Most observers consider that Lord Dunmore was the driving force behind the creation of the Ethiopian Regiment. This paper demonstrates that the slaves themselves provided the necessary impetus for bringing about Dunmore's Proclamation of Emancipation, and that the governor simply responded to slaves’ willingness to take up arms in pursuit of liberty. This paper also considers the role played by nonslave actors in the exploits of the Regiment. These actors included the British Parliament; various British military and government officials; the Virginia Convention of 1775; the various Virginia military units, both regular and volunteer; and the white population of Virginia as a whole. However, primary emphasis is placed upon the efforts and actions of the Ethiopians themselves. The first chapter investigates the events which led up to Dunmore's Declaration of Emancipation, and clarifies the degree to which the servile uprisings in the preceding century influenced Dunmore's decision to free and arm Virginia's slaves. The second chapter details the Ethiopians' involvement in the military actions associated with the Battle of Great Bridge on December 9, 1775. The third chapter describes the Regiment's other engagements, including its defense of the Portsmouth enclave and the British sanctuary on Gwynn's Island, and the skirmishes at St. George's Island, Maryland, and Aquia Creek, Virginia. The fourth chapter evaluates the importance of the Ethiopian Regiment both as an instrument of Dunmore's policy and as a means for slaves to gain their freedom. An appendix includes the names of over two hundred confirmed or suspected Ethiopians. / Master of Arts

In 2008 Russia surprised the West by going to war with Georgia. While several analyses have pointed to separate actions by NATO and the West as having influenced the 2008 war, this paper endeavors to show that the combined actions of the West and NATO since the fall of the Soviet Union created a security dilemma for Russia. Because the West refused to properly acknowledge and address Russia’s dilemma, the West inadvertently created the conditions which led to the culmination of Russia’s security dilemma in the form of an invasion of Georgia. Russia’s war with Georgia was less an attempt to protect Russian citizens and prevent atrocities as it was a rebuttal of Western actions. This thesis examines the security dilemma and cooperation theories as presented by Dr. Robert Jervis, and looks specifically at Western-Russian relations relating to three spheres: NATO expansion and Western marginalization of Russia, Western unilateral and extra-U.N. military aggression, and Western anti-ballistic missile defense initiatives and programs. Western actions relating to these three spheres created the conditions for the war, and specifics within the Caucasus region and relating to separatist conflicts drove Russia to deem a war with Georgia a politically safe rebuttal to the West. This paper also examines continued Western refusal to acknowledge Russia’s dilemma and developing conditions, as they relate to the three spheres of NATO expansion, unilateral military action and missile defenses, which could potentially lead to further conflict between Russia and the West. / text

Iranian nuclear program has presented a problem for many years. Even though the regime in Tehran has not formally announced its quest to develop nuclear weapons and has actually denied such accusations, the international community concluded from the actions of the regime that the development of nuclear weapons is the ultimate goal of Tehran. The United States reacted to the course of events and tried to limit the program or stop it altogether. The Bush Administration was not an exception in this regard. Even though the attitude towards Iran changed during 2001 - 2009, the nuclear program progressed further and still presents a great danger. Not only politicians but also academics, experts and analytics were trying to answer the question how to curb the program most effectively. This thesis analyzes and compares concepts of scholars with the actual policy practiced by the Bush Administration and finds out that both approaches vary quite significantly. While the majority of scholars recommended the administration to limit the economic sanctions and refrain from aggressive rhetoric concerning the possibility of military action, the American government tightened the sanctions and sustained the option of intervention. Since Iran still continues with its nuclear program, it can be asserted that the...