Is China a Responsible Stakeholder?
Whether China is a responsible stakeholder is evaluated from employing three sets of standards: normative, ‘aspirational’ ones (that which make a good community member and an upstanding citizen); rational choice (acting in line with shared or complementary self-interest); and power analysis (whether China is upsetting an established world order or contributing to the formation of a new one?). In the process, not merely China but the standards themselves are examined.
Can China Lead?
Abstract The ‘rise of China’ is proving to be one of the most consequential developments of the early 21 century One of the key questions it raises is about the impact this historically unprecedented process will have on the East Asian region in particular and the world more generally. Will Chinese policy makers will be able to translate the country’s growing material importance into other forms of political power and influence? Equally importantly, will Chinese elites be ‘socialised’ into the practices and norms of extant institutions, or will they attempt to redefine them to further Chinese foreign policy goals? This paper explores these questions by initially looking at the overall historical context in which East Asian regionalisation has occurred, before considering the operation of some of the more important regional institutions. It is suggested that China’s ability to offer regional leadership is constrained both by its own security policies―which are seen as increasingly threatening by many of its neighbours―and by the actions of the USA, which is trying to reassert its own claims to regional leadership. While the outcome of this process is inconclusive, it helps us to understand the more general dynamics reshaping the international system as a result of the emergence of new centres of international power.
Ethno-nationalism in process: ethnicity, atavism and indigenism in Riau, Indonesia
Fifty-five years ago the Republic of Indonesia was founded on the motto Bhinneka tunggal ika (unity in diversity). Today unity has all but disintegrated as separatism and ethnic conflict tear at the nation's political and social fabric. This paper explores the historical foundations of ethno-nationalism with reference to the perspectives of Riau Malays. It argues that current conflict is not the result of recent phenomena, as is so often reported in the media, but is the surfacing of fault-lines that have long lain beneath the seemingly unified nation-state. Since 1945 and the declaration of Indonesian independence, unity has been achieved by Jakarta's imposition of order on the periphery. By analysing the relationship between the centre and periphery through the eyes of Riau Malays, a much clearer account of power emerges. This paper briefly highlights Riau accounts of the struggle for independence (1945–65), shows how atavism and indigenism have been symbolically and ritually realized on the ground (1965–97) and examines some key developments in Riau after the fall of Suharto (1997–2001). Despite recent changes, the politics of diverse peripheries have become localized, indigenized and fragmented, and alternatives to a Jakarta-centred vision for Indonesia's future are as marginalized as ever.