Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"In the wake of Malaysia’s 13th General Election some commentators speak of a sharpening of ethnic politics — with Prime Minister Najib blaming a “Chinese tsunami” for his government’s polling setbacks; others are optimistic about the arrival of a new “non-racialized form of politics” and the emergence of “transethnic solidarity”. This book, which engages with both the race paradigm and its opponents, warns that change is likely to come slowly — but is not impossible. Malaysia’s race paradigm is a man-made ideological construct — one that has been contested in the past, and could realistically be contested in the future. In confronting the continuing challenge of globalization, Malaysians should not neglect the history of ideas — and ideology — as they search for new options."

"The inauguration of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Bangkok in 1996 was celebrated with enthusiasm and hopes in the two regions because this forum represented a breakthrough in Asia-Europe relations. The region-to-region pattern of the relations becomes the study framework that enables the explorations of central themes which include the Asian regional identity, ASEAN collective diplomatic prominence, and the informality of the ASEM institution. In exploring those central themes, this boo...."

""Amitav Acharya has written a splendidly ambitious book. Travelling from the discipline of International Relations to the historiography of Southeast Asia and back again, it draws upon a range of methodologies to analyse the issue of identity in the configuration of Southeast Asia. But it provides more than an academic assessment. With this book, Acharya must be judged to have contributed not just to the study of Southeast Asian regionalism, but to the process itself." - Anthony Milner, Basham Professor of Asian History, Australian National University"

"In 2012, Russia assumes the Chairmanship of APEC, and is keen to build on its memberships of both the East Asia Summit (EAS) and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). Russia is geographically and historically part of Asia and the Asia Pacific, and has been a dialogue partner of ASEAN since 1996. Still, the obstacles of distance and languages have led ASEAN member states and Russia to know and interact little between both sides. As growth poles in the world economy, there is much benefit in greater interaction between their rich economies."

"Malaya attained independence on August 31, 1957 fromBritain. However this new nation faced a communist insurgencyknown today as the ?Malayan Emergency? (1948-1960). Thenin 1961, Tunku announced a wider federation of ?Malaysia?,viz. Malaya, British Crown Colonies of Singapore, Sarawakand North Borneo, and the protectorate of Brunei. Counteringcommunism was a principal motive for ?Malaysia?.Sarawak?s leftist elements were rejected with an armedopposition. Malaysia was formed excluding Brunei. Amidstits birth pangs, Malaysia faced hostile neighbors Indonesiaand the Philippines; the former objected by way ofKonfrontasi (1963-1967) while the latter laid claim to Sabah(formerly North Borneo). Malaya/ Malaysia was borne in themidst of the Cold War (1947?1991), a bipolar world betweenthe US and the USSR. Malaya/Malaysia is utilized as a caseof analysis and evaluation in the context of the twin trendsof continuities and transformations in tracing the historicaldevelopments from the 1950?s to the 1990?s. The risks,motives, and challenges that prompted the shift in foreignrelations reveal as much of the personality of the political leadership, the prevailing situations, and conditions fromwithin and circumstances from without."

"Towards the end of the nineteenth century the British empire was confronted by two great Chinese questions. The first of these questions (often known as the Far Eastern question to contemporaries) related specifically to the maintenance of British interests on the China coast and the broader implications for British foreign policy in East Asia. While safeguarding British interests in the Far East presented British policymakers with a range of significant challenges, as they wrestled with this first Chinese question, another kept knocking at the door. Since the eighteenth century, when plans for the establishment of a British colony at New South Wales had begun to materialize, Australias potential relations with China had attracted considerable interest. During the first sixty years of European settlement, China retained a prominent place in both metropolitan and colonial schemes for the development of British Australia. From the 1850s, however, when large numbers of Cantonese miners travelled to the Pacific gold rushes, these earlier visions began to appear hopelessly naive. By the late 1880s the coming of the Chinese to Australia, and the reaction to their arrival, had developed into one of the most difficult issues within British imperial affairs. This book sets out to tell that story. Reaching back to the arrival of the British in the 1780s, it explores the early history of Australian engagement with China and traces the development of colonial Australia into an important point of contact between the British and Chinese empires."

"This book traces the ideas and aspirations of the revolutionary generation in Ireland, from the 1890s to 1918, who dreamt of an independent Irish state and imagined how an Irish foreign policy might look. It follows attempts to put these ideas into practice during the campaign for Irish independence led by Sinn Fein, 1919-21, and examines how they evolved into the first Irish foreign policy during the first decade of the Irish Free State. Efforts focused on asserting the young Irish states independence as it pushed the boundaries of its British Commonwealth membership, contributed at the League of Nations and forged ties in Europe and America. Many of the ideas that still shape Irish foreign policy-small state and European country; honest broker and international good citizen; mother country with a disapora and bridge between Europe and America-are rooted in this period. A strong vein of internationalism runs through Irish nationalism; from the desire to pursue a policy based on values, to attempts to create an international rationale for independence and an understanding of the influence of public opinion, there is much that was modern about the Irish experience. This experience also shines a light on interwar European relations and how small states manage their affairs in a world system dominated by their larger neighbours. Drawing on a rich vein of archival sources and private papers, this book charts the beginnings of Irish foreign policy and the aspiration to be first of the small nations."

