|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
185228
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There is growing consensus that Canada needs to “do more” in the Indo-Pacific region as it becomes the centre of gravity in a changing international landscape—a landscape challenging several traditional assumptions about the nature and configuration of global power which Canadian foreign policy has rested upon for decades, specifically due to the emergence of Sino-American rivalry. It is clear Canada needs a regional approach which is rooted in and better informed by geopolitical considerations, but there remains an absence of analytical frameworks to compare and evaluate alternative approaches. In addressing this void, this paper sketches out and compares four possible orientations Canada could pursue towards the Indo-Pacific region: Minimal Engagement, US-Aligned Confrontation, Regional Multilateralism, and Selective Minilateralism. Remaining agnostic about which one(s) Canada should choose, the paper is designed to highlight the stark trade-offs Canada must increasingly confront as it navigates this uncertain environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
166808
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Tatmadaw (the Myanmar armed forces) and the Royal Thai Armed Forces (RTAF) are two of the most resilient and enduring politically active militaries in the world, engaging in a decades long process of the institutionalization of a system of military tutelage. There are, however, significant differences in the strategies pursued and the degree of success achieved in each. These variations are due to the combination of three factors creating the environmental context within which they have pursued these projects: (1) the existence of political allies and cohesiveness of the military; (2) degree of unification of domestic opposition elements against them; and (3) international pressures and influences. Based on a Historical Institutionalist perspective, this paper will map the interplay of these factors over time within each case to explain the different pathways these projects have proceeded. With a lack of allies, a fragmented opposition, and various degrees of international pressure the Tatmadaw has been unsuccessful in creating a durable system of tutelage, resulting in lengthy periods of direct rule while attempting wholesale recreations of the state. In Thailand, the RTAF’s alliance with the Monarchy combined with a fragmented but at times united opposition and weak international pressure has resulted in frequent coups to remove elected governments, but usually for short durations resulting in their limited institutionalization into the political system. The current democracy projects in both states, in part due to domestic and international pressures, are not about replacing but rather embedding the military’s involvement in the political system, though their freedom of action has been constrained to a certain extent. Myanmar and Thailand are best characterized as perpetual transitions as an intentional project to maintain a defective-democratic, tutelary system. Defective in that the military maintains the prerogative to involve itself in electoral politics and tutelary in that the military has cordoned off reserve domains of policy which ensure the system, regardless of who is in charge, supports their interests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|