life at Sea convention... 'Ships will be required to transmit their identity, location and date and time of theirposition to be tracked by satellite', said UN shipping agency's external relations officer... New legislation will mean a ship's position can be identified up to 1,000 nautical miles from shore. Current systems arelimited to a range of a few hundred nautical miles... Merchant vessels trading in international waters willneed to switch to new long-range system by Jan 08, offering maritime authorities a system similar tothat used by air traffic controllers";

Associated Press "U.S. Says Missile - Defense System Limited" New York Times 22 Jun 06:- "US said [22 Jun] missile-defense system under development has 'limited operational capability'to protect against weapons such as the long-range missile North Korea is said to be near firing. National Security AdviserStephen Hadley underscored US calls for North Korea to abandon any plans for testing the missile believed capable of reaching US soil. 'We're watching it very carefully and preparations are very far along', Hadley said... In Washington, a top Pentagon official said that a missile launch would be 'aprovocation and a dangerous action'that would lead US to impose 'some cost'on North Korea. [Tough UNSC resolution was later passed after a short flight by Taepodong-2 missile.] Hadley, who briefed reporters while traveling with President Bush in Europe[to G8 summit],.. spurned a suggestion by former Defense Secretary William Perry that US launch a pre-emptive strike against the North Korean missile...US has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on missile defense systems during the past few decades.'We have a missile defense system... what we call a long-range missile defense system that is basicallya research, development, training, test kind of system', Hadley said. 'It does... have some limited operational capability. [P]urpose, of course, of a missile defense system is to defend... the territory of US from attack'" . AP "U.S. Military Intercepts Missile in Test" "A Navy ship on [22 Jun] intercepted amedium-range missile warhead above the earth's atmosphere off Hawaii in the latest test of the US missile defense program, the military said. Missile Defense Agency said test had been scheduled for months and was not prompted by indications that North Korea was planning to test launch a long-range missile. USS Shiloh detected a medium-range missile after it was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, then fired a Standard Missile-3 interceptor. Interceptor shot down the target warhead after it separated from its rocket booster, more than 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and 250 miles northwest of Kauai, the agency said in a statement. The test marked the seventh time in eight attempts the military has successfully shot down a missile target with an interceptor fired from a ship.It also was the second successful attempt by a ship to shoot down a separating target. Medium- andlong-range ballistic missiles typically have at least two stages, increasing the challenge for interceptors,which must distinguish between the body of the missile and the warhead... Japan agreed to jointly develop missile defense technology with US late last year, broadening an earlier bilateral research pact" .

Associated Press "North Korea Knows How to Get Attention" New York Times 08 Jul 06:- "North Korea is well practiced in getting some of what it wants through provocation. Bullying through a bullhorn has worked time and again for a small nation with an outsized military force and an even bigger capacity forbluster and threat. It's called coercive diplomacy. North Korean-style, it has involved antagonizing everyone on and over the horizon, foes and allies alike, and then pulling back. Sometimes just in the nick of time... That's the case now... 'When diplomacy is stalled, North escalates tension to break thedeadlock', Wonhyuk Lim, Brookings Institution fellow,.. says in analysis... Risk is that North's attention-grabbing actions may bring bombs in reprisal instead of diplomacy, as almost happened in Clinton [era].In 2003, North pulled out of a nuclear arms treaty, vowing to bring 'defeat and ruin'on US, warning of WWIII and declaring, 'Let us see who will win and who will be defeated in the fire-to-fire standoff'. This was followed by the first substantive talks between the two nations since President Bush came to office.As a propaganda gambit, the missile tests [04 Jul 06] were hardly a smashing success... North's starlong-range missile is said to have failed like a bum firecracker on its mission of defiance and military advancement. Half-dozen tests of shorter range missiles were conducted to uncertain effect, but no failures as far as known. Results, in short, spoke to North's apparent ability to wreak havoc in its region and its inability any time soon to reach US mainland with missile. For US, 'main risk seems to be that North is beginning early testing of a missile that could throw equivalent of a rock at Alaska', said AnthonyCordesman of Center for Strategic and International Studies. Yet North has massive combat forces on border with South; long-range artillery capable of reaching Japan and destroying up to 40% of Southeconomy; and huge stocks of chemical weapons as well as its rising nuclear weapons capability. [North]fields world's fifth largest army, behind China, US, Russia and India. It is considered no match in any protracted fight with South Korea's lethal modern forces, US' s unmatched power or a devastating combination of both. Still any conflict could bring horrific consequences to both sides and risk pittingChina against US [like 1950-53 Korean War?].Cordesman protests tendency to regard Kim Jong Il as areckless poseur without a purpose. 'North... has reminded everyone of just how serious a threat Northcan be, how limited most military options are, and how serious the risks of any major war would be',Cordesman said. North's declaration in 1993 that it would pull out of NPT brought peninsula close to war and isolated the country through international censure, in the process leading to breakthroughnegotiations with Washington that produced agreement to freeze North's nuclear activities in exchange for US energy assistance. North's first test of a multistage rocket in 1998, also a flop, spurred bilateraltalks. Current framework of six-nation negotiations set up after North resumed its plutonium program in 2002 and expelled international inspectors [IAEA]. That pattern of edging toward confrontation, then edging back, has persisted, always accompanied by tough words. More are being heard now" .

