This timely work examines the scale and root causes of terrorism across Southeast Asia, including the role of al-Qaeda's ascendancy in the region. It begins with an overview of the analytical and theoretical framework for discussing the subject. Individual chapters then examine terrorist activities from both functional and country-specific perspectives. The book traces fundamental linkages between terrorism and security issues, such as illegal immigration, narcotics trafficking, and other criminal activity. In addition, it considers the issue of convergence - the growing connection between cri
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
This book examines the evolving threat of terrorism and draws on the latest research to assess future trends. The author assumes that terrorism will remain a potent threat to the international system throughout the twenty-first century, primarily because of the convergence of two negative trends: the availability of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Weapons (CBRN) - also known as Weapons of Mass Destruction - and the proliferation of terrorist organizations seeking to achieve mass casualties. Even without the CBRN element, however, Smith maintains that terrorism will remain an on
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
This book examines the evolving threat of terrorism and draws on current research and case studies to assess future trends. It explores specific aspects of contemporary terrorism and provides persuasive evidence of why it will remain a potent threat for decades to come.
The U.S. Navy SEAL raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and Islamabad's subsequent turn toward China have highlighted one of the most remarkable legacies of the Cold War: the persistence of a strategic triangle composed of China, Pakistan, and the United States. Throughout much of the Cold War, China and the United States competed to keep Pakistan within their particular sphere of influence, while Pakistan deftly took advantage of the subtle power struggle to improve its security profile vis-à-vis India. Despite persistent competition, the nations of the strategic triangle enjoyed three major convergence points: (1) the 1969-71 period, when Pakistan acted as a conduit for secret talks between Beijing and Washington, which subsequently led to mutual coordination during the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war; (2) the decade following the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979; and (3) the years following the 9/11 attacks in the United States, when global focus turned to Afghanistan and terrorism. This third convergence around terrorism is particularly salient, as Pakistan is increasingly viewed globally as both a source of terrorist activity and a victim of terrorist violence. In the long term, the strategic triangle may act as a modulating force that may prevent instability within nuclear-capable Pakistan, as well as constrain activities by certain Pakistani state organs that may be linked to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and clandestine support for militant organizations. (Asian Aff/GIGA)
Recent naval ship visits and exchanges of goodwill between China and Japan suggest an improvement in the two countries' bilateral relationship, which had been steadily deteriorating since the late 1990s. In the longer term, however, Sino-Japanese relations will likely be tested or constrained by five key sets of issues: (1) territorial and resource disputes, (2) nationalism and issues of mutual antipathy, (3) Taiwan's political status, (4) the rapid rise of China's military power, and (5) the U.S.-Japan security alliance. The manner in which these issues are managed or resolved will likely play a major role in shaping the Sino-Japanese relationship and thus the overall geopolitical environment in East Asia. A key complicating factor in the relationship, however, is the persistence of divergent worldviews: Chinese leaders appear to be more consistently persuaded by realist notions of international politics, whereas Japanese leaders tend to favor liberal-institutionalist values. The two countries may use these different lenses to view the same incident or issue, potentially creating misunderstanding and miscalculation. (Asian Aff/GIGA)