Identity and security in Korea

The summit meeting between the two Korean heads of state, which took place in Pyongyang in June 2000, constitutes a major turning point in the peninsula's history. As the effects of the meeting are gradually unfolding, a period of detente no longer seems impossible. But major difficulties remain unsolved and Korea will continue to be one of the world's most volatile areas. The task of this essay is to identify and analyse some of the entrenched political patterns that will challenge policy-makers in the years ahead. To do so it is necessary to portray the conflict in Korea not only in conventional ideological and geopolitical terms, but also, and primarily, as a question of identity. From such a vantage-point two components are essential in the search for a more peaceful peninsula. Substantial progress has recently been made in the first realm, the need to approach security problems, no matter how volatile they seem. in a cooperative and dialogical, rather than merely a coercive manner. The second less accepted but perhaps more important factor, revolves around the necessity to recognize that dialogue has its limits, that the party on the other side of the DMZ cannot always be accommodated or subsumed into compromise. Needed is an ethics of difference: a willingness to accept that the other's sense of identity and politics may be inherently incompatible with one's own.

China and Southeast Asia

In the new millennium, no issue in international relations will be more important than how to accommodate the rising power of China. Many analysts, especially in the United States, see China as a significant threat to American interests in Asia. Washington has treaty commitments in both Northeast and Southeast Asia and retains a substantial military presence in the region. Beijing claims it does not seek to replace the United States reigning global hegemony, but seeks to promote a multi-polar world in which six states (the US, China, the EU, Russia, Japan, and India) would have pre-eminent status.

Australia, the United States and a 'China growing strong': managing conflict avoidance

How to deal with a rising China constitutes one of the most seminal challenges facing the ANZUS alliance since its inception a half a century ago. Australia must reconcile its geography and economic interests in Asia with its post-war strategic and historic cultural orientation towards the United States. It must succeed in this policy task without alienating either Beijing or Washington in the process. The extent to which this is achieved will shape Australia's national security posture for decades to come. Three specific components of the 'Sino-American-Australian' triangle are assessed here: the future of Taiwan, the American development of a National Missile Defence (NMD), and the interplay between Sino-American power balancing and multilateral security politics. The policy stakes for Australia and for the continued viability of ANZUS are high in all three policy areas as a new US Administration takes office in early 2001. The article concludes that Australia's best interest is served by applying deliberate modes of decisionmaking in its own relations with both China and the US and by facilitating consistent and systematic dialogue and consultations with both of those great powers on key strategic issues.

The game of leapfrog and the Internet: Developing countries and the information-divide

Recent rapid advances in communication technology have changed global structural patterns and produced new concepts and poles of dynamism in international relations. One such technology, which is increasingly causing a mixed reaction across international boundaries, is that of the Internet. For the first time in history the emergence of the Internet has produced an anarchic power that is capable of influencing individuals, societies and governments on a scale previously unimaginable.

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.

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.