A New Balance of Power in Northeast Asia

1992 ◽  
Author(s):  
William D. Young
Pacific Focus ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artyom Lukin

2004 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Haggard

The end of the Cold War has given rise to a wide-ranging debate about the future of international relations in the Asia-Pacific. This debate has been difficult to assess in part because of the elusive quality of the outcomes being explored, such as whether the region is characterized by “stability” or “rivalry.” What exactly do we want to explain?


Author(s):  
Semyon Verbitsky ◽  
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa ◽  
Gilbert Rozman

The twentieth century has witnessed repeated occasions when Japan and Russia have taken each other's measure and decided on policy accordingly. In the years 1985 to 1999 such mutual testing occuned again amidst adjustments in the direction of each country's global role. As has often been the case, the RussoJapanese relationship was not the main event on the world stage. Both countries placed higher priority on relations with the United States and with China. But to rank this bilateral relationship below two others is not to belittle the stakes involved. For Russia, Tokyo's strategy to look east or west and within Asia to focus in the northeast or the southeast has throughout the century made a great difference in war or peace, in development or isolation. For Japan, Moscow's strategy to balance west and east, and in the east to concentrate on China or Japan, has had telling consequences for other foreign policy choices. At stake in this bilateral relationship have been the development of Siberia and the Russian Far East; the security environment in Northeast Asia including Korea; the prospects of triangular or quadrangular relations with China and the United States; and the balance of power among the world's great powers.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 120-130
Author(s):  
Coline Covington

The Berlin Wall came down on 9 November 1989 and marked the end of the Cold War. As old antagonisms thawed a new landscape emerged of unification and tolerance. Censorship was no longer the principal means of ensuring group solidarity. The crumbling bricks brought not only freedom of movement but freedom of thought. Now, nearly thirty years later, globalisation has created a new balance of power, disrupting borders and economies across the world. The groups that thought they were in power no longer have much of a say and are anxious about their future. As protest grows, we are beginning to see that the old antagonisms have not disappeared but are, in fact, resurfacing. This article will start by looking at the dissembling of a marriage in which the wall that had peacefully maintained coexistence disintegrates and leads to a psychic development that uncannily mirrors that of populism today. The individual vignette leads to a broader psychological understanding of the totalitarian dynamic that underlies populism and threatens once again to imprison us within its walls.


2015 ◽  
Vol 135 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustapha Aachiq ◽  
Joao Gari da Silva Fonseca Junior ◽  
Takashi Oozeki ◽  
Yumiko Iwafune

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document