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.
threat’ rather than providing space for national threat constructions, it never attempted to construct asylum as a threat. Thus, its policy strategy was more difficult to achieve than in counter-terrorism, successful though it was. Chapter 6 analyses the external dimension of asylum and migration, including border management. The external dimension of asylum and migration, part
been socially constructed and how certain counter-responses were made possible as a result of that process of threat construction. In order to explore this topic, I adopt an approach that is situated within a broader body of interpretive work in International Relations and the social sciences which, as I will argue, can be used to link the study of counter-terrorism and security with the concept of identity.4 As Mark Bevir and Oliver Daddow explain, interpretive approaches can be used to offer explanation for political action in various policy areas, such as foreign
the internal threat mounted by separatists with the external threat of international criticism, presenting separatism as a deep and existential threat to Indonesia. In fact, in common with the language of security panic and threat construction in many countries, official Indonesian discourse on separatists is not usually sophisticated. It does not
example, the European Security Strategy imagines a scenario where ‘Taking these different elements together – terrorism committed to maximum violence, the availability of weapons of mass destruction, organised crime, the weakening of the state system and the privatisation of force – we could be confronted with a very radical threat indeed.’26 As 180 The European Union’s fight against terrorism Chapter 3 explained, this process of threat construction has been a consistent theme within the ‘fight against terrorism’ discourse, with the EU consistently drawing a clear
different set of analyses and priorities than is contained in a conventional collection on regional or national security affairs. Rather than theorizing about deterrence, alliance systems, strategy and counter-insurgency, you will read about emancipation, human security, ‘security politics’, language and threat-construction. And rather than the familiar analyses of interstate conflict, great powers, non
Commission actively constructed terrorism politically as a ‘European threat’ rather than providing space for national threat constructions, it never attempted to construct asylum as a threat. Thus, its policy strategy was more difficult to achieve than in counter-terrorism. This is due to the fact that ‘security threats’ create a sense of urgency in the political system. At the same time, the Commission