Search results

The region East Asia here encompasses China, Korea & Japan. Looking at these 3 countries in terms of the formation of a distinctive politico-cultural unit, the early formation & continuous development of such units by all 3 is pointed out. The history of pol'al unification in all 3 countries is described. The impact of the West in the 19th cent & the necessity of modernization made it impossible for the traditional system to survive in any of the countries of South Asia. Looking at the diff routes followed by these 3 countries, the fact is stressed that a long, historical existence of cultural & pol'al unity per se was not a sufficient condition for building & developing a nation or state capable of surviving & developing in the modern world. The following questions are raised & discussed. What were the factors that made it possible to build a viable nation in Meiji Japan, & what were the factors that hindered the same development in China & Korea? It is shown that on the one hand, some regarded Japan as a model of development for China & Korea, but on the other Japan's annexation of Korea, possession of Taiwan, & invasion of Manchuria undeniably showed that Japan was the direct enemy of the independence & pol'al unity of China & Korea. The consequences of unbalanced pol'al development in the region are analyzed. The question asked & answered is: What were the conditions necessary for building a viable nation or State which could coexist with the other nations in the modern world? Special attention is given to the nature of Meiji nation-building, the nature of Meiji nat'lism, & the ultra-nat'lism of the Imperial State during WWII. It is concluded that the East Asian cases give us an example of unbalanced development among neighboring units within a region. Attention must be given to this sort of pol'al dynamics within a region & between neighboring units, & its causes & consequences assessed. It is concluded that there is grave danger in making too great a use of the traditional soc structure & ancient myths in modern nation-building, & that nat'lism or nat'l consciousness should be combined with some elements of internat'lism or belief in the existence of an internat'l community. E. Weiman.

The current state of res on the subject is reviewed. The general theory of state-formation & nation-building is discussed; it is primarily the theory of modernization, which attempts to explain the process of the transition of society from a traditional to a modern pole. All the approaches share the same basic theoretical assumption of unilinearity. The most serious & up-to-date formulations of this perspective re Latin Amer studies are reviewed. But instead of reaching a take-off stage, Latin America seems to be in a profound crisis, characterized by a sharp reconcentration of power by repressive military elites, increase of marginal pop in cities, denat'lization of the economy, & progressive reduction in the growth rate of per capita income in Latin America as a whole. It is asked why the anticipated take-off towards development never came about, & in this vein the entire historical process that brought about the underdevelopment of Latin America is reviewed: the colonial stage, which led to the destruction of crafts & local industries & prevented the emergence of a nat'l class which would have been capable of articulating objectives of econ autonomy, & the neocolonial stage, during which the effects of alien technology are propagated through the productive process, to SC's, culture & society. Finally, the old problem of unequal development of several regions of the world is explored. E. Weiman.

Nach dem Ende der bipolaren Blocklogik ist eine auffallende Zunahme innerstaatlicher kriegerischer Gewalt bei gleichzeitigem Rückgang zwischenstaatlicher Kriege zu verzeichnen. Mehr als neunzig Prozent aller gewaltsamen Konflikte in den 90er Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts waren Bürgerkriege. Die innerstaatliche kriegerische Gewalt stellt die internationale Politik vor neue Herausforderungen, auf die sie schlecht vorbereitet ist. Der vorliegende Beitrag diskutiert einige Gründe für diese Entwicklung. Einer besteht darin, dass die Epochenwende von 1989/90 sämtliche vertrauten Koordinaten der Weltordnung verschoben hat. Seit die Block-Rivalität nicht mehr existiert und sich die neue internationale Machtkonfiguration noch nicht endgültig abzeichnet, kann prekäre, gar scheiternde Staatlichkeit weniger denn je zuvor eine bloß "innere Angelegenheit" sein. Sie betrifft das internationale System und damit auch Sicherheitsinteressen jedes einzelnen Staats. Dieser Zusammenhang kommt in der vielstimmigen Kritik, die in Europa an Washingtons Unilateralismus, Neoimperialismus und Hybris artikuliert wird, meist zu kurz. (ICA2)

This book explores the transformation of Soviet Ukraine into an independent state. It finds that state building is an integral part of the transition process, as much as democratization and the establishment of a market economy.