Suchergebnisse

The region of Southeast Asia is faced with a complex set of challenges stemming from political, economic and religious developments at the national, regional and global level. This paper sets out to examine trade-, foreign- and security policy implications of the issues confronting the region. In ASEAN, the Southeast Asian countries are continuing their ambitious attempts at further integration. Plans outlining deeper security and economic communities have been adopted. However, huge differences in political systems, economic development and ethnic/religious structures are hampering prospects of closer cooperation. The highly controversial conflict case of Burma/Myanmar is testing the much adhered-to principle of non-interference and at the same time complicating relations with external powers. Among these, the United States and China are dramatically strengthening their interests in the region. American influence is not least manifesting itself in light of the war against terrorism, which the region is adapting to in different ways and at different speeds. By contrast, the European Union does not seem to answer Southeast Asian calls for further engagement. A flurry of bilateral and regional trade agreements is another prominent feature of the economic landscape of the region. This is to a certain degree a reflex ion of impatience with trade liberalization in the WTO and within ASEAN itself. Structures of economic cooperation are under rapid alteration in Southeast Asia. The paper analyses the above-mentioned developments with a view to assessing the prospects of future stability, economic development and integration in and among ASEAN countries. It is concluded that although the scope for increased economic benefit and political harmonization through ASEAN integration alone is limited, the organization could still prove useful as a common regional point of reference in tackling more important policy determinants at national and global level.

I marts 2005 var det 20 år, siden Mikhail Gorbatjov kom til magten i Sovjetunionen som generalsekretær for Sovjetunionens Kommunistiske Parti og fremlagde sit program til reform af det sovjetiske system. Nøgleordene i reformen var perestrojka, glasnost og demokratisering. De fik ikke alene betydning indadtil, men også udadtil i forholdet til omverdenen, der hurtigt fattede lid til Gorbatjov og hans nyskabelser. Dette working paper giver et overblik over Gorbatjovs og hans meningsfællers opfattelse af udviklingen siden da og deres vurdering af reformernes skæbne og skildrer Ruslands stilling på verdensscenen i dag. Dette indebærer også en kritisk vurdering af præsident Vladimir Putins indenrigs- og udenrigspolitik. Der tegnes et billede af et svagt Rusland, der ikke har frigjort sig fra den sovjetiske arvs byrde, men tværtimod på mange måder søger tilbage til den autoritære styreform, et Rusland, der ved inertiens kraft stadig nyder en vis respekt, om end ikke anseelse i det internationale samfund. ; In March 2005 it was 20 years since Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union as Secretary-General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and presented his programme for reform of the Soviet system. Key words in the reform were perestroika, glasnost and democratization. They became important not only internally but also externally in the relations to the outside world that swiftly put its trust in Gorbachev and his innovations. This working paper gives an overview of the perception that Gorbachev and his like-minded have of the development since then, presents their evaluation of the fate of the reforms and of the position of Russia on the world scene today. This also includes a critical evaluation of the domestic and foreign policies of President Vladimir Putin. The paper outlines a weak Russia that has not released itself from the burden of the Soviet heritage but on the contrary in many ways goes back to the authoritarian form of government, a Russia that by inertia still enjoys a certain respect although not esteem in the international community.

There is a great resistance from several Asian country leaders towards democracy. Basically, they view that the US has "forced" some Asian countries to implement its model of government which is thought to be a good form of government for all countries, particularly in terms of placing democracy as a "yardstick" when some of the countries need International Aids. While actually, they argue that what works for one country does not necessarily appropriate for others. Lee Kuan Yew argue that what people's real need is a "good government", whase its implementation might differ for each country and might also differ from "Western" values. Nevertheless, some observers have criticized the concept as well. They argue that it has been implemented on the expense of restricting political space available for he citizens. This essay will elaborate each of the claims and will try to provide a tentative alternative which might need further discussion. Keywords: Democracy; Good government; Western Values

Der er sagt mange skarpe ord om danskerne i udenlandske medier. Die Woche i Tyskland henviste til titlen på en nazistisk kampsang, når det skrev om en dansk "Die Fahne Hoch"-mentalitet og i The Guardian i London hed det, at i forhold til højrefløjens fremmarch i Danmark virkede nazismens fremmarch i Tyskland sløv. Dagsavisen i Oslo bragte i november 2001 et foto fra København af en nynazist med strakt arm, med henvisning til at den danske valgkamp var præget af fremmedhad. Er danskerne fremmedfjendske? følger den udenlandske omtale af den danske debat om indvandringen tilbage til 2000, og det giver en vigtig pointe: Billedet af Danmark som fremmedfjendsk var udbredt længe før regeringsskiftet. Udenlandske medier citerer igen og igen forslag til stramninger i udlændingepolitikken, og henvisning til "Die Fahne Hoch"-mentaliteten er fra februar 2000. Derimod tav man med, at Danmark - sammen med Norge - havde rekord i tildeling af asyl og gav højere sociale ydelser til indvandrere end næsten alle andre lande. Allerede da berettede man om det, der passede med en skabelon om danskerne som fremmedfjendske, og udelod det, der talte imod.Samtidig sammenligner bogen debatten i Danmark med debatten i nabolandene. Der er klart mere sordin på i Sverige og Tyskland. Dermed kan den danske debat forekomme barsk for svenskere og tyskere. Derimod er det svært at se en større forskel mellem debatten i Danmark og debatten i Norge.Endelig viser bogen, at internationale holdningsundersøgelser slet ikke tyder på, at danskerne skulle være specielt fremmedfjendske. Vi stiller skrappe krav om, at indvandrere skal tilpasse sig landets normer, men modsat er vi også det folk i EU, der stærkest ønsker at inddrage indvandrerne i det politiske liv. Hvad man fremhæver, afhænger af, hvilken skabelon man bruger