|
|
|
|
International Affairs
October 2001
For those who call for a change in our approach to international relations ecause they doubt the capacity of the existing system to handle the problems hat lie ahead, the 'paradigm' they are seeking to 'shift' is usually some image of realism, that dates from Westphalia and beyond. Fortunately, the paradigm that actually shaped Western foreign policy behaviour in the last 50 years or so was a product of circumstances and personalities in the 1945-53 period that generated attitudes and behaviour patterns that became entrenched during the Cold War. In relation to the complex problems that face the international community, this national security paradigm is increasingly dysfunctional. However, because it comprises 'attitudes' rather than rules for action, and is non-deterministic, we should find it easier to devise an alternative, more functional paradigm and to engineer the necessary shift. The historical review that comprises the bulk of this article describes the genesis of the paradigm and how the patterns of behaviour and underlying beliefs and attitudes became entrenched in Western foreign policy. Fleshing out the characteristics of the existing paradigm suggests an alternative approach to international relations, but the importance and feasibility of engineering the necessary shift will be argued in a subsequent article in the January 2002 issue of International Affairs
The fate of East Timor provides a barometer for how far the normative structure of international society has been transformed since the end of the Cold War. In 1975, the East Timorese were abandoned by a Western bloc that placed accommodating the Indonesian invasion of the island before the protection of human rights. Twenty-five years later, it was the protection of the civilian population on the island that loomed large in the calculations of these same states. Australia, which had sacrificed the rights of the people of East Timor on the altar of good relations with Indonesia, found itself leading an intervention force that challenged the old certainties of its 'Jakarta first' policy. The article charts the interplay of domestic and international factors that made this normative transformation possible. The authors examine the political and economic factors that led to the agreement in May 1999 between Portugal, Indonesia and the UN to hold a referendum on the future political status of East Timor. A key question is whether the international community should have done more to assure the security of the ballot process. The authors argue that while more could have been done by Australia, the United States and officials in the UN Secretariat to place this issue on the Security Council's agenda, it is highly unlikely that the international community would have proved capable of mobilizing the political will necessary to coerce Indonesia into accepting a peacekeeping force.
The second part of the article looks at how the outbreak of the violence in early September 1999 fundamentally changed these political assumptions. The authors argue that it became politically possible to employ coercion against Indonesian sovereignty in a context in which the Habibie government was viewed as having failed to exercise sovereignty with responsibility. By focusing on the economic and military sanctions employed by Western states, the pressures exerted by the international financial institutions and the intense diplomatic activity at the UN and in Jakarta, the authors show how Indonesian political and military leaders were prevailed upon to accept an international force. At the same time, Australian reporting of the atrocities and how this prompted the Howard government to an intervention that challenged traditional conceptionsof Australia's vital interests, is considered. The conclusion reflects on how thiscase supports the claim that traditional notions of sovereignty are increasinglyconstrained by norms of humanitarian responsibility.
Indonesia has played a vital role in the security of South-East Asia for more than 30 years, both through its prominent position in ASEAN and the ARF and through the stability and longevity of the Suharto regime. The central theme of this article emphasizes that peace and stability in Indonesia are the key to peace and stability in the South-East Asian region. However, instability within ASEAN countries themselves and the risk of serious upheaval in Indonesia have the potential to infect other parts of South-East Asia. The author assesses Indonesia's role in shaping regional security and the country's prospects for a successful democratic future in which the West has a strong interest in encouraging the more moderate Indonesian Islamic elements to build enduring and democratic political institutions.
This article provides an indictment of the study of South-East Asian international relations by confronting head-on the problems that have arisen within this field, in particular the way in which Western academics ended up colluding with deeply illiberal regimes in the area, which excluded dissenting opinions, often by deliberately denouncing these opinions as 'polemical'. This study uses the discipline of Sovietology to explore the reasons why South-East Asian studies developed into a closed community of scholarship, often hostile to dissenting viewpoints. The disciplines bear comparison because they both manifestly failed to predict the cataclysms that befell their respective areas of study. The analysis identifies similarities in the way in which the two disciplines seemed to ignore sceptical voices and evolved a shared belief in 'system stability'. As a result, both Soviet studies and the study of South-East Asian international relations developed serious methodological flaws. However, this study argues that South-East Asian studies suffered even more severe disciplinary shortcomings than its Sovietological counterpart because the academic space was further de-intellectualized by the pervasive influence of the authoritarian South-East Asian developmental state which blurred the distinction between scholarship and bureaucracy and which succeeded in co-opting Western academics. The result was to create a field of study that promulgated the tyranny of the single truth, which erroneously perceived South-East Asia as a region of domestic tranquillity and regional order. What, in fact, emerged was an intellectual culture of self-censorship that kept South-East Asian studies within tacit, self-regulated boundaries.