Associated Press "Rumsfeld Cautions on Missile Shield" New York Times 27 Aug 06:- "[US] Defense Secretary Donald H.Rumsfeld sounded a note of caution about expectations that interceptors poised in underground silos [in Fort Greely, Alaska] would work in the event of a missile attack by North Korea...Ten silos house single 54-foot-long missile interceptors. If ordered by [US] president,.. one or more ofthe rockets would blast into the sky and race at more than 18,000 mph to launch a small 'kill vehicle'atan enemy warhead as it soared through space. An 11th interceptor is to be installed. [Asked whether ready for use against a North Korean missile,] Rumsfeld said he would not be fully persuaded until themultibillion dollar defense system has undergone more complete and realistic testing. [He said] some elements of the missile defense system are yet to come on line, including some of the radars and other sensors used to track the target missile,.. but stressed that advisors... have told him they believe it will work as designed in the event of an actual missile attack. [On 31 Aug] an interceptor based at a second site [in California] is scheduled to be tested against a target missile launched into the Pacific from Alaska's Kodiak Island. That will be the first full-up test of the latest version of the interceptor and its 'kill vehicle', a device attached to the nose of the interceptor. [T]he 'kill vehicle'is designed to use its own propulsion system and optical sensors to lock onto its target and, by ramming into it at high speed,obliterate the warhead and any payload it might carry. [This] test also will be first use of an early-warning radar... to provide the data required to put the interceptor on a proper path toward its target... A furthertest, now scheduled for Dec, will try for an intercept. At a news conference, Rumsfeld said that North Korea's leaders showed, by their test-launch of multiple missiles on 04 Jul 06, a determination to'continue to improve their capability and to threaten and attempt to blackmail other people'. He said theyalso are a threat to spread missile technology to terrorists. 'I think the real threat that North Korea poses in the immediate future is more one of proliferation than a danger to South Korea', he said... Rumsfeld said US intelligence about the intentions of North Korean leaders is not very good, but he said it is clearthat the overall condition of the North Korean military has deteriorated" ; David S.Cloud "Rumsfeld Sees Some Progress in Missile Plan" New York Times 27 Aug 06:- "Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said [in Fort Greely, Alaska] that while the fledging US ballistic missile defense system was becoming more capable,he wanted to see a successful full-scale test before declaring it able to shoot down a ballistic missile...Bush administration has taken the unusual step of deploying the system which is designed to shoot down a limited number of missiles before testing is completed and before all radars and sensors necessary to track incoming missiles are in place. Rumsfeld [said] system was aimed at protecting against attacks from North Korea and Iran, which he called 'rogue states that are intent on developing long-range ballistic missiles' ... The goal this week is to see if sensors in the so-called kill vehicle can recognize an incoming warhead, not to actually hit it... But... it employed a target that in its size andspeed was representative of missiles that might be fired at US. In last two flight tests, the system haltedthe firing sequence before the interceptor missile left its silo... Even so, after the second failed test in Feb 05, the system was taken down until Dec 06. [A]s many as 40 are supposed to be installed by next year. The other interceptor site is... in California, where two interceptors are in silos... Bushadministration is also looking at locations for an interceptor site in Europe that would protect US and parts of Europe from missiles launched from Mideast. [C]ould be in place in four years if Congressprovides the money... Sergei Ivanov, defense minister of Russia, [also in Alaska] did not directly criticize US system, but called for 'transparency'by Bush administration, a term meant to convey Russia's concern about any modifications to the system that could take its capabilities beyond stopping a small number of missiles" ;

