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.

'The utility of human security': Which humans? What security? A reply to Thomas & Tow

Thomas & Tow's evaluation of the utility of human security is an important contribution to an ongoing debate about what security is and for whom security should be provided. In particular, the authors' engagement with the human security agenda is important given the centrality of this approach to recent attempts to rethink security. This article argues, however, that Thomas & Tow's approach to the human security agenda is problematic for two central reasons. First, their attempt to narrow security to make this approach amenable to state policymakers risks reifying the sources of insecurity for individuals everywhere. Second, the conception of human security they put forward appears largely inconsistent with the normative concerns inherent in the human security agenda.

Nuclear weapons as obstacles to international security

This article argues that nuclear weapons serve no useful purpose in military calculations; moreover, their continued retention invites the dangers of further proliferation and of accidental use. They are thus defined here as obstacles to, rather than as facilitators of, international security. Seven reasons are presented to support this contention, including an assessment of the moral implications and the strategic limitations of nuclear weapons. Despite these limitations, and the recent commitments made by the nuclear weapon states to eliminate their arsenals, nuclear weapons remain central to the strategic doctrines of these states. Several reasons are put forward to explain why this retention continues, including the unchanging nature of strategic mindsets, the presence of vested interests, and now, in the case of the USA at least, a renewed reliance on nuclear weapons, regardless of how appropriate and effective such a strategy might be against emerging terrorist or `rogue state' threats.

The Utility of the Human Security Agenda for Policy-makers

The idea of “human security” is gaining attention among policy-makers and security analysts. Little scholarly attention has been given to the questions of why states accept (or reject) a human security agenda or how such an agenda is incorporated into policy practices. The article suggests that a human security approach is most likely to be applied when both humanitarian and national interests combine. Yet when states or organisations adopt a human security approach, they often misjudge the complex and long-term commitment required of such an approach. There is also the potential for such an agenda to be manipulated to justify questionable courses of action. These issues frame an analysis of six recent case studies.

Turkey's Accession to the European Union in terms of impact on the EU's security and defense policies: potential and drawbacks

This study explores the impact of Turkey's likely entry in the European Union (EU) in terms of the EU's foreign, security and defense policies. It reviews Turkish capabilities, namely its military capabilities, which could provide the EU with valuable defense assets. There are differences related to Turkey's relations with the EU, which have increasingly spilled over into the NATO, hindering the development of cooperation over crisis management operations. The article then delves in the implications of Turkey's strategic geographical location to EU policies. It reviews how far the EU and Turkey may have convergent interests in some of the neighboring regions, especially in the Middle East.

Security issues during Lula's administration: from the reactive to the assertive approach

Brazil's security agenda during Lula's administration was not homogeneous through the two mandates: the first tenure (2002-2006) revealed a reactive approach towards security topics, while the second one (2006-2010) was more assertive. More specifically, the shift occurred in terms of both its geographical scope - once it incorporated global issues in a more systematic way -, and instruments through which the security agenda was exercised, given the multilateral initiative of Unasur's CDS

Terrorism as war by other means: national security and state support for terrorism

The conventional approach in the discipline of International Relations is to treat terrorist organizations as "non-state" actors of international relations. However, this approach is problematic due to the fact that most terrorist organizations are backed or exploited by some states. In this article, I take issue with the non-stateness of terrorist organizations and seek to answer the question of why so many states, at times, support terrorist organizations. I argue that in the face of rising threats to national security in an age of devastating wars, modern nation states tend to provide support to foreign terrorist organizations that work against their present and imminent enemies. I elaborate on my argument studying three cases of state support for terrorism: Iranian support for Hamas, Syrian support for the PKK, and American support for the MEK. The analyses suggest that, for many states, terror is nothing but war by other means.

UN Security Council decision-making: testing the bribery hypothesis

Liberal-Institutionalism and Structural Realism expectations about international organizations are confronted by looking at if and how US-controlled international aid is granted, and particularly if it is related or not to political affinity and to United Nations Security Council (UNSC) non-permanent membership. A preliminary assessment suggests that these relations only hold for the period of the Cold War, and, even then, only when UNSC non-permanent membership is in years in which the Security Council was deemed very important.