Search

Building a new international system after the end of the cold war turned out to be a complex and multifaceted process, which found its expression in several global developments and scenarios proposed by various scientific schools, opinion leaders and representatives of different cultures and religions. Even if the opportunity to identify certain more constructive and less violent forms of interaction between the international actors is expressed, patterns may bear the imprint of the conflicting logic between the poles, the latter receiving, alongside the traditional realistic treatment, yet another dimension, extracted either from the reflection of new realities or from intellectual speculations. The polarity certainly remains the basic problem of the world geopolitical architecture of the international security, also determining the configuration of the international system structure. Under the conditions of the global anarchy of international relations that define the power's world hierarchy, the existence of the geopolitical hegemony between the major actors is a natural thing conditioned by the need to contribute to the achievement or the impairment of the process of guaranteeing international security, by further maintaining the tendency of extending its sphere of geopolitical influence, intensifying the role of the political and military