Associated Press "Annan Paints Grim Picture to Assembly"New York Times 19 Sep 06:-"Addressing world leaders for last time as UNSG, Kofi Annan painted a grim picture of an unjust world economy, global disorder, widespread contempt for human rights, and appealed for nations/peoples to truly unite. As theannual UN General Assembly [UNGA] ministerial meeting got under way, 192 UN member states facedambitious agenda including trying to promote Mideast peace, curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, get UN peacekeepers into conflict-wracked Darfur, promote democracy... Annan, whose second five-year term ends 31 Dec 06, said the past decade has seen progress in development, security, rule of law - the threegreat challenges he said humanity faced in first address to UNGA in 97. But UNSG said too many still exposed to brutal conflict, and fear of terrorism has increased clash of civilizations/religions. Terrorismbeing used as pretext to limit or abolish human rights, and globalization risks driving richer and poorer apart, he said. 'Events of last 10 years have not resolved, but sharpened, three great challenges - unjust world economy, world disorder, and widespread contempt for human rights and rule of law', Annan said.'As result, we face world whose divisions threaten very notion of an international community, upon which this institution stands. I remain convinced that only answer to this divided world must be a truly United Nations' , he said. In annual report, UNSG touched on some of most difficult issues confronting leaders... [Arab-Israeli conflict; Iraq; Afghanistan; Sudan/Darfur]. 'Together we have pushed some big rocks to top of the mountain, even if others have slipped from our grasp and rolled back. But this mountain... is best place on earth to be',UNSG said.'I yield my place to others with an obstinate feeling of hope for our common future', Annan said. [UNGA] loud applause/rose in sustained standing ovation".

Associated Press "China to Continue Modernizing Military" New York Times 29 Dec 06:- "China said it will strengthen its military to thwart any attempt by Taiwan to push for independence, but vowed that it wascommitted to the peaceful development of the world's largest army. A report issued by the State Council,China's Cabinet, also said the country's defense policy will focus on protecting its borders and sea space, cracking down on terrorism and modernizing its weapons. 'China will not engage in any arms race or pose a military threat to any other country', the 91-page white paper said. 'China is determined to remain a staunch force for global peace, security and stability'. The communist nation's 2.3m-strong military is the world's largest but has been criticized for its lack of transparency about its buildup. Its reported 2006 budget is $35b, but analysts believe the true figure, which doesn't include weapons purchases and other key items, is several times higher... One of Beijing's key short-term goals has been to take a firm stand against any independence efforts by Taiwan... It has hundreds of missiles pointed in its direction across the Taiwan Straits. China has also spent heavily to beef up its arsenal withsubmarines, jet fighters and other high-tech weapons. 'The struggle to oppose and contain theseparatist forces for Taiwan independence and their activities remains a hard one', the report said. Itindirectly criticized US for promising Beijing that it will adhere to the 'one-China'policy, 'but it continues to sell advanced weapons to Taiwan, and has strengthened military ties with Taiwan'. Washingtonswitched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979 but remains Taiwan's major foreign backer, and is committed by law to providing it weapons to defend itself against possible Chinese attack. [Report] highlighted what it said was 'growing complexities in Asia-Pacific security environment'.[It] said China 'remains firmly committed to the policy of no first-use of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances' . All this taking place with backdrop of North Korea's first nuclear test,uncertainty surrounding Iran's nuclear ambitions and continued turbulence in Mideast, it said" .

