Gender and transition in Southeast Asia: conceptual travel?

Theories and concepts of political transition have been influenced to a great deal by Western theoretical and conceptual reflection. The parameters of transition are usually based on two assumptions or expectations: The goal of transition is democracy or a democratic system, and both actors and affected persons are perceived as gender-neutral beings, i.e., there is no distinction made between male or female actors and persons concerned. This article problematizes the conventional concept of transition and attempts a gendered conceptualization. Empirically, it draws from studies and fieldwork during the periods of political transition in Indonesia (mostly accomplished) and Malaysia (ongoing). It addresses the impacts of transition on women in particular. The core argument is that conceptual reflections of transition need to integrate a gender-sensitive perspective, but at the same time attend to the fact that “women” is not an exhausting analytical category. As illustrated by the examples of Indonesia and Malaysia, a gender-sensitive approach thus requires to also take the pluralism and heterogeneity of “women” (as well as “men”) into account.     

The Maritime Channel in Southeast Asia and China’s Strategic Pivots

With its transition from land power to sea power and the rapid expansion of its national interests, the security of maritime channels has become an important agenda for China. China has shifted its focus from the dilemma of Malacca Strait to the construction of a sea-lane network in its bid to protect its maritime rights and interests. To build its sea power as a strong nation, China should follow its “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” strategy and establish its strategic pivots at harbors at Sumatra Island and Kalimantan Island in Indonesia so as to improve its ability to ensure its navigational safety.     

Why does Japan downplay human rights in Southeast Asia?

Japan makes little effort to promote human rights in SoutheastAsia, although it sees itself as an advanced industrializeddemocracy. In comparison with the United States and the EuropeanUnion (EU), Tokyo's approach is less intrusive and coercive,and more tolerant and accommodative. What can be described asthe economic-interest explanation holds that Japan takes a non-intrusiveapproach in order to maintain favorable relations with the SoutheastAsian countries, so as to maximize its interests in the areasof trade and investment, and official development assistance(ODA). The present study finds that this line of argument isinsufficient, and thus puts forward an alternative explanation.The identity explanation holds that Japan has been sympatheticto the special concern of the Southeast Asian countries overstate sovereignty, and thus takes a non-intrusive approach.This is because while Japan sees itself as an advanced industrializeddemocracy it also identifies itself as an Asian country.     

Realistic yet humanitarian? The comprehensive plan of action and refugee policy in Southeast Asia

The 1989 Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) has recently beendescribed as a successful example of how to manage large protractedrefugee flows. However, this article revisits the circumstancessurrounding the CPA used to resolve the prolonged Indo-Chineserefugee crisis to highlight that part of its development waslinked to the fact that Southeast Asian states refused to engagewith proposed solutions, which did not include repatriationfor the majority of the Indo-Chinese asylum seekers who weredeemed to be ‘non-genuine’¹ (UNGA, 1989a) refugees.This resulted in the CPA often forcibly repatriating ‘non-genuine’refugees, particularly near the end of its program. This articlereviews the CPA in order to assess whether its practices andresults should be repeated. Received for publication September 18, 2006. Accepted for publication October 10, 2007.     

The New Economic Bilateralism in Southeast Asia: Region-Convergent or Region-Divergent?

A new pattern of bilateralism is evident in Southeast Asianeconomic diplomacy, and this may be broadly viewed from extra-regionaland intra-regional perspectives. Regarding the former, an increasingnumber of states from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) group have engaged in the Asia-Pacific's new bilateralfree trade agreement project trend, and two ASEAN member states– Singapore and Thailand – have been at its forefront.Regarding the latter dimension, recent developments in intra-ASEANdiplomacy have revealed the emergence of a Singapore–Thailandbilateral axis or alliance on matters of Southeast Asian economicregionalism. These two dimensions of economic bilateralism arestudied in relation to their implications for Southeast Asianor ASEAN-led regionalism. In this context, region-convergentbilateralism can make positive contributions to the developmentof regionalism, whereas region-divergent bilateralism essentiallyundermines regional community-building endeavours. This formsthe conceptual framework for studying the impact of Singaporeand Thailand's active bilateral economic diplomacy upon ASEAN'sown regional economic projects, such as the ASEAN Free TradeArea (AFTA), and also on ASEAN as an organization for fosteringSoutheast Asian economic regionalism generally. It is contendedthat based on both the deeper strategic intentions behind Singapore'sand Thailand's foreign economic policies and wider internationalpolitical economy considerations the region-divergent outcomesare more likely to arise within Southeast Asia from the economicbilateralism they are currently championing.     