Vladimir Putin has been president of Russia for eighteen months, sufficienttime for some judgement about his style of leadership and achievements to have been made. He set out to restore order to a Russia that was fragmenting in Yeltsin's latter years and to revive Russians' pride in their country. Nonetheless, he remains committed to a liberal market economy integrated with the world economy. He encouraged force to bring order to Chechnya, but has not really tackled the problem of reconstruction. He has brought the regions under greater control by the centre, but has been prepared to compromise to avoid confrontation. His most tangible achievement to date has been in championing legislation, most of it long overdue, to establish the legal basis of a market economy. He has been able to exploit a working majority in the parliament, which Yeltsin never enjoyed. The success of this enterprise will depend to some degree on its political context. Persistent efforts by Putin and his team to exert control over the political process and the media will be counterproductive if they concentrate power with the president but leave him without broadly based, independent political support. Putin is likely to remain in power until 2008, however, so he has time on his side.
High hopes were raised when Vicente Fox Quesada of the National Action Party (PAN) was elected President of Mexico in July 2000. After three years of inaction, the possibility that the nation's stalled peace process might once again recommence suddenly seemed plausible. With the announcement in December 2000 by the rebel Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) of three preconditions prior to any dialogue taking place, a clear trajectory was set. Four months later, however, all contact with the rebels had been broken and once again Mexico's peace process was in jeopardy. This article recounts the brief history of talks to date and explains how the current impasse has been reached. Identifying both prospects and challenges for any future peace deal, the author calls for greater international vigilance and understanding of a conflict with significant political and ethical implications.
Martin Wight is responsible for one of the English school's most distinctive features: the historical sociology of different international systems demonstrating the importance of world history for the study of International Relations. Because of Wight's influence, the English school was, from the beginning, concerned with the role of religion, culture and civilization in international society. This emphasis, particularly with regard to the role of religion, has been marginalized in the English school's current research programme. This is unfortunate because, despite a renewed interest in the English school, the kind of questions Wight asked about religion, culture and identity have become some of the most important in the study of IR. This article examines the role of religion in Wight's international theory, which cannot be separated from the fact that he was a devout Anglican throughout his life. There was a relationship between his personal faith and his understanding of religion's role in international relations that previous scholars have not examined. When these two aspects of Wight's faith and life are brought together, there is both a better sense of continuity between his early life as a Christian pacifist and his later years as a teacher and scholar of IR, and a better recognition of what his distinctive approach to religion brought to the study of International Relations.
Over the past twenty years, the English school's approach to the study of International Relations has attracted an increasing number of adherents and exponents. Critics, however, have continued to question not only its coherence, but also the idea of the school itself. This article explores the changing understandings of the English school, and notes the theoretical innovations introduced by three contemporary English scholars. The work of two others, both of whom espouse the 'classical approach' often identified with the English school, is also examined in an attempt to assess the health of a school widely considered to be gaining strength.
In this rejoinder to Ian Hall's criticisms of both the English school and Buzan and Little's book International systems in world history, Hall is taken to task on two counts. The first relates to a misunderstanding of what the English school is about, and hence a mis-diagnosis of its 'death'. The second concerns a misrepresentation of the position and contents of International systems in world history.
The books under review all argue that the economic 'shock therapy' adopted in Russia after 1991 with Western encouragement caused grave damage to the fabric of Russian society and therefore to the Russian economy and the cause of Russian democracy. The books also sketch out possible alternatives to the policies that the West supported. The reviewer suggests that the expression 'warm words and harsh advice' would be a fair description of Western official policy immediately before and after the fall of communism. He concludes that the survival of Russian democracy requires favourable preconditions not only in Russia but also in the outside world, which are lacking at the moment.
As part of their efforts to intervene constructively in conflict-affected regions, non-governmental agencies and associated research centres publish different types of literature intended to improve performance. This article provides an overview of this material and assesses its significance for a wider constituency of scholars and policy analysts. The literature falls into three main categories: 1) reviews of issues that agencies must address when seeking constructive modes of intervention; 2) case-studies of particular conflicts; and 3) skills-development and training materials. The great value of the literature to the broader international relations community is the richness of the empirical material presented, and the consequent insights into conflict dynamics that come from the 'bottom-up/insider-out' community-level perspectives.