Deborah Avant "THINK AGAIN: Mercenaries" Foreign Policy No.143(Jul/Aug 04):-a correction of ten public (mis)concepts about the current activities and value of(mainly US-employed)PRIVATE SECURITY FIRMS vs (traditional)MERCENARIES.(See also Sarah V. Percy op.cit.) Avant first offers widely-believed view about such firms ( "Quoted/Under-lined Phrases" ); then states a FIRM ONE/TWO-WORD REACTION; then saysat length her views of the actual truth. "Private Security Companies Are Mercenaries" -NO. "'Mercenary'describes wide variety of military activities, many of which bear little resemblance to those of today's...corporate endeavours that perform logistics support, training, security, intelligence work, risk analysis, and much more" . "The Bush Administration Has Dramatically Expanded Use of Military Contractors" -WRONG. "US ramped up military outsourcing during 1990s, after end of Cold War brought reductions in force size and numerous ethnic and regional conflicts emerged requiring intervention" . "Contractors Don't Engage in Combat or Other Essential Military Tasks" -FALSE. " Although... Rumsfeld said Pentagon would outsource all but core military tasks, these tasks are changing, and military contractors perform many of them. Contractors have technical expertise to support increasingly complex weapons systems[andintelligence services for war on terrorism]" . "Military Contractors Are Cheaper than Regular Soldiers" -PROVE IT. "Two conditions must be present for private sector to deliver services more efficiently than government: competitive market and contractor flexibility in fulfilling their obligations.[G]overnmentsfrequently curtail competition to preserve reliability and continuity[and]impose conditions that reduce contractors' flexibility" . "Contractors Are Accountable to No One" -AN EXAGGERATION. "Manygovernments regulate security contractors to greater or lesser degrees... Contractors are accountable to range of employers and respond most effectively to market incentives...Use of contractors to avoidgovernmental accountability is more worrisome. "Contractors Value Profits More than Peace" -NOT ALWAYS." Although many critics argue that military contractors have economic interest in prolonging conflict rather than reducing it, employees of private military companies rarely have been accused of aggravating conflict intentionally to keep profits flowing" . "Contractors Operate Outside the Law" -FREQUENTLY "Legal status of contractors varies considerably. Sometimes they are subject to laws of territory in which they operate and other times to those of their home territory, but too often distinction isunclear...Status of contractors is even more contentious under international law. Most...activity falls outside purview of 1989 UN Convention on Mercenaries" . "Only Governments Hire Private Security Companies" -WRONG. "Security contractors work for governments, transnational corporations, and nongovernmental organizations(NGOs). Oil, diamond, and other extractive industries hire contractors toguard their facilities, and UN and NGOs employ convoy guards. In Iraq, nearly every foreign entity...requiresprivate security" . "The United Nations Should Outsource Peacekeeping to Private Contractors" -NO. "Those who advocate that UN hire private contractors are not looking to replace UN peacekeeping forces. Rather, they hope to make them more flexible and easier to use...Outsourced peacekeeping is...unlikely.UNSC and UNGA have been reluctant to consider it because of weak governments' concern that private security forces could be used against them" . "Private Military Contractors Undermine State Power" -NOT ALWAYS. "Contractors undermine states' collective monopoly on violence. Fact that US, Britain, Australia and UN hire private security makes it hard for nations that oppose military contracting to restrict security firms based in their country" . For another excellent (different) description of current use of mercenaries, see The Economist 04 Nov 06"Mercenaries: Blood and Treasure"(70-1):-Highlight is:"In recent decades,mercenaries... pushed to the wilder edges of global conflict: the 'dogs of war'who fight nasty little campaigns in Africa. But for a new kind of soldier of fortune, the fighting in Iraq has proved to be a pot of gold". Item's own summary:"After the windfall of Iraq, where is the next fortune to be found?".

Lloyd Axworthy and Sarah Taylor, "A Ban for All Seasons: The Landmines Convention and Its Implications for Canadian Diplomacy" International Journal Vol.LIII/No.2(Spring 98):-almost entirely on techniques used to persuade 122 governments to sign Convention(Dec 97)to eliminate the manufacture/use/export of anti-personnel landmines. Thrust: "Ottawa process" required governments and civil society to work together as team. This "soft power" approach is more appropriate because of changed international issues/relations/outcomes that also call for more focus on human(vs state)security and humanitarian law.(See Hampson-Oliver op.cit.)The Economist 04 Dec 04 "Lifting Landmines: Easy To Lay, Hard To Dig Up" (46):-describes how one of world's worst minefields being cleared, and reports on techniques/global issues, at the time of an international landmine conference in Nairobi. "Rats, sniffer dogs and armour-plated bulldozers can help, but most mine-clearing still done by hand, usually by man with pointed stickand plastic mask." Those in Angola use no metal detectors since ground scattered with bullet casings as well. De-miners are rarely killed. "In five years since global ban agreed in Ottawa, nearly 40m landmines ...destroyed. Most were in stockpiles, but some 4m were painstakingly found and dug up. Nonetheless,devices still kill or maim 40 people/day...Some armies, such as Sudan's, continue to plant them.Guerrillas and rebels respect no treaties. Only complete destruction of existing stocks and end to manufacture would cut off supply. But that would require all countries to sign up to Ottawa treaty. So far144 countries have, but China, Russia, Pakistan, India, US still refuse. China...considering signing, butUS will not, mostly because minefields help keep North Koreans out of South Korea...US plans to switch to using mines that self-destruct after a few weeks(though not always reliably)will be used as excuse never to sign treaty. Men...will be prodding gingerly for long time yet."

Lloyd Axworthy, Debbie Grisdale et al. "The Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons" Newslink, Group of 78, Issue 27/Feb 99:-three texts which together provide useful and official update on Canadian policy regarding nuclear disarmament.(1)Letter from executive committee of Group of 78 to Prime Minister Chretien regarding1998 UN General Assembly draft resolution "Towards a Nuclear Weapon Free World: The Need for a New Agenda" .(2)Reply from Foreign Minister Axworthy concerning Canada's nuclear disarmament policy, and noting information about Canada's arms control and disarmament policies can be found at http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca.(3)Recommendations of Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade submitted to House of Commons 10 Dec 99. Canada's instrument of ratification for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was deposited 18 Dec 98.

Robert Baer"THE FP MEMO:- Wanted: Spies Unlike Us"Foreign Policy No.147(Mar/Apr 05):- former CIA case officer 1976-97, and author -See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism(New York: Crown Publishers 02), drafts a MEMORANDUM from himself to Porter Goss, U.S. Director of Central Intelligence, entitled"Getting the CIA Back in the Game". He writes"CIA is clearly broken, and you have a chance to fix it... Reform is needed across the board, but the Directorate of Operations(DO) should be your first target. Its mission - recruiting and running foreign spies - should be the agency's core function.Give DO the tools it needs, and intelligence analysis will take care of itself...Here are my suggestions(forming remainder of the MEMO under following headings): Reform the Promotion System; Know Your Sources;Recruit on College Campuses; Lower the Retirement Age; Stop Relying on Foreign Governments;Change the Security Clearance System; Recruit on the Dark Side. [I would myself disagree with the proposed total lack of cooperation with the world's 200 or so "Foreign Governments". Even the US could not gain unilaterally all the global information it is going to need. The global danger of all types/sources of terrorism in the world can only be constrained if all governments ideally/ostensibly work together.Genuine intelligence activity abroad could/would lie on top of that.]

Scott Barrett Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods (New York: Oxford Univ Press 07):-surprisingly well written -considering the complexity of issues- in: (1) describing the existing global challenges (e.g. climate change, nuclear proliferation, worldwide pandemics) and those that threaten the entire planet (e.g. terrorism, physical/chemical/biological instabilities, asteroids); and (2) reporting on how such problems have been successfully or badly handled in the past, the rationales involved, and the various cooperations that would/might work best in future. Barrett's "threat" approach differs from my item "EARTH MUST COOPERATE...", mainly in stressing "Global Public Goods" actions of the recent past (e.g.often successful United Nations; wonderful "Montreal Protocol" ozone treaty), whereas my gloomy and concentrated "page" is designed almost solely to identify: (1) the exploding scale/variety of global threats; (2) the human tendencies that have created/will create them; and (3) why we must change a number of very old human views/feelings. Both press broader global diplomacy as essential tool. Most chapters focus on distinct types of issue/solution. [Even a study of brief bit(s) of 275p would be valuable.] Titles: Incentives to Supply Global Public Goods [GPG]; (1) Single Best Efforts: GPG that Can Be Supplied Unilaterally or Minilaterally; (2) Weakest Links: GPG that Depend on States that Contribute the Least; (3) Aggregate Efforts: GPG that Depend on Combined Efforts of All States; (4) Financing and Burden Sharing: Paying for GPG; (5) Mutual Restraint: Agreeing What States Ought Not to Do; (6) Coordination and Global Standards: Agreeing What States Ought to Do; (7) Development: Do GPG Help Poor States?; Conclusion: Institutions for Supply of GPG.

J.Marshall Beier & Steven Mataija edit. Cyberspace and Outer Space: Transitional Challenges for Multilateral Verification in the 21st Century (Toronto: Centre for International and Security Studies, York Univ. 97):-based on papers commissioned for/presented at 14th Annual Ottawa NACD Verification Symposium, sponsored by Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Titles of 21 Papers/Chapters as follows: Keynote Address: Meeting the Multilateral Proliferation Challenge Through United Nations Actions(Gustavo Zlauvinen);(1)Where Are We Now; Where Are We Going in Arms Control?(Jonathan Dean);(2)The 1997 Multilateral Arms Control Agenda and ACDA Priorities(Thomas Graham, Jr.);(3)The Interface Between Treaties and Regimes: Challenges for Evaluation, Verification, and Implementation(Patricia Bliss McFate);(4)Significant Multilateral NACD Agreements: The Scope and Challenge of Implementation(Richard Guthrie);(5)Multilateral Control Regimes: Diverse Purposes and Congruent Processes(Gordon K.Vachon);(6)Non-Weaponisation of Space:An International Imperative(F.R.(Ron)Cleminson);(7)Proliferation Challenges of Cyberspace(David Mussington);(8)Information Revolution, Military and Arms Control(Jeffrey R.Cooper; Christopher Burton);(9)Virtual Security: Technical Oversight, Simulated Foresight, and Political Blindspots in Infosphere(James Der Derian);(10)Arms Control and Future of International Security(Brad Roberts);(11)Verification: An Active Role for UN(Alan Crawford);(12)Aerial Surveillance in Sinai Field Mission, Multinational Force and Observers, and UN Special Commission on Iraq: Issues and Commonalities(Rene Unger);(13)Spaceborne Imagery: A Universal, Effective, and Cost-Efficient Tool for Ongoing Monitoring and Verification(Phillip J.Baines);(14)Summary of Results from 1996 Workshop on Use of Satellite Overhead Imagery in Verification(Peter Stibrany);(15) "93+2"(IAEA)Critique(Jason Cameron);(16)Light Weapons: New Focus for Arms Control and Disarmament(David DeClerq);(17)Russian Crisis and Prospects for Arms Control(Sergei Plekanov);(18)Future Challenges for Multilateral Arms Control: A Case Study on Korea(George Lindsay; Jim Bayer);(19)The Multilateral Dimension of'Korean Problem'(George Lindsay);(20)Symposium Summary(Jacqueline Simon).Editorial Foreword offers brief outlines.

Christopher de Bellaigue "THINK AGAIN: IRAN" Foreign Policy No.148 (May/Jun 05) (18-24):-like other FPissues, correction of nine public concepts; here: about Iranian nuclear weapons production/use or its positive response to stiff US pressure. Author first outlines widely-held views( "Under-lined Statements" ); states FIRM REACTIONS; and then provides his view of actual truth. He first provides summary: "Tehran's desire for nuclear bomb has put it in Washington's cross hairs. But neither President George W.Bush'srepeated condemnations of Iran's clerical rulers, nor the threat of military force will advance cause ofdemocracy there. When Iran reforms, it will happen because its youth - not the United States - demands it." "If Iran Gets a Nuclear Bomb, Iran Will Use It"-VERY UNLIKELY. "Iran almost certainly does not intendto brandish a nuclear bomb in an attempt to intimidate...Israel/US... Further, clerics have blessed a partial detente with their Arab neighbours and...EU.[Yet] there is plausible circumstantial evidence ...to suggestthat Iran's nuclear program is not civilian. [N]uclear ambiguity is calculated, a reaction to the vulnerability it feels. Iran probably intends to gather all the elements necessary for bomb making, so that it can gonuclear the moment that it feels an attack is imminent." "Iran Has No Use for Nuclear Power"-False."Energy needs are rising faster than [Iran's oil/gas] ability to meet them... Its capacity must nearly triple over 15 years to meet projected demand[,and the electricity cannot all come] from the oil sector. [Output] has stagnated at around 3.7mbd since late 1990s. Almost 40% of Iran's crude oil is consumed locally [and the natural] gas reserves are only just being tapped. It makes sense for Iran to free up its hydrocarbons for export [and] Iran contends that US may pressure foreign sellers into stopping the flow. [Hence] Iran'sdesire for a complete fuel cycle is most suspicious aspect of nuclear program"."The Iranian People Support Their Leaders' Nuclear Program"-NOT REALLY. "Iranians who vocally support...nuclearambitions...minority[;] never witnessed spontaneous discussion of nuclear program among average Iranians...Unlikely many Iranians willing to put up with economic/diplomatic isolation...if Iran insisted on enriching uranium"."Only the Threat of Force Can Dissuade Iran from Advancing with Its Nuclear Plans"-DOUBTFUL."Threat...could also...encourage Iran to leave NPT and develop a nuclear weapon ASAP...[N]ever abandons goal of achieving a nuclear fuel cycle... Iran is more flexible than it appears...[It might] revise its nuclear plans if US abandoned its [hard policies] ...Ultimately it might refuse to publicly relinquish nuclear goals, preferring instead to extend current negotiations indefinitely"."U.S. Military Action Would Embolden Dissidents to Topple the Islamic Republic"-WRONG. "Workers...keeping their heads down andmouths shut... Iranians don't want Iraq's wretched conditions... Iranians opposed to Islamic Republic lack a unifying ideology... Possible some Iranians would cheer a US invasion, but not for long". "Criticizing the Islamic Republic Helps Dissidents Inside Iran"-NO. "Bush's repeated statements of support for Iranian people do not help normal Iranians... Publicly defending beleaguered reformists simply allowed clerics to accuse reformers of being US lackeys...US criticism has perverse effect because US has no diplomatic or economic relations with Iran, and hence no leverage. EU and others [have] some modest leverage with Iran's clerical rulers". "If Iraq Becomes a Democracy, so Will Iran"-WISHFUL THINKING. "Border is about all they share...Few Iranians...question Iran's integrity within its current borders. Same is not true in Iraq...Iran set up a semi-democratic, anti-Western, Shia theocracy... Clerics today enjoy considerable prestige"."Iran Cannot Be Reformed from Within"-WRONG AGAIN. "Iran can and will be reformed from within.Demographics make that course inevitable. Some 70% of Iran's 70m citizens under age of 30, and young Iranians are more reform-minded than older groups... Young people resent existing political restrictions more than their elders, and are less religiously observant... Spread of material values and sexual freedom is palpable, as is desire for smaller families...Young people display little animus for once-hated US...[Yet]reform-minded millions lack common ideology/leadership... New generation will... spur further reform. Process would benefit from critical dialogue with US, rather than current, glowering standoff".

A. LeRoy Bennett, International Organizations: Principles and Issues (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1991).-mostly on the UN. The focus is on its philosophy and principles, not structure; the breakdown is by broad issue, not organization: League of Nations; Genesis of the UN; Basic UN Principles and Organization; Basic UN Issues; Peaceful Dispute Settlement; Collective Security and the Alternatives; Justice Under Law; Regionalism; Arms Control; Transnationals and IOs; Economic Welfare; Global Resources and the Environment ; Social Progress; Human Rights/Self-Government; Administration/Leadership; the Future.