Suchergebnisse

"Understanding the nature of the European Union's relations with third countries makes it necessary to consider the decision-making process that takes places in a multi-level system of governance. Based hereupon, European foreign policy is understood as comprising all policies of the EC and the EU directed at third actors. To implement this policy, the EU can rely on and use a whole range of specific instruments and capabilities. However, these instruments and capabilities are not equally developed and often used in a non-coherent way. Even though the support for democratic reforms and human rights has become an integral part of European foreign policy, the comparison of the EU's policy towards China and Myanmar show an incoherent promotion of these values. A deliberate policy of unequal treatment of third countries is obvious." (author's abstract)

Compares the popular protest movements in Burma, Indonesia, & the Philippines that led to the ouster of their dictators (Ne Win, Suharto, & Ferdinand Marcos, respectively) & to the rise of democratization processes, 1986-1998. Though the political contexts in which these events occurred were similar, it is demonstrated that movement origins, identities, tactics, & influence varied considerably in each country. The domination & repression strategies utilized by each authoritarian regime are analyzed, along with the patterns of contentious social response they provoked. It is argued that movement capacity & state resilience are contingent on patterns of contention, which are influenced by state repression. The complex relationships between state actors & democracy movements are analyzed, showing how they are critical in shaping the direction & outcome of such movements &, ultimately, regime change, particularly via the formation of interactions among regime defectors, reform-minded elites, & mass society. 1 Table. K. Hyatt Stewart

Compares the popular protest movements in Burma, Indonesia, & the Philippines that led to the ouster of their dictators (Ne Win, Suharto, & Ferdinand Marcos, respectively) & to the rise of democratization processes, 1986-1998. Though the political contexts in which these events occurred were similar, it is demonstrated that movement origins, identities, tactics, & influence varied considerably in each country. The domination & repression strategies utilized by each authoritarian regime are analyzed, along with the patterns of contentious social response they provoked. It is argued that movement capacity & state resilience are contingent on patterns of contention, which are influenced by state repression. The complex relationships between state actors & democracy movements are analyzed, showing how they are critical in shaping the direction & outcome of such movements &, ultimately, regime change, particularly via the formation of interactions among regime defectors, reform-minded elites, & mass society. 1 Table. K. Hyatt Stewart

Compares two cases of smuggling -- migration from Ecuador to the US via paid smugglers & the trafficking of girls/women from Burma (Myanmar) to be slaves at brothels in Thailand -- to challenge explanations of human trafficking as a recent illicit activity in transnational crime made possible by globalization, or as exploitation of innocent migrants by organized crime. Instead, it is argued that increased human smuggling is largely the result of historical actions by politicians/state actors in both the sending & receiving nations, & the varied smuggling operations are deeply integrated into regional social structures. Analysis of the two cases shows that, in spite of many contrasts, they both require considerable tacit & active complicity by individuals in the sending & receiving nations. Transnational organized crime was not shown to play an important role in either case; the smugglers were integrated into the social fabric; & their operations were aided by a network of recruiters, middlemen, government/law officials, & financiers. The need to explore the broader historical-sociological dimensions of human smuggling is discussed. 46 References. J. Lindroth

Compares two cases of smuggling -- migration from Ecuador to the US via paid smugglers & the trafficking of girls/women from Burma (Myanmar) to be slaves at brothels in Thailand -- to challenge explanations of human trafficking as a recent illicit activity in transnational crime made possible by globalization, or as exploitation of innocent migrants by organized crime. Instead, it is argued that increased human smuggling is largely the result of historical actions by politicians/state actors in both the sending & receiving nations, & the varied smuggling operations are deeply integrated into regional social structures. Analysis of the two cases shows that, in spite of many contrasts, they both require considerable tacit & active complicity by individuals in the sending & receiving nations. Transnational organized crime was not shown to play an important role in either case; the smugglers were integrated into the social fabric; & their operations were aided by a network of recruiters, middlemen, government/law officials, & financiers. The need to explore the broader historical-sociological dimensions of human smuggling is discussed. 46 References. J. Lindroth