Search

This article takes the proposition that cooperation in the area of non-traditional security (NTS) can provide the essential window of opportunity for Northeast Asians to move beyond history. To demonstrate, it explores the development of NTS cooperation in Northeast Asia, paying particular attention to Sino–Japanese cooperation in the environmental and disaster areas. It then examines the relationship between NTS cooperation and the construction of a regional international society in Northeast Asia. It argues that the importance of NTS cooperation is twofold. First, in a region where historical animosities remain high, NTS issues can avoid sensitive areas and find common ground for cooperation that traditional security approaches would be unable to envisage. Second, NTS cooperation has turned people-to-people relations in a more prominent and conciliatory direction, and enhanced human security consideration, thus taking things further than the indirect consequences of functionalism. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper employs concepts and analytical frameworks drawn from Sociology, particularly collective memory, to examine China's attempts - and the limitations of those attempts - to improve relations with Japan in the new century. In particular, it focuses on a specific episode, the attempt to bring 'new thinking' to Sino-Japanese relations. It concludes that the difficulties and complexities are the product of many factors. In the first place, CCP is constrained by its own definition of nationalism and national identity. Secondly, Beijing's control mechanisms and its ability to direct nationalist discourse in ways convenient to itself are challenged by the rise of popular nationalistic sentiment. In addition, the rise of revisionist nationalism in Japan further complicates Beijing's stance toward Japan. The achievement of China's vision of harmonious world and of 'Mutually Beneficial' relations with Japan will depend on how well China handles the delicate matters of the construction of national identity and the basis of government legitimacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Should ‘security’ or ‘securitization’ be accorded positive or negative value? The Copenhagen School prefers desecuritization (positive value) to securitization (negative value). By examining securitization and desecuritization processes in China’s approach to frontier security, the Copenhagen School argues that, in general, a strategy of desecuritization has proved effective. However, that does not mean that desecuritization should be seen as inherently positive; indeed, China’s desecuritization strategy still encounters problems. To build conditions for a lasting frontier security, it is necessary to go beyond the current state-centric national security discourse and to give more attention to the societal security of the frontier people, their identity and culture. Thus, it is suggested in this article that frontier security studies should transcend ‘positive–negative’ debates and focus more on the ‘referent object’ of security: who and what we really want to secure and the means by which these objectives can be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]