Search results
This book addresses some of the neglected problems, people and vulnerabilities of the Asia-Pacific region. It talks about emancipation, human security, 'security politics', language and threat-construction. The book is divided into three sections: agents; strategies and contexts; and futures. The first section outlines a range of possible agents or actors potentially capable of redressing individual suffering and vulnerability in the region. It examines East Asian regional institutions and dynamics of regionalism as potential sources of 'progressive' security discourses and practices. There is focus on the progressive security potential of regional institutions and regionalism has become increasingly prominent in literature on security in the Asia-Pacific. Two common interpretations of the role of epistemic communities in the construction of security are contested: that they are either passive sources of governmental legitimacy, or autonomous agents with the capacity of constructing or creating state interests. The second section reviews strategies and contexts, outlining a range of different sites of insecurity in the region, the ways in which dominant security discourses and practices emerge, and the extent to which such discourses are contested in different contexts. Indonesian government's approach to minority groups and separatism, the issue of civil unrest and human rights abuses in Burma, and the Australian government's attitude towards refugees and asylum-seekers are discussed. The third section deals with security futures, specifically discussing the question of what alternative security discourses and practices might look like. Finally, the book outlines a feminist critical security discourse and examines its applicability to the Asia-Pacific region.
T HE SHORT TITLE to this chapter conceals the host of complex geographical, historical, definitional and ideational factors inherent in any attempt to understand what is meant either by ‘security’ in a given region, or the very definition of ‘East Asia’ itself in this particular case. East Asia is not a legally definable entity; it is not bound
, Russia and the US, all of which possess sizable arsenals and which show every indication that they will retain these indefinitely. While this book’s focus has been on a more limited designation of what constitutes the Asia-Pacific geographically, the current chapter broadens these geographic parameters to look also at US and Russian nuclear issues. This is done so in the belief
, namely Article 9 and a largely pacifist citizenry that is deeply against the use of the military and revision of the so-called pacifist constitution ( Miyashita, 2007 ). As a consequence of the decreasing efficacy of traditional tools of Japanese foreign policy such as economic incentives, regional challenges have deepened Tokyo’s view not only of the salience of the US–Japan security partnership, but also of the importance of deepening its partnerships in Southeast Asia through economic, political and security linkages ( Nagy, 2017 ). In line with this view, Japan
Japan and Korea. Thus, shortly afterwards the first exploratory visits to these two countries were conducted by CARE staffers. 101 By early 1948 CARE had officially expanded its services beyond Europe to Asia and opened its first offices in Tokyo and the port city of Busan, South Korea (see Chapter 3 ). 102 Shortly afterwards, Paul French was authorized to investigate the possibilities for
direct role in regional and international security and sent its military overseas for the first time since 1945; to ameliorate security threats, both traditional and non-traditional; to hedge against potential US abandonment; and to achieve a modicum of diplomatic independence ( Jishu Gaik ō in Japanese). It shows that Japan has even promoted multilateral security, and especially political, forums on several occasions that have excluded the US, as exemplified by the Hashimoto Doctrine, the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) Forum, and its promotion of Northeast Asian Cooperation
A NY SURVEY OF THE processes, dynamics or futures of security in the Asia-Pacific would clearly be incomplete without engagement with the role played by the United States. Indeed, US hegemony 1 has been the defining feature of East Asian security architecture and interaction since the Second World War. And according to traditional accounts, particularly
This book is the first full-length study of the 1947 drawing of the Indo-Pakistani boundary in Punjab. It uses the Radcliffe commission, headed by Sir Cyril Radcliffe , as a window onto the decolonisation and independence of India and Pakistan. Examining the competing interests that influenced the actions of the various major players, the book highlights British efforts to maintain a grip on India even as the decolonisation process spun out of control. It examines the nature of power relationships within the colonial state, with a focus on the often-veiled exertion of British colonial power. With conflict between Hindus , Muslims and Sikhs reaching unprecedented levels in the mid-1940s , British leaders felt compelled to move towards decolonization. The partition was to be perceived as a South Asian undertaking, with British officials acting only as steady and impartial guides. Radcliffe's use of administrative boundaries reinforced the impact of imperial rule. The boundaries that Radcliffe defined turned out to be restless divisions, and in both the 1965 and 1971 wars India and Pakistan battled over their Punjabi border. After the final boundary, known as the 'Radcliffe award', was announced, all sides complained that Radcliffe had not taken the right 'other factors' into account. Radcliffe's loyalty to British interests is key to understanding his work in 1947. Drawing on extensive archival research in India, Pakistan and Britain, combined with innovative use of cartographic sources, the book paints a vivid picture of both the partition process and the Radcliffe line's impact on Punjab.
This book provides the first comprehensive analysis of Japan’s new security
partnerships with Australia, India, countries and multilateral security
structure in East Asia, as well as with the EU and some of its member
states.
Most books on Japanese bilateral relations focus exclusively on the
Japanese perspective, the debate in Japan, positions of Japanese government
leaders and parties, or the public discourse. This edited volume is organized in
pairs of chapters, one each analysing the motivations and objectives of Japan,
and a second analysing those of each of the most important new security
partners.
After solely relying on the United States for its national
security needs during the Cold War, since the end of the Cold War, Japan has
begun to deepen its bilateral security ties. Since the mid-2000s under LDP and
DPJ administrations, bilateral security partnerships accelerated and today go
beyond non-traditional security issue are as and extend far into traditional
security and military affairs, including the exchange and joint acquisition of
military hardware, military exercises, and capacity building. It is argued, that
these developments will have implications for the security architecture in the
Asia-Pacific.
This book is a primer for those interested in Japan’s security
policy beyond the US-Japan security alliance, non-American centred bilateral and
multilateral security cooperation through the eyes of Japanese as well as
partner country perspectives. It is also an ideal as a course reading for
graduate courses on regional security cooperation and strategic partnerships,
and Japanese foreign and security policy.
S. Förster (eds.), The Shadows of Total War: Europe, East Asia and the United States, 1919–1939 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 64. 7 T. Baumann and D. M. Segesser, ‘Shadows of total war in British and French military journals’, in Chickering and Förster, Shadows of Total War, pp. 219–21. v 64 v Expecting war 8 M. Benteli, D. Jay, and J.-P. Jeancolas, ‘Le cinema français: thèmes et public’, in R. Rémond and J. Bourdin (eds.), La France et les français en 1938–9 (Paris: Presses de la fondation nationale des sciences politiques, Paris, 1978