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.

Bringing people back in: Grassroots approach to peace in Bosnia-Nerzegovina

Peacemaking in Bosnia-Herzegovina is a controversial subject that engaged the political energies of the international community for several years without resolution. While international efforts at peacemaking warrant a critique in their own right, the assumptions that lie behind popular perceptions of peacemaking must also be examined. This article explores the proposition that the promotion of multi-ethnic contact between Bosnian people is at least as important as elections or the reconstruction of political institutions. Indeed, the restoration and development of inter-ethnic relationships, especially at grassroots level, is essential for the establishment of sustainable peace. This article thus focuses on the roles of NGOs (Non-governmental organisations) active at the grassroots level in Bosnia, such as the Centre for Drama Education in Mostar, Project Firefly in Brcko, and the CARE Welcome Project in Sarajevo, which represent a grassroots form of peacemaking that incorporates local knowledge and understandings of the conflict within peace projects.

Pragmatic solidarism and the dilemmas of humanitarian intervention

The theory and practice of humanitarian intervention in the 1990s has produced a series of seemingly intractable dilemmas. Why do states act in some cases and not others? How are we to evaluate the legitimacy of particular acts? This article introduces a new perspective on these questions informed by a combination of pragmatism and solidarism. It argues that although the search for criteria that may be used to judge the legitimacy and efficacy of humanitarian intervention may be a futile one, it is possible to think about a politics of legitimate humanitarian intervention. Such a politics may be based on three key insights drawn from pragmatism: the dialogic construction of moral knowledge, the fallibility of knowledge, and the priority of democracy over philosophy. The article discusses how such a pragmatic solidarism may be used to interrogate the quest for legitimising criteria and to build a new politics of humanitarian intervention.

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.