Resources for security and stability? The politics of regional cooperation on the Mekong, 1957-2001

This article tells about the relationship between resource politics and security in international relations. Using the Mekong River Basin as its case study, the article examines the place of resource and development issues in attempts to develop regional institutions. The question of whether a resource development regime with apparently low productivity in terms of technical output, but high levels of resilience and longevity, should be considered a failure or not, is considered. This question is examined within the broader context of Southeast Asian politics during the First, Second, and Third Indochina conflicts as well as the post-cold war era. The article argues that survival and a capacity to change to meet the challenges of extreme broader events are clear evidence of regime success. From this standpoint, the article explores ways in which the Mekong resource regime is linked to more general concerns for political security and stability and may in fact reflect political concerns for subregional neighborhood maintenance.

ANZUS - Alive and well after fifty years

Marking its fiftieth anniversary in late 2001, the ANZUS alliance remains Australia's primary security relationship and one of the United States' most important defence arrangements in the Asia-Pacific region. It is argued here that ANZUS has defied many common suppositions advanced by international relations theorists on how alliances work. It thus represents an important refutation of arguments that they are short-term instruments of mere policy expediency and are largely interest-dependent. Cultural and normative factors are powerful, if often underrated, determinants for ANZUS's perpetuation. ANZUS may thus constitute an important test case for expanding our understanding of alliance politics beyond the usual preconditions and prerogatives normally associated with such a relationship.

Public Intellectuals, Book Culture and Civil Society

Introduction: the rise and rise of the public intellectual My starting point is the remarkable rise to prominence of public intellectuals – and talk about public intellectuals – over the last decade in Australia. Since 1997, especially, this has occurred around Indigenous questions with the result that issues such as the stolen generations, genocide, the apology and reconciliation have also gained new prominence. This is undeniably a good thing. New ways of thinking about history and the nation and new kinds of public ethical discourse have been put into circulation. History as battleground is preferable to the great Australian silence. And yet – my starting point is also the ambivalent effects and meanings of these recent developments, not least the way that the debates have centred so much around the figure of the 'public intellectual', the way that certain kinds of intellectuals and intellectual discourse have come to dominate the mainstream representation of the issues.