"Legalist Empire explores the intimate connections between international law and empire in the United States from 1898 to 1919. Though many histories treat Woodrow Wilsons plans for the League of Nations as the beginning of Americas substantive engagement with international law, this book demonstrates the broad influence of legal concepts and expertise in the years before World War I. It follows such lawyers as Elihu Root, John Bassett Moore, James Brown Scott, and Robert Lansing as they created an American profession of international law, promoted the creation of international courts, represented corporations with business overseas, and served as high-ranking policymakers in Washington. A widespread belief in the inevitable progress of civilization simultaneously justified American empire and underwrote the claim that international adjudication could bring world peace. Legalist Empire shows how international lawyers justified the conquest of the Philippines, the taking of Panama, and interventions throughout the Caribbean, and also explains why the law of neutrality helped lead the United States into World War I. The book also offers a new history of the origins of the American international law profession. Research in the papers and publications of lawyers and their organizations shows how political, ideological, and cultural assumptions shaped the emerging profession. A conclusion tracing developments to the present further emphasizes that rather than being antagonists, empire and the international rule of law have frequently reinforced each other in American history."

"International cultural relations have become an important tool for western advanced industrialized countries in carying out their foreign policies.Conducting cultural programs,including educational activities abroad , has helped these countries to maintain their political and economic hegemony over cultural relations, their main aim is similar,to develop abroad positive images of their national in pursuit of international co-operation and strategic and economic benefit for the sending nation .Japan is new to its present position in the world community.It is also a relative new-comer to recognizing the benefits of extensive cultural diplomacy those western powerful countries such as the US,Great Britain france and germany have pursued for many decades.Thus,it was pursuit of Japan's national interest, not pure altruism and interest in culture that motivated Japan to follow these precedent set by western countries with a policy on cultural diplomacy.In this study I argue that the that the Japanese government has pursued and still does pursue,cultural relations with neigbour seeking foremost political and economic benefit fo for Japan benefit foe other are a secondary concern."

"Krisis di selat Taiwan merupakan peristiwa yang dapat membawa hubungan antara dua negara besar di kawasan Asia Pasifik mengarah ke dalam konflik. Kedua negara tersebut yakni Amerika Serikat -- yang merupakan satu-satunya kekuatan global dan negara adi daya yang masih tersisa pasca perang dingin -- dan RRC -- yang merupakan kekuatan regional yang mulai tumbuh menjadi negara yang mempunyai potensi menjadi negara adi daya. Karena itu, isu Taiwan merupakan salah satu isu yang dapat mempengaruhi hubungan kedua negara besar tersebut, selain masalah-masalah lainnya seperti, hak-hak asasi manusia, proliferasi senjata nuklir dan senjata pemusnah massal lainnya, perdagangan dan sebagainya.Taiwan secara de facto merupakan negara berdaulat tetapi secara de jure bukanlah negara yang merdeka, karena Taiwan tidak mendapat pengakuan intemasional sebagai negara yang merdeka dan berdaulat, terutama dari PBB. Ditambah lagi, Amerika Serikat telah memutuskan hubungan diplomatik dengan Taiwan dan pindah ke RRC, walaupun tetap mempertahankan hubungan informalnya dengan Taiwan melalui Taiwan Relations Act.Sebagai negara adi daya, Amerika Serikat mempunyai peranan dalam menentukan masa depan Taiwan. Tetapi politik domestik Amerika Serikat yang mempunyai banyak kelompok kepentingan yang selalu berusaha mempengarnhi proses pengambilan kebijakan luar negeri Amerika Serikat sehingga turut menentukan apa yang akan terjadi di lintas selat Taiwan.Di lain pihak, RRC juga ikut menentukan masa depan Taiwan dengan menyatakan bahwa Taiwan merupakan "bagian" dari wilayah RRC dan untuk mempertahankannya bila perlu dengan menggunakan kekuatan militer,Krisis di selat Taiwan pada tahun 1995/1996 dan tahun 1999/2000 mendapat reaksi yang berbeda dari pemerintah Amerika Serikat. Dalam krisis pertama, pemerintah Amerika Serikat menempatkan dua kapal induknya ke lokasi krisis sehingga dapat memicu perang terbuka, sedangkan pada krisis yang kedua pemerintah Amerika Serikat hanya menyampaikan keprihatinannya saja kepada RRC. Dalam dua krisis tersebut, pemerintah Amerika Serikat mengarnbil tindakan yang bertolak belakang, di mana pada krisis pertama tindakannya menyampaikan pesan lebih tegas kepadaRRC sedangkan yang kedua lebih lunak.Pengaruh dari dalam negeri Amerika Serikat seperti Kongres, Media Massa, Civil Society, Lobby Taiwan dan kepentingan kelompok lainnya yang tentunya mempengaruhi perbedaan tersebut. Selain itu, kondisi domestik RRC sendiri turut pula mempengaruhi kebijakan yang diambil pemerintah Amerika Serikat terhadap RRC dalam menghadapi dua krisis yang terjadi di selat Taiwan tersebutPenulis menerapkan kerangka pemikiran dari Kegley dan Wittkopf mengenai proses pengambilan kebijakan luar negeri Amerika Serikat. Menurut Kegley dan Wittkopf, proses pengambilan kebijakan luar negeri Amerika Serikat dipengaruhi faktor-faktor internal (domestik) dan faktor-faktor ekstemal. Kedua sumber tersebut merupakan input yang masuk ke dalam Decision Making Process politik luar negeri Amerika Serikat. Kemudian, dari input tersebut akan keluar output berupa kebijakan Amerika Serikat terhadap RRC.Dapat disimpulkan bahwa faktor-faktor internal (domestik) seperti KCongres, Media Massa, Civil Society, Lobby Taiwan, kepentingan kelompok lainnya dan sebagainya, ditambah faktor-faktor eksternal yakni perubahan yang terjadi di RRC telah merubah sikap pemerintah Amerika Serikat pada krisis yang terjadi di selat Taiwan 1999-2000. Karena pada krisis tahun 1995/1996, pemerintah Amerika Serikat berani berisiko terjadi konflik dengan RRC."