Suchergebnisse

Papers presented at a conference held at New York City during 18-19 November 2010

Paradigms and conceptualisations are essential tools used in international relations literature. Such conceptualisations, however, continue to be heavily dependent on Western epistemology and strategically oriented. Such theoretical models and projections fail to adequately conceptualise the Indo-Pacific region. The neglect of local connectivity and subregions within the Indo-Pacific world has resulted in a relative understudy of the Bay of Bengal zone, a crucial subregion within the Indo-Pacific. The essay argues for a more holistic approach by amalgamating present strategic concerns with indigenous versions of regional projections developed historically. Only by grasping the significance and relevance of past build-ups, it would be possible to understand the Bay of Bengal zone and its effectiveness in creating a vibrant and dynamic Indo-Pacific region.

The twentieth century partitions, it has been argued, have been essentially the by‑products of three interlinked global developments: (a) decolonisation; (b) democratisation and the (c) Cold War dynamics. The partition of the Indian subcontinent, in particular, bore the imprint of the maelstrom produced by the intertwining of these three forces. The process of partition in South Asia did not only involve simple division and reorganisation of territories but was accompanied by devolution and indigenisation of political institutions and governance, placing partition at the heart of the process of nation‑state formation. In this sense, the longue duree process of the partitioning of the subcontinent has continued to cast its long shadow over the nation‑building process leading to internal discrepancies and the development of regional dynamics, often competitive and conflictual in nature.

India's aspiration to a 'rising power' status, particularly in the post Cold War period, particularly her increasing global engagement and responsibilities continues to be largely dependent upon the level of her engagement in the strategically vital neighbouring region of South Asia, which in turn, continues to be influenced by historical legacy and intra-regional linkages. In spite of being the major regional player, Indian policy making in South Asia has continued to be rather static and conservative due to a large number of factors. Since such policymaking has failed to ensure a greater degree of regional stability, certain alternatives could be adopted to change regional status-quo. ; Indijos siekis užimti "stiprios jėgos" poziciją, ypač po Šaltojo karo, išplėtė jos globalius įsipareigojimus ir atsakomybę. Tačiau jos globalų statusą labiausiai formuoja strategiškai svarbi Pietų Azijos, kuri vis dar išgyvena istoriškai susiklosčiusius santykius ir jų padarinius, kaimynystė. Dėl Indijos geostrateginio dominavimo šiame regione Pietų Azija tradiciškai vadinamas "Indo-centriniu" regionu. Tačiau kaimyninės Pietų Azijos valstybės toli gražu nelinkusios dėl šio fakto vienareikšmiškai pripažinti Indijos "hegemonijos". Indijos regioninės hegemonijos formavimas ir realizavimas – sudėtingas procesas, dėl jos dažnai konkuruojama. Apibūdinant regioninę Indijos politiką negalima daryti skubotų išvadų, ypač bandant taikyti jai kokį nors teorinį modelį. Siekiant suprasti Indijos politikos struktūrą ir jos niuansus būtina prisiminti, jog nauja valstybė paveldėjo kolonijinę praeitį ir iki 1947 m. negalėjo formuoti naujos užsienio politikos, taip pat daugybę problemų, su kuriomis kuriama valstybė susidūrė po dekolonizacijos. Užuot bandžiusi užimti pagrindines pozicijas regione, Indija Pietų Azijoje laikėsi status quo politikos ir iš esmės konservatyviai susitelkė į tradicinę diplomatiją, o ne į galingą savo švelniųjų gebėjimų potencialą. Reikšmingai politikos proceso kaitai būtinos rimtos nestandartinės idėjos ir vizijos. Tai pirmiausia turėtų būti nevyriausybinės iniciatyvos ir, jei tai bus įgyvendintina, regioninė politika turėtų orientuotis į žmonių saugumą. Alternatyvios politikos vykdymas gali sukelti esminius status quo pokyčius šiame regione.

Explores Tract II & other nongovernmental initiatives undertaken in South Asia during the 1990s. A look at factors that led to the growth of nonofficial initiatives in South Asia emphasizes their ability to break up government stalemates, broaden levels of interaction, reduce tensions, & open the way for more formal peace processes. It is maintained that the emergence of a more holistic concept of human security has led to new approaches that highlight greater popular participation. Various understandings of the terminology & scope of nongovernmental initiatives are described, along with trends in Track II initiatives in South Asia; examples of successful nonofficial initiatives; support of the Track II process by international institutions/agencies; & the growth of regional nongovernmental initiatives. Limitations & future prospects of the Track II process are addressed. Although tense bilateral relations have not prevented nongovernmental initiatives, it is concluded that regional tension remains the major problem in South Asia, & greater regional cooperation will require more sensitivity toward the process, as well as increased levels of public awareness & participation. J. Lindroth