Elections and “sons of the soil” conflict dynamics in Africa and Asia

Recent research reveals that nearly one-third of ethnic civil wars since 1945 have been “sons of the soil” (SoS) conflicts that pit indigenous populations against internal migrants. Despite important differences across SoS conflicts, many share a common trait as they often escalate during elections. While scholars have examined the causal mechanisms behind electoral violence, the relationship between elections and SoS conflicts has been overlooked. By examining a wide range of cases, the article breaks with previous research that privileges in-depth case studies of SoS conflicts with high levels of violence. Using insights from recent fieldwork in Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, and Indonesia, the article sheds light on the causal dynamics that link elections and diverging levels of SoS conflict. In so doing, it illustrates how the severing of patronage networks and the shifting balance of power towards migrants create fertile contexts for political elites to instrumentalize local grievances. Elections are thus more likely to produce violent SoS conflicts when elites (at both the national and local levels) are able to mobilize supporters by playing upon these grievances, often through the politicization of citizenship and/or the ethnicization of the local sphere.     

A Norm-Taker or a Norm-Maker？ China＇s ODA in Southeast Asia

As China expands its official development assistance (ODA) in Southeast Asia,is Chinese aid beginning to emulate international norms and practices or instead establishing its own distinct approach to development assistance? This essay argues that China’s socialization into international norms varies with the thickness of the institutional environment. In Cambodia and Laos,China’s aid program shows signs of alignment with international aid practices. At the regional level,however,China is beginning to act more like a norm-maker. Through expanding its financial support for select regional initiatives,Beijing is bolstering its ability to shape the norms and practices of regional developmental institutions. China’s rising ODA in Southeast Asia poses a potential challenge to Australia’s influence in the region,but also provides opportunities for greater diplomatic engagement and cooperation in support of regional development.     

Southeast Asia as the ‘second front’ in the war against terrorism: evaluating the threat and responses

Following the seminal events of 11 September 2001, and especially since 12 October 2002, southeast Asia has come into focus as the so-called ‘second front’ in the war against international terrorism. However, the threat of terrorism to southeast Asia emanating from radical Islam predated these events. An emerging security concern in recent years has been the rise of extreme Islamic groups. In addition, there exist Islamic separatist/guerilla groups within the region which envision separate Islamic states, and which have been actively engaged in long-running insurgencies against the central governments in the region. In evaluating the nature of the threat emanating from militant Islamic terrorism, there is a need for better typologies to explain the complexity of home-grown Muslim militant groups, and the emergence of transnational linkages both among them and with international Islamic terrorism. These complexities, coupled with the presence of fundamental grievances which long predated 11 September 2001, point to the necessity for a more broad-based strategy that takes into account the presence of fundamental grievances. But the varied nature of these grievances, and the difficulties that have been encountered in meeting the challenges posed by militant Islam, mean that the war against terrorism will be long drawn-out. Containment, not victory, will be the most realistic outcome.     

Changes and Challenges in Asia & Pacific

The Asia-Pacific region witnessed significant changes in the first year of the new century. With George W. Bush assuming the presidency, unilateralism could be strongly felt in the new administration's foreign policy. And there had been ups and downs in big powers' relations, while security in the region remaining unpredictable and changeable. Economic     

Ethnic and Religious Conflicts in Asia and the Pacific

Backgrounds and Features According to recent annual reports by both Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and Londonbased International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), twenty to thirty armed conflicts and local wars in various forms take place every year in the world since the 1990s, and of     

Is there difference in democracy promotion? A comparison of German and US democracy assistance in transitional Tunisia

Since the 1990s, comparative scholars and constructivists have recognized the universally liberal character of democracy promotion and yet continued the analysis of difference in this area. Mainly in studies of German and US democracy promotion, constructivists have demonstrated the recurring and difference-generating impact of ideational factors. In this article, I hence assume the likeliness of difference and address the question of how we can analyse and explain those differences through a comparison of German and US democracy assistance in transitional Tunisia. I conceive of Germany and the US as a dissimilar pair and adopt a broad perspective to uncover differences at the diplomatic level and between and within the respective approaches to democracy assistance in Tunisia. Theoretically, I argue that national role conceptions hardly impact democracy assistance in a clear manner, and that roles are renegotiated in the process. I rather focus on liberal and reform liberal conceptions of democracy, which shape perceptions of the local context, and democracy assistance agencies different organizational cultures, which impact civil society support. Finally, I account for transnational dialogue and coordination as a factor mitigating differences in democracy promotion.     

Maintain Peace in Asia and Promote Common Development

(Speech by Mr. Li Chengren, Executive Vice-President ofCAFIU at the Sino-Japanese Symposium)Respected Mr. Suzuki Tsuneo and other Japanese friends,Respected Chinese colleagues:First of all, I’d like to express warm welcome to the Japanese delegation head…     

Globalization,governance and democracy in post‐communist Romania

Post‐communist transition in Romania has witnessed an accelerated globalization in the country. Global (understood here as supraterritorial) relations have altered many communication networks, forms of organization, production processes, markets, monetary and financial flows, ecological conditions, and patterns of social consciousness. Although the extent of globalization in Romania should not be exaggerated, the recent rapid spread of supraterritoriality has pulled the country out of the preceding era of territorialist politics. The Romanian state can no longer realize its claims to sovereignty and has become oriented to transborder as well as territorial constituencies. At the same time, globalization has stimulated greater involvement of transworld and regional agencies in governance. The rise of supraterritoriality has also encouraged some devolution and some privatization of regulatory authority in Romania. Singly and together, these developments pose substantial challenges for democracy. True, certain transborder initiatives have modestly promoted post‐communist democratization in Romania. On the whole, however, Romanians have obtained insufficient participation, consultation, representation, transparency and accountability in respect of the multi‐layered and fragmented governance that is emerging in the context of globalization.     

Cross‐cutting issues and the consolidation of democracy in Taiwan

This article examines the cause of Taiwan's recent successful democratic consolidation. It argues that cross‐cutting issues in the electoral process allow democratic systems to periodically generate new winners. The prospect of reasonable certainty to win gives different political groups, including previously anti‐system or semi‐loyal groups, incentives to adhere to the democratic rules of the game. This process contributed to the democratic consolidation in Taiwan. More specifically, the non‐mainstream faction of the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) party, which initially opposed democratization, and the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) which wanted more radical constitutional and political reforms, came to accept the post‐transition democratic regime due to the emergence of new electoral issues. New issues surrounding corruption and socio‐economic reforms allowed both the non‐mainstream faction of the KMT and the DPP to advance their interests through the democratic electoral process.     

Security Situation in Central Asia and its Vicinity and Shanghai Cooperation Organization after “9. 11” Incident

Located at the junction of the European and Asian Continents and abundant with oil and gas resources, Central Asia plays a quite important role in international politics. In recent years, the Three Forces of terrorism, separatism and extremism have risen their heads in Central Asia. China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, Tajikstan and Uzbekstan have had to unite to fight against the Three Forces. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization was established under this circumstance. Only three …     

Promoting democracy or the external context? Comparing the substance of EU and US democracy assistance in Ethiopia

This article analyses the substance of the European Union's and United States' democracy assistance in Ethiopia in 2005–2010. Does this case reveal a transatlantic split, whereby the EU focuses on the external context and the US on the partial regimes of embedded, liberal democracy? Emphasizing the importance of institutions in analysing how interests and ideas affect democracy assistance, the article investigates how the substance may differ between the European Development Fund (EDF), European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The analysis finds a transatlantic split whereby the EU focused more on the external context and the US more on the partial regimes. This transatlantic split can be explained by the combination of ideas and institutions. More specifically, it reflects a difference between the EDF and USAID in their focus on ownership, alignment and harmonization in democracy assistance. The combination of interests and institutions played a less significant role in explaining the substance of democracy assistance, as USAID emphasized the partial regimes, despite political control from the State Department.     

Do Russia and China promote autocracy in Central Asia?

The purpose of our paper is to contribute to the literature on autocracy promotion by analyzing Central Asia as the most-likely case, considering both Russia and China as relevant external actors. We develop a concept for our analysis based on the different strategies of Russia and China towards the region and present the results of a qualitative study of the main dimensions of autocracy promotion (regional organizations, economic cooperation, and interference and threat). Based on this qualitative study, we define variables measuring the potential for autocracy promotion and test our hypotheses using panel data for 24 post-communist countries. The somewhat surprising result of our analysis is that, in contrast to Russia's dominance mode of operation, China's doing-business approach towards its neighbors in Central Asia may have—although unintentionally—even positive effects in terms of improving governance and undermining autocratic structures.     

NATO''''s New Strategy in C. Asia and Its Impacts

Ever since the September11terrorist attacks,the United Statesand NATO have sent large troops to Afghanistan and greatlystrengthened partnership for peace(PfP)with Central Asian coun-tries.The recent dramatic political changes in some Eurasian coun-tries h…     

When and why is civil society support “made-in-America”? Delegation to non-state actors in American democracy promotion

One of the United States’ main strategies of democracy promotion involves supporting civil society abroad. According to original data, most of the money spent by the United States on that task supports American NGOs working abroad rather than local NGOs in transitioning and non-democratic countries. Yet there are also significant variations across countries in donor officials’ reliance on American NGOs. Why do American donor officials fund American NGOs as a strategy of aiding democracy abroad more in some cases than in others? This paper argues that donor officials find it easier to observe American NGOs than other NGOs and that American NGOs are more likely to share donor officials’ preferences. Donor officials are therefore more likely to pursue a strategy of “made-in-America” democracy support in countries that are salient for U.S. foreign policy. Evidence from a new data set of democracy assistance programs supports the argument. The findings have implications for the study of American foreign policy, foreign aid effectiveness, and NGOs in world politics.