Contrast in the Security Concepts of China and the EU: The Perspective of a PLA Officer

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHEN BO
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Society ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Absolute Good ◽  
Analytical Review ◽  
The Eu

This chapter presents the perspectives of officers in the People's Liberation Army (PLA). It provides an analytical review of the two security concepts that have emerged in response to the post Cold War order. It holds that China's security policy is designed first and foremost to safeguard the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of the nation under the paradoxical conditions of globalization. Although recognizing the mutuality of security, the purpose of China's policy is to gain other actors' support for the defence of China's sovereign interests. The EU's core interests are defined in terms of ‘a stronger international society, well functioning international institutions and a rule-based international order’. This also recognizes the mutuality of security but does not place sovereignty as the absolute good: if international society, institutions, and order require the mitigation of sovereignty, then Europeans will accept it.

North Korea and the European Union

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramon Pacheco Pardo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Cold War ◽  
North Korea ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Development Organization ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
The Eu

Relations between Europe and North Korea date back to the founding of North Korea in 1948 when North Korea established relations with seven Central and Eastern European states. During the Cold War, several Western and Northern European states initiated diplomatic and trade relations with North Korea. However, North Korea remained anchored in the socialist bloc, including Central and Eastern Europe—even if its membership of the Non-Aligned Movement from 1975 suggested Pyongyang’s wish to have a degree of independence from the bloc. Official European Union (EU)–North Korea relations started in the post-Cold War years, just as the EU was starting to develop its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The EU began to provide aid to North Korea in 1995 and joined the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO)—through Euratom—in 1997. Between 1998 and 2001, the EU and North Korea launched political and human rights dialogues and established diplomatic relations. Since 2003, however, the EU has pursued a policy of “critical engagement” toward North Korea as a result of the Asian country’s development of its nuclear program. This has led to steadily deteriorating relations. In 2006, the EU started to impose sanctions on North Korea in relation to its nuclear and missile programs. Human rights and political dialogues were suspended in 2013 and 2015, respectively. In 2020, the EU imposed cyber sanctions on North Korea. One year later, it imposed more sanctions on North Korea in relation to alleged human rights abuses. As of 2021, the EU is prioritizing pressure over engagement in its relations with North Korea, and economic links have decreased dramatically from their peak in the early 2000s.

Continuity and Change in British Thinking about Nuclear Weapons

1994 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 228-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Croft
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Continuity And Change ◽  
Mind Set ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Constant Argument

For almost fifty years there has been constant argument between those who have supported the development and possession of nuclear weapons by Britain and those opposed to those policies. This article argues that there has been a continuity in the arguments made by policy-makers and their critics, both operating within an unchanging series of linked assumptions forming a paradigm or mind-set. This article sets out the character of the assumptions of the orthodox and alternative thinkers, as they are termed in the article, examining their coherence and differences, particularly during the cold war. It concludes by attempting to draw out some implications for the British security policy debate in the post-cold war period.

22. Humanitarian Intervention

2018 ◽  
pp. 334-349
Author(s):  
Alex J. Bellamy ◽  
Stephen McLoughlin
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Society ◽  
International Security ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Post Cold War

This chapter examines the implications of humanitarian intervention for international security. It considers the debate between those who argue that the protection of civilians from genocide and mass atrocities is far more important than the principle of non-intervention in certain circumstances and those who oppose this proposition. This has become a particular problem in the post-Cold War world where the commission of atrocities in places like Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur prompted calls for international society to step in to protect the victims with military force if necessary. Humanitarian intervention causes problems for international security by potentially weakening the rules governing the use of force in world politics. The chapter first considers the case against humanitarian intervention before discussing the principle known as ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document