The non-traditional security concept and the EU-ASEAN relationship against the backdrop of China's rise

The rise of China raises questions about international order and whether traditional power structures will be transformed peacefully or confrontationally. Actively engaged in trade and investment activities with its Southeast Asian neighbourhood, China has been exerting political influence on many Southeast Asian states, cleaving regional cohesion and raising levels of tensity in the region. This article presupposes that within so-called non-traditional security (NTS) areas, there is room for China and Southeast Asian countries to circumvent the political tensions, to some extent. It presumes that NTS issues facilitate greater interaction with/on China for Southeast Asian states, including enhanced European Union (EU)-Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) engagement on China. Recognising the increasing and rather underexplored importance of the NTS perspective on the official and scholarly levels, this article delves into the rhetoric of NTS from a European perspective with particular view towards the South China Sea issue to demonstrate the use and utility of the NTS concept in the EU-ASEAN context against the backdrop of China's rise.     

The theme of indivisibility in the post-war struggle against prejudice in the United States

Whitfield's essay seeks to identify and explain a tendency that emerged in the United States in the 1940s and extended through the 1950s. It was then that a notion became commonplace, especially among liberals, that the victims of prejudice were interchangeable and that bigotry was undifferentiated. Before the 1940s, the problem of prejudice was not widely believed to be urgent; but the war against the Third Reich heightened awareness of the price of an irrational hostility to minorities. American liberals in particular came to the understanding that bigotry was indivisible; and, for its objects, the cards of identity could easily be shuffled. Whether the victims were Jews or Negroes or homosexuals, the hatred that they elicited appeared to be formed without making any distinctions among them. Evidence can be found in the culture of those two decades, in novels, plays and films. The unitary view of the character of prejudice had some support in social science, including in the authoritative volume The Authoritarian Personality. The theory would also be reflected in a major shift in the agenda of Jewish civil rights organizations, which redefined their mission as promoting the democratic rights of all minorities rather than the particular interests of American Jews. This distinctive tendency vanished in the 1960s, however. One reason for the change was a fuller appreciation of the hostility that minorities could harbour towards other minorities. The realization also deepened of the singular vulnerability of black Americans under the pressure of racism, which demonstrated a tenacity as well as a proclivity for violence that had been largely absent from other forms of bigotry. Finally, a broader legitimation of difference itself emerged in the 1960s to bury the notion that minorities were fungible.