Suchergebnisse

Skizzierung der sowjetischen Südostasienpolitik, des strategischen Ziels Moskaus in Asien und in der pazifischen Region u.a. Die Schwierigkeiten, mit denen sich die UdSSR im südostasiatischen Raum konfrontiert sieht. Gorbatschows Wladiwostok-Rede als signifikanter Schritt gegenüber Asien. (DÜI-Sen)

'Der vorliegende Bericht befaßt sich mit der Position und Politik der Rußländischen Föderation im asiatisch-pazifischen Raum. Im Mittelpunkt der Betrachtung stehen dabei die Beziehungen Bußlands zu den asiatischen Pazifikanrainern, d.h. China, Japan, Nord- und Südkorea sowie die Staaten Südostasiens. Nach einem kurzen Blick in die Geschichte werden die Entwicklungen nach der Auflösung der Sowjetunion im Dezember 1991 zusammenfassend dargestellt. Die politischen und ökonomischen Beziehungen Rußlands zu den Staaten der Region in den Jahren 1998 und 1999 werden ausführlicher behandelt.' (Textauszug)

Enttäuscht über die schleppende Weiterentwicklung der asiatisch-pazifischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft APEC und stimuliert durch entsprechende Präferenzabkommen der EU und der USA findet auch in Asien eine Neuausrichtung auf bilaterale Freihandelsabkommen statt. Der Charakter des Regionalismus wandelt sich damit vor allem seit der Asienkrise unübersehbar. Der Verfasser zeigt beispielhaft am Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, an den Freihandelsabkommen Singapurs und den Initiativen Thailands, dass die Vorteile des Bilateralismus gering sind. Warum ziehen dennoch viele Länder solche Abkommen vor? Australien strebt nach engeren Beziehungen zu den USA, Singapur versucht, seine Position in der südostasiatischen Region zu verbessern, und Thailand reitet auf der Welle mit. Eine wesentliche Triebfeder dürfte die Sorge von Regierungen sein, vom Zugang zu bestimmten Märkten ausgeschlossen zu werden. (ICE2)

The shift in discussion among Australia's political and intellectual elite over the last decade could be aptly summarized with the words "It's the geography, stupid!" Today's question of concern is no longer about British heritage and Asian geography, as was the case three decades earlier. Instead, the burden (and opportunities) due to the country's geography have finally prevailed. There is currently one question in Australian foreign and strategic policy that matters more than any other: How should Australia respond to the shifting dynamics of the great powers in the region? The starting point of this discussion was the publication of Hugh White's analysis "Power Shift: Australia's Future between Washington and Beijing" in 2010. After more than two years of extensive debate, the options appeared to be clear: Stakes had been set anywhere between armed neutrality and an even closer strategic partnership with the United States, or rather, between massive rearmament and a pragmatic "no worries" policy. In fact, discussion about the matter revealed that "power shift" means more than a relative decline in US power and the rise of China. How are India, Japan, Korea, and Indonesia reacting to this changing political situation? Which new coalitions could possibly emerge, and what role can the region's security architecture play? Australia is currently in an unstable international environment: Military expenditures are on the rise (not only in China, but in the whole region), numerous territorial disputes remain unsolved, the lack of conflict-resolution mechanisms is evident, and nationalism is getting stronger while the future role of the USA in the region is unclear. The discussion of these questions is therefore more than just a friendly academic exchange of opinion for the Australian security-policy community. (Asien/GIGA)

The shift in discussion among Australia political and intellectual elite over the last decade could be aptly summarized with the words It the geography, stupid! Today question of concern is no longer about British heritage and Asian geography, as was the case three decades earlier. Instead, the burden (and opportunities) due to the country geography have finally prevailed. There is currently one question in Australian foreign and strategic policy that matters more than any other: How should Australia respond to the shifting dynamics of the great powers in the region? The starting point of this discussion was the publication of Hugh White analysis Power Shift: Australia Future between Washington and Beijing in 2010. After more than two years of extensive debate, the options appeared to be clear: Stakes had been set anywhere between armed neutrality and an even closer strategic partnership with the United States, or rather, between massive rearmament and pragmatic no worries policy. In fact, discussion about the matter revealed that power shift means more than relative decline in US power and the rise of China. How are India, Japan, Korea, and Indonesia reacting to this changing political situation? Which new coalitions could possibly emerge, and what role can the region security architecture play? Australia is currently in an unstable international environment: Military expenditures are on the rise (not only in China, but in the whole region), numerous territorial disputes remain unsolved, the lack of conflict-resolution mechanisms is evident, and nationalism is getting stronger while the future role of the USA in the region is unclear. The discussion of these questions is therefore more than just friendly academic exchange of opinion for the Australian security-policy community. ; The shift in discussion among Australia political and intellectual elite over the last decade could be aptly summarized with the words It the geography, stupid! Today question of concern is no longer about British heritage and Asian ...