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.

During the reign of the Safavid Shāh ʿAbbās I (reg. 996-1038/1588-1629), Isfahan was the center of power, diplomacy and trade of Iran. Every year scores of diplomatic envoys and traders would make their way to the capital in pursuit of some political or commercial gain. The present collection of Persian letters and documents, whose originals are kept in the Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III in Naples, gives a fine view of the major issues in international relations that ʿAbbās I had to deal with during most of his reign. The collection consists for the greater part of translations of documents from various European courts and religious bodies and authorities, prepared by the interpreters of the Carmelite mission in Isfahan. Among the subjects: the silk trade, Anglo-Spanish relations, the threat of the Ottomans, the importance of Russia in an alternative trade route to Europe, foreign access to Persiaʾs ports, and the interests of the Catholic church

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