Search

This paper will examine the implications of the April 2005 Sino-Indian statement of strtegic partnership on the tripartite relations among Russia, China, and India. Less than a decade after Russian foreign minister Yevgeny Primakov called for a strategic triangle among Russia, China, and India, the three countries have signed bilateral strategic partnerships with one another and regualarly meet in trilateral groups. The paper hypothesizes that the ties that bind these countries are tactical rather than strategic and therefore the long-term health of these partnerships will depend on whether changing identities and self-conceptions of leaders in each of these countries lead to a focus on absolute gains through cooperation versus an emphasis on relative gains leading to competition for influence and status in the Asian/Eurasian region. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the conference paper "India, Russia and the War against Terrorism" that was prepared for the "Annual Convention of the ISA" in Honolulu, Hawaii. It argues that the differing security of these countries is likely to be a contingent cooperation in this war. It also claims that the Indo-U.S. tie against terrorism is grounded on a stronger strategic foundation than the Russia-U.S. nexus because of a closer correlation between the aspirations of India and U.S. Presidents George W. Bush.

Established disciplines such as International Relations (IR) & International Political Economy (IPE), and even more explicitly interdisciplinary ones like Development Studies & Strategic Studies, are not always adroit in recognizing, let alone anticipating major trends. This deficiency is highlighted by the lamentable gaps in scholarship concerning the continuing reverberations from the end of bipolarity. Symptomatically, it was not scholars but a donor agency (DFID) which noticed in early 2005 that a quarter of the world's +/-200 states were 'fragile'. This paper explores whether a small group of 'emerging' economies might impact global politics, economics & societies through the first quarter of the new century as the NICs did towards the end of the last one. It is an early, experimental product of a novel collaborative project at CIGI on Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, ASEAN & Mexico (BRICSAM). The paper focuses on four interrelated aspects of the emergence of BRICSAM on the world stage:i)non-state as well as state impacts on - local to global - governance;ii)regionalisms, institutional as well as 'new' informal modalities;iii)orthodox as well as 'new' (human) security; &iv)implications for various forms of multilateralism as a possible antidotes to US inclinations towards unilateralism. The paper concludes by reflecting on such a possible shift in geopolitics for the analysis & practice of IR & IPE, Development & Security Studies. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will examine the significance of the bilateral strategic partnerships between Russia and China, Russia and India, and China and India by analyzing how the complex interactions among these countries influence their attempts to carve out an enhanced role in the world during a period of American dominance. Chinese aspirations for world leadership are more immediate than those of India, while Russia is engaged in reviving its lost status by reclaiming at least a strong regional role in Eurasia. Their attempts at developing bilateral ties with each other define both the challenges and opportunities facing these countries as they position themselves for a stronger presence in Eurasia under the shadow of the United States. The central question this paper seeks to address is whether the security dynamic will trump the many economic synergies among these countries or whether they will seek common cause in retraining the overweening power of the United States. This paper will argue that the policies of the United States toward each of these countries will play a vital role in shaping the geopolitical landscape in Eurasia. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American hegemony has passed its peak. The twenty-first century will see a more multi-polar international system. Yet Western European countries may not be the United States' main foils in decades to come. Four new poles of the international system are now widely known in the business and financial press as the "BRICs economies" (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). Does the concept of "the BRICs" have meaning within a rigorous political science framing? From the perspective of an economic liberal employing neoclassical assumptions to understand the world economy, the category's justification is surprisingly weak. In contrast, a political or economic realist's framing instructs us to focus on states that are increasing their relative material capabilities—as each of the four is. Finally, within a liberal institutionalist's mental model, the BRICs countries are a compelling set, yet one with a deep cleavage between two sub-groups: large emerging powers likely to remain authoritarian or revert to that state, and those that are securely democratic. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some scholars argue that foreign capital liberalization fosters development by providing the needed capital and knowledge and technology transfers for industrial development. Others argue that foreign portfolio and direct investment export gains abroad r ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]