| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
080928
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article explores the modes by which Australian scholars construct knowledge of Indonesia with particular reference to the debates on West Papua in the post-Suharto period. It examines their perceptions, beliefs and attitudes towards human rights issues with a view to analysing the underlying forces, motivations and implications of activism. This article casts doubt on a common, yet often unacknowledged, perception in Indonesia about Australian Indonesia-specialists who are categorised as: intellectuals who always see Indonesian government policies as 'negative'.2 I demonstrate that the theorisation of Indonesian society has been diverse in Australia as exemplified by the West Papua debates. Australian scholars' social positions and mobility, not government policy, shape their beliefs, attitudes and knowledge construction of Indonesia. Thus, considering Australian scholars from a monolithic perspective misses the reality that contemporary intellectual culture in Australia is no longer based on a traditional class.3 I argue there are two major opposing groups in West Papua studies which I label as the 'affirmative revisionist' scholars who tend to be more optimistic towards resolution of conflicts in West Papua and the 'sceptical reformist' scholars who are dubious about any major changes in West Papua. This latter group believes the people of West Papua should be given the opportunity to remain integrated with Indonesia or to opt for selfdetermination. They tend to use the perceived failure of Indonesia in the protection of human rights in West Papua to attack the Indonesian government and Australian governmental agencies dealing with Indonesia. This article argues that this criticism may adversely impact on future Australia-Indonesia relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
080924
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article challenges the presumed multilateral aversion of the George W. Bush administration. It argues that, at least in its approach toward the Asia-Pacific, this administration has been a more active and stimulatory advocate of multilateral approaches than is commonly acknowledged. The article begins by documenting the Bush administration's multilateral activism in the Asia-Pacific and examines those factors which appear to have contributed towards it. It then goes on to demonstrate, however, that Bush's at times unexpected enthusiasm for multilateral approaches has encountered a high degree of regional reticence. For a part of the world that has been affording an increased prominence to multilateral institutions and activities, this finding is initially both surprising and significant. The article concludes by seeking to account for this apparent anomaly and by considering its possible implications for the emerging regional architecture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
080925
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
China and the US are two key players in the recent round of 'scrambling' for Africa. They compete for control over oil and other strategic resources, for markets, and for political influence. Their competition has alarmed many. This study tests the alarmist interpretations by identifying what the US and China are actually doing and to how they perceive each other's activities. Their ambitions are often considered in isolation. When laid out side by side, the extent to which their activities in Africa may overlap or clash can be seen more clearly. China and the US are seeking different things at different places in the continent and are careful not to upset one another. Their activities do not support the dire prediction. The 'scramble for Africa' may irritate; it is unlikely to cause direct confrontations because competition remains by and large economic and economic competition in an integrated global economy creates networks of constraints that ameliorate potential confrontation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
080929
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
080926
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The March 2007 Japan-Australia Security Declaration has garnered more than its share of hyperbole. Described variously as an historic milestone for peace or an agreement designed to encircle China; the declaration's actual strategic consequences are somewhat unclear. The purpose of this article is to provide a critical analysis of the security declaration and to assess its impact in the context of the changing patterns of the region's security setting. Some have argued that it marks a small but qualitatively significant shift in the essential features of the regional security architecture. The article assesses this claim and argues that while the declaration is of some diplomatic importance, and clearly contributes to improving cooperation in disaster relief and other humanitarian operations, it is of little strategic significance to the broader patterns of East Asian security over the short to medium term. Each side's operational constraints, their different strategic priorities, most obviously their perceptions of China, as well as the continued military predominance of the US, means that the agreement will be of little immediate significance for East Asian security. That said, it remains an important development for the respective parties and is a leading edge indicator of broader forces for change that are increasingly present in East Asia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
080927
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There is increasing recognition in the development literature that foreign aid can have malign effects on the recipient country, especially in failing states. This paper considers the impact of Australian aid on macro-level development in Papua New Guinea. After a review of official evaluations of the effectiveness of aid, the potential sources of 'aid failure' and 'aid accountability' in Papua New Guinea, it is argued that the current Australian macro-level aid program needs to be reassessed. In particular, the focus, coherence and impact on civil society of Australian aid should be modified in order to minimise its debilitating effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|