Documents / FOIA release
This Central Intelligence Agency conference report, numbered RTT 95-10039 and dated October 1995, presents the proceedings of a conference held 30 September to 1 October 1993. The CIA's Geographic Resources Division sponsored the conference. In it, academic geographers, anthropologists and US Government officials examined ethnic conflict by region, covering Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, Asia and South Asia. The report also discusses what these conflicts mean for US policy. It does not deal with UFOs or unidentified aerial phenomena.
“Nevers”25 pages
Approved for Release: 2018/06/01 C00123268 Concluding Comments: Implications for the United States and the International Community: Problems and Prospects Stanley D. Brunn Professor of Geography University of Kentucky During the past two days we have heard a number of formal presentations about ethnic conflict and national- ism in various world regions. These examinations of ethnic and cultural compositidn and conflict, as well as the panel discussions, illustrate the ways geographers look at the world and how they envision contemporary and future worlds. In summarizing the conference, I would like to make the following observations: ' We live in two different worlds. First, I would like to thank those individuals for organizing a conference devoted specifically to ethnic conflict, nationalism, and changing world order and for inviting academic geographers to share with members of the Intelli- gence Community what they know—and do not know—about the current political world. I see this conference as serving many useful purposes, one being that while “we live in _two different houses,” we share much in common, especially our interests in being able to understand what is happening around the world-—-whether in regard to ethnic conflict, nationalism, or emerging democracies. It is impor- tant that the avenues of communication and informa- tion sharing between those the university and govemment intelligence communities remain open. ' How do we look at the world? I-low we look at the world reflects our backgrounds as well as our day- by-day work experiences and assignments. These experiences are of utmost importance in helping us and others see how we look at our culture vis-a-vis others. The Dynamic Political World What Is the State of the World Political Map? At any time it is useful to remember the state of the world, or, better stated, the world political map. That 0 map reflects constant dynamism in name changes— border adjustments, political realignments, as well as flashpoints and conflict. There are a wide variety of states with varying degrees of stability and instability. It is important to keep in mind that world order and disorder can be viewed in a variety of contexts. While the term new political order may be in vogue this year, there is not just one order, but many. At various times and places on the world map, order or disorder can be observed at local, regional, and macroregional levels. We Live in Shared/Divided Spaces All humans live to some degree in “bounded spaces.” Some of those may be spaces defined by majority pop- ulations, others defined by outside powers. Within those bounded spaces, we often find people of varying ethnic, religious, linguistic, racial, or other heritages. The distribution of various groups often overlap. Those groups may live in harmony-—shan'ng the same work, play, worship, and family spaces or they may be divided. We Live in Local and Global Worlds The world political map is much more complicated than the standard reference maps that depict close to 200 political states. There are many scales at which groups and communities interact. Some interactions are local, others are global. It is important that those of us who analyze political development acknowledge these complexities. Are We “Prisoners” of Our Maps? In listening to the presenters the past several days and in the discussions among panel members and the audi- ence, it seems that we may, in fact, be “prisoners” of our maps, especially the familiar political map of the world—-which simplifies political space and rein- forces the status quo. Do we still use time-honored Mercator projections, which distort the spaces in the high latitudes? Are the maps we use Europe centered, as if subtly conveying the notion that Europe is the most important region of the world? I-low do we look at polar areas, with maps that have such areas at the “top” and “bottom"? How do we look at the Pacific Rim countries, with maps splitting the Pacific Ocean 187 Approved for Release: 2018/06/01 C00123268
Not linked to a story yet.
FOIA release, from the cia-readingroom collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. 205 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.