The thesis pinpoints the responsibility of external powers in the tragic course of the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as their influence on the policy making its leaders, from 1997 to 2001. It points out that, given the country’s geostrategic position in the heart of Africa and its immense natural resources, foreign governments play the preeminent role in the shaping of its destiny, particularly during the abovementioned five-year period marked by the two Congo Wars. This role had been blunt in the demise of Mobutu’s 32 year-long reckless, kleptocratic regime, as a consequence of the shift, by the United States of America aiming to safeguard its hegemonic interests in Central Africa, of the strategically pivotal pawn from Zaire to Uganda in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War. Thus, craving a great influence in the continent and sponsored by multinational companies from North America, Belgium, Australia and South Africa, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, along with his ex-subordinate Rwandan Deputy President Paul Kagame, patronized in October 1996 the Alliance of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (AFDL), a Congolese rebel group led by Laurent Kabila and committed to oust Field Marshal Mobutu who bit the dust on 17 May 1997. The superseding AFDL reign will be mainly featured by the takeover of key positions of the state authority by Rwandans and Ugandans (keeping President Kabila in the thrall of his two eastern mentors), the throttling of the democratic process, the conditioning by major powers of any funding of Kinshasa’s triennial development programme to the Kabila regime’s observance of democracy, human rights and a UN investigation of the mass killing of Hutu Rwandese refugees on the DRC’s soil. That international community’s stance infuriated the Congolese leader who reconsidered all mining contracts signed with multinationals, developing anti-West discourse, promoted South-South cooperation, and expressed Rwandans and Ugandans from the Congo. The Western-backed Rwanda and Uganda bounced back by undertaking a military toppling of Laurent Kabila; but they reaped a fiasco because of three factors: intervention of Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia, Chad and Sudan siding with Kinshasa; dissention within the Congolese Rally for Democracy (RCD); and tension between Kigali and Kampala that initiated the creation of a new rebel group: the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC). The stalemate brought about by this situation and the involvement of the UN, the OAU, the SADC, the US, France and Belgium compelled the warring parties to conclude the Lusaka Agreement, setting up a roadmap for the war end, the inter-Congolese dialogue, a new transitional government, and an electoral process toward the democratic rebirth in the DRC. However, the Lusaka Agreement will be implemented thanks to the rise of Major General Joseph Kabila, after the assassination of his phantasmagoric father Laurent Kabila, paving the way to the Third Republic.

No description available.

This thesis analyzes the process of civil wars and political crisis in Lebanon in a historical context, covering the period starting from the civil war of 1860 until the Doha Agreement in 2008. This thesis defines confessional system as a type of democracy implemented in multi-religious societies, which did not change along two centuries in Lebanon. This study aims to establish a different approach on questions such as how far confessionalism can contribute to internal strives and political crisis in Lebanon. The thesis claims that the confessional system that was posed as a solution after civil war periods is the main resource of intercommunal conflicts and this system is open to the manipulation of the foreign actors for their own interests. This thesis also claims that if the national citizenship is applied instead of confessional system, and if Lebanese people unify in terms of national identity, civil wars, political crisis, and foreign intervention could be prevented.

Ever since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war two countries have been outspoken about the situation, Russia and the United States. As the conflict has developed these two actors have been active within the conflict both militarily and diplomatically. This outlines the research problem, why these actors have had an interest in Syria. The aim of this research is to find explanations of why the two countries have acted like they have in the conflict. The actions and events are analyzed through several concepts drawn from two international relations theories, namely neoliberalism and neorealism. Some core concepts of the theories are operationalized into several indicators which make up the model used in the analysis. Furthermore, the thesis is considered as being a most similar comparative case study using qualitative methods. The main findings in the analysis shows that many of the actions by both Russia and the United States can be explained through both theories. Neorealism shows of being more suitable when explaining military events and neoliberalism is found to be better at explaining diplomatic or non-military matters.

While the Arab Spring has resulted in numerous different political outcomes across the Arab world, conventional theories of democratization are lacking in explaining these divergent outcomes. Developing a theory of democratization, strategic importance and external intervention, I examine the relationship between national strategic importance and democratization. I argue that strategically important states will be targeted by external actors in attempts to stifle or thwart democracy because democracy may upset the status quo that foreign actors benefit from. I do not find support for the hypothesis that strategic importance and democratization share a general negative relationship, however, I find moderate support that strategic importance is related to the timing of regime breakdown, democratic breakdown and democratic transition. Furthermore, in examining the cases of Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, I highlight key moments of external intervention and influence that impacted the democratization attempts of each case.

No description available.

No description available.

This study offers an alternative analysis of the current literature regarding foreign involvement in the Syria civil war. The initials briefly describe the current situation in Syria, international relations and why the conflict is interesting to analyse from a scientific standpoint. The relevant actors and theoretical construction are also introduced. In the previous research chapter, the current research is presented concerning the global superpowers as well as the interventions that have taken place in Syria. In the theory chapter realism and liberalism are presented, and a number of important factors are discussed. In the result, the decisions and events that have taken place during the conflict in Syria is analysed through the lens of previous named theories. The actors studied are the USA and Russia. There are both realistic and liberalist elements in the decisions made by the actors. The final part of the essay discusses the result. The underlying interest of the players largely determines which decision is ultimately taken. Moreover, there are underlying tones of realism even in clearly liberalistic decisions.

La nature du rôle joué par les institutions militaires dans les États démocratiques se diffère de celui joué dans les États en développement et/ou en période de transition politique. Dans le premier cas, les institutions militaires ont un rôle professionnel qui consiste à protéger l'État contre toute agression extérieure. Alors qu'au cas second, l'institution militaire dépasse ses taches professionnelles jusqu'à l'intervention sur la scène politique via le pouvoir militaire direct ou indirect. Prenant en considération le fait que l'institution militaire dans la deuxième catégorie des pays, n'a pas toujours confiance en le régime démocratique, - souvent considéré comme une menace à la sécurité nationale-, l'exigence de la démocratie reste donc en report permanent. Le débat académique autour de la relation la démocratie et l'arrivée des militaires au pouvoir s'accroît depuis le déclenchement des révolutions du printemps arabe, bien que la question de la transition-même a été au centre des recherches politiques depuis la seconde moitié des années 60-70. Les peuples sont à la recherche des régimes démocratiques basés sur la loi, la citoyenneté le respect des libertés et des droits de l'homme et qui mènent des politiques de développement au profit des niveaux pauvres avant les autres riches. Cependant, un nouveau problème est apparu ; trouver une formule approprié pour la place de l'Armée dans les nouveaux régimes démocratiques. Comment contrôler le rôle croissant de l'institution militaire sans exposer l'État au danger de la division interne ni de l'agression venant de l'extérieur ? Cette recherche se focalise sur les relations civilo-militaires en Libye ainsi que le rôle de l'institution militaire dans les transitions politiques qu'a connues le pays depuis son indépendance, ainsi que les facteurs historique, économiques, géopolitiques et sociaux, qui ont parfumé ces relations par la particularité libyenne. De plus, depuis 2014, durant le dialogue national libyen entre les parties hostiles, la question de l'institution militaire a posé de réels obstacles devant un consensus national, parce que les partie étaient, et le sont toujours, divisé autour de l'article 8, concernant l'Armée dans le projet signé du consensus. Dans ce cadre, le problématique de l'étude tourne autour une interrogation générale ; dans quelle mesure l'institution militaire peut-elle permettre ou contribuer à une transition vers un régime démocratique basé sur le pluralisme et non le tribalisme ni l en Libye ? / The nature of the role played by military institutions in democratic states differs from that one played in developing States and / or those in times of political transition. In the first case, military institutions have a professional role of protecting the state against external aggression. Whereas in the second case, the military institution goes beyond its professional tasks until intervention on the political scene via direct or indirect military power. Taking into account the fact that the military institution in the second category of countries does not always trust the democratic regime, often considered as a threat to national security, the requirement of democracy therefore remains in permanent postponement. The academic debate on the relationship between democracy and the arrival of the military in power has increased since the start of the Arab Spring revolutions, although the question of transition itself has been at the center of political research since the the 1960s and 70s. People are seeking democratic regimes based on law, citizenship, respect for human rights and freedoms, and pursuing development policies to benefit the poor before the other rich. However, a new problem arose; How to find a suitable formula for the place of the Army in the new democratic regimes. How can we control the growing role of the military institution without exposing the State to the danger of internal division or aggression from outside? This research focuses on civil-military relations in Libya and the role of the military institution in the political transitions that the country has undergone since independence, as well as the historical, economic, geopolitical and social factors that have perfumed these relations by the Libyan peculiarity. Moreover, since 2014, during the Libyan national dialogue between hostile parties, the question of the military institution posed real obstacles to a national consensus, because the parties were, and still are, divided around the article 8, concerning the Army in the signed draft of the consensus. In this context, the problem of study revolves around a general question; to what extent can the military institution allow or contribute to a transition to a democratic regime based on pluralism and not tribalism or Libya ?