Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
1,037
result(s) for
"Wain, Barry"
Sort by:
LATENT DANGER: Boundary Disputes and Border Issues in Southeast Asia
Tension between Thailand and Cambodia that escalated into armed clashes in 2011 did more than threaten the credibility of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The fighting over their disputed border, which claimed dozens of casualties and displaced tens of thousands of villagers, exposed a little-recognized weakness in Southeast Asia: countless border disputes and other land and maritime boundary issues that linger unresolved. While regional attention has focused on China's provocations in support of expansive claims in the South China Sea, Southeast Asian governments have ignored many of their own border problems. Although these disputes are largely dormant, and there is no indication that they will flare into violence anytime soon, the Thai-Cambodian experience demonstrated the potential danger. The resort to arms over a long-standing territorial disagreement is further evidence that borders, far from becoming redundant as globalization advances and consolidates, are being guarded more zealously than ever. It is also a stark warning that ASEAN's historical stand of deliberately shelving territorial disputes in the interests of regional cohesion and harmony is no longer valid.
Journal Article
LATENT DANGER: Boundary Disputes and Border Issues in Southeast Asia1
In 2008, the two countries signed up to develop jointly the ancient, borderline Preah Vihear temple as a symbol of their \"long-lasting friendship\", only to open fire on each other over the matter a few months later.2 Many of the latent disputes carry similar historical baggage and are susceptible to the kind of nationalist manipulation employed by conservative Thai political factions to whip up sentiments against Cambodia. [...]as with Preah Vihear, the core of almost all the disputes is sovereignty, which is emotionally charged and sensitive. Years of institutionalized interaction and enmeshment in a multilayered and multitracked web of cooperation failed to produce \"restraining effects\" on members tempted to use force to settle differences, long an article of ASEAN faith.3 While a case can be made for ASEAN to review its entire approach to conflict resolution, the association also needs to change its attitude to boundary disputes and border issues that may disturb the peace in the first place.
Journal Article
The U.S. Position in the South China Sea
The South China Sea is clearly of concern to many countries and parties apart from China and the Southeast Asian states that have rival claims there. In terms of larger questions of peace, regional stability and global commerce, those with deep and legitimate interests heavily outnumber claimants. Indeed, it can be safely asserted that the entire international community — multinational corporations, private traders and energy companies, as well as governments of all political persuasions — has a huge stake in the maintenance of the South China Sea as a peaceful and open waterway.The multiple sea-lines of communications traversing the South China Sea, which carry significant amounts of international maritime trade, are of crucial importance to the countries within the broader region and beyond. Economic powerhouses China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all depend on uninterrupted energy supplies, largely in the form of oil, natural gas and coal from the Middle East, Australia and Africa, much of which flows through the South China Sea.This chapter examines American interests in the South China Sea. Although other non-claimant countries could be expected to offer comments, engage in diplomacy and make representations in the event of looming instability in the South China Sea, only the United States possesses the power to intervene decisively. Other parties might not agree with specific American actions in the event of intervention, but the United States broadly would represent their desire for an outcome that preserves peace and permits freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea.SummaryThe United States has maintained a consistent policy on the South China Sea, even as the attention it gives the area has been, at best, intermittent. America is not only a non-claimant and does not back anyone else's claims in the South China Sea, but it adopts no position whatsoever on the legal merits of the six sets of overlapping and competing sovereignty claims. As the world's pre-eminent power, the United States is overwhelmingly concerned with freedom of navigation, ensuring no disruption to the flow of maritime trade that is vital to its own prosperity and that of its friends and allies in Northeast and Southeast Asia. At the strategic level, the U.S. Navy depends on unimpeded passage through South China Sea transit corridors to deploy vessels rapidly between the Western Pacific and Indian oceans, greatly facilitating America's global military posture.
Book Chapter
THE MEKONG'S TOOTHLESS GUARDIAN
Efforts to ensure that the Mekong isn't ruined by development are hampered by the lack of an umbrella organization with authority over the entire river. The Mekong River Commission, formed by Thailand, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in 1995 to coordinate the management and conservation of the Mekong basin, has some obvious flaws: China isn't a member. Nor is Burma, also along the river's upper reaches.
Trade Publication Article