| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
129024
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
120995
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There had long been speculation as to who would succeed Kim Jong Il, the ruler of North Korea. When he died in December 2011, it was his youngest son, Kim Jong Un who took over. Little enough is known about how N. Korea is run, but the difficulties of getting the country's leaders to modify their ways remain as great as ever. There were no obvious signs of change on the domestic front, though the military seemed somewhat less prominent. And continuity was also evident in relations with South Korea, now at a very low ebb. The issue of missile and nuclear development is equally bleak. The Leap Day Agreement with the US quickly became a dead letter, and as 2012 went on, North Korean belligerence was fuelled by UN resolutions. Much of this was routine theatre, but North Korea's third nuclear test on 12 February 2013 provoked sharper international criticism and a correspondingly shriller response from the North. In spite of calls for China to intervene, the real target for this hostility is the US. But with each side unwilling to engage except in terms that the other side finds unacceptable, it is hard to see how progress can be achieved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
124186
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Small states often seek power by exercising authority beyond their borders. Sweden, a prominent protagonist of the global projection of moral values, established itself as a champion of humanitarian internationalism in the post-Second World War period, especially during the Vietnam War. By voicing criticism of the American war effort and putting moral purposes beyond itself, Sweden tried to change American policy. Years of vehement criticism provoked strong reactions in the United States, leading to bilateral diplomatic crises and long-lasting political conflicts. Even though part of a wave of international criticism and based on the power of the better argument and conveyed through open advocacy, Sweden's public diplomacy had little bearing. Its confrontational style was counter-productive; its content badly synchronised with the domestic American debate and lacking originality and centrality; and the criticism generally considered irrelevant. Attention fell on Swedish verbal activism when more conspicuous elements of Swedish Vietnam policy were in focus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|