The Perils and Promise of Global Transparency: Why the Information Revolution May Not Lead to Security, Democracy, or Peace

Index

Abu Ghraib prison scandal, 131–32 accountability, government, 87, 89, 95, 114, 126–28, 131–32 Africa Rights, 60 Africa Watch, 80 African Union, 88 Amnesty International, 110–11 Arab-Israeli War (1973), 35, 38 arms control agreements, 26–27 Arusha Accords, 57–58, 79 assimilation and conflict, 55–56 resistance to, 56 authoritarian regimes and the Internet, 15 and transparency, 91, 94–96, 113, 124 See also Singapore, case study of Axworthy, Lloyd, 100 Baker, James, 36, 38 Bush, George H. W., 36 Bush, George W., 10, 93 Cambodia, 67–68 case studies Rwanda, 56–68, 78–87 Singapore, 101–112 China, 1, 15, 26, 94, 96, 98, 113 CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), 83 Clinton, Bill, 15, 80, 86, 93 CNN effect, 7, 15, 72, 75–76, 89 Committee to Protect Journalists, 96 confidence and security building measures (CSBMs), 40–41 conflict, 23–43, 47–50, 55–56, 76–78 aggressive nationalism, 32–33 and assimilation, 55–56 and democracies, 30, 32–33 and transparency, 27–31 avoidance of, 24, 27–31, 33–37, 47 military capability, 38–39 reduction of, 14, 43, 55 social psychology of, 47–50 See also uncertainty; violence, intergroup conflict intervention, 69–89 CNN effect, 75–76 effect of transparency on, 15, 76–78, 89, 118–19 in Rwanda, 78–87, 169n60 accountability of the international community, 86–89 chronology of, 79–83 France, role of, 79, 86–87 United States, role of, 79, 80 information, interpretation of, 74–75, 77–78 media, role of, 72–74, 76, 80 obstacles to, 72, 164n13 preventive action, 71 United Nations Preventive Deployment Force, 71 conflict resolution and transparency, 43, 47 confidence and security building measures (CSBMs), 40–41 obstacles to, 39 contact hypothesis, 14–15, 46, 55, 68 Index ____________________ 189 cooperation, international, 41–43, 45–46, 47 Dallaire, Roméo, 81 Darfur, 78, 88, 89 decentralization of information, 46–48, 72, 123–25 decentralization of power, 91–101 and transparency, 93–96 government ability to control information , 96–99 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), role of, 99–101 positive aspects of, 91–92 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), 85 dehumanization, 14–15, 46–49, 52–53, 57, 61, 64 democracies and conflict, 30, 32–33 and dissemination of information, 6–7, 10, 49 and war, 30, 32–33 characteristics of, 6 illiberal, 101–102, 108, 177n48 (See also Singapore, case study of) democratization and marketplace of ideas, 54 impact of transparency on, 32, 54, 112–14 international organizations, importance of, 67 demonization. See dehumanization deterrence, 33–37 closing windows of opportunity, 34 deterrence theory, 33 less monitored weapons and tactics, 36–37 military capabilities, assessment of, 34–36 political costs of peace, 35 strategic ambiguity, 35–36 weapons of mass destruction, 36 See also uncertainty diplomacy, 127–32 complications caused by transparency , 127–28 public diplomacy, 128–29 economic issues, 9, 97, 101 Egypt, 38 Eisenhower, Dwight D., 26 Environmental Protection Agency, 42 Fashoda Crisis, 32–33 genocide, 15, 49 See also Rwanda, case study of Genocide Convention, 81, 83 geolocation technology, 98 Global Witness, 94 governance, 91–101, 112–14 accountability, 87, 89, 114, 126–27, 131–32 and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), 99–101 complexity of transparency, 130–32 control of information, 96–99 decentralization of power, 91–96 democratization, impact of transparency on, 32, 54, 112–14 See also Singapore, case study of government control of information and conflict, 48–49 citizen support for, 97 decentralizing effect of transparency , 91–96 denial of access to information, 125 mechanisms for, 97–99 technologies, monitoring, 98 Habyarimana, Juvénal, 58, 60, 82 Holocaust, 50 Human Rights in China, 96 Human Rights Watch, 80, 81, 84, 96 illiberal democracy, 101–102, 108, 177n48 See also Singapore, case study of India and Pakistan, partition of (194748 ), 35 information and conflict intervention, 72–74 and free will, 50 and political power, 91–96 190 Index control of by governments, 48–49, 91–100, 125 by international organizations, 11 by media, 10–11 by NGOs, 11 by special interest groups, 53–54 credibility, importance of, 28–31, 67, 77, 120 decentralization of, 46–48, 72, 123–25 dissemination of, 5, 6–7, 10 influence on public opinion, 13, 49–50, 75–76, 116 interpretation of and classification of weapons, 37–38 and conflict intervention, 74–75, 77–78 and political relationships, 37, 38 and social relationships, 12, 14, 50–53, 121–22 assessment of importance, 11–13 identity of state...