CIVIL CONTROL OF THE ZAMBIAN MILITARY SINCE INDEPENDENCE

Democratic rule requires, amongst other things, orderly civil-military relations. Zambia's military, with some exceptions, have generally remained under firm civilian control, unlike many forces in the region. Initially the military was based on the British colonial model but during the struggle for independence the force was indigenised. Instead of representing a colonial power, the military came to represent a specific political viewpoint: one party participatory democracy. President Kaunda, the leader of UNIP, was chiefly responsible for the politicisation of the military and ensuring its loyalty to the ruling party. Quasi-military institutions such as the Combined Cadet Force and the Home Guard Unit were useful links between civilian and military personnel. When Frederick Chiluba, leader of the MMD, took over in 1991 he tried to make the military more professional and curb its power over civilian affairs. A defence council and parliamentary regulation were instituted to avoid further military coups.     

Reforming the notion of national sovereignty by external intervention

In principle, national sovereignty is the right of a nation to govern its internal affairs without foreign interference. In practice, it is defined by one's interpretation of international law, which may permit legal external intervention under some circumstances, ultimately removing a nation's sovereignty. This paper will examine the current system of international law outlined by the United Nations, analyse the ambiguities contained within its Charter and elaborate on how external intervention can be justified. The case-study of recent developments related to Libya will demonstrate that the manner in which international law is interpreted is changing the notion of principles of sovereignty.     

Staying Power and the American Future: Problems of Primacy,Policy, and Grand Strategy

Many scholars, strategists and pundits contend that the US is in decline. They argue that America's national capabilities are significantly eroding, and that with the rise of important regional powers, its primacy in world affairs is rapidly diminishing as well. Yet America continues to possess significant advantages in critical sectors such as economic size, technology, competitiveness, demography, force size, power projection, military technology, and in the societal capacity to innovate and adapt. This article argues that the nature of material problems has been overstated, and that the US should be able to withstand modest erosion in its relative strength for some time to come without losing its predominant status. Instead, where limits to American primacy do exist, they are as or more likely to be ideational as they are material. The problem inheres as much or more in elite and societal beliefs, policy choices, and political will, as in economic, technological or manpower limitations at home, or the rise of peer competitors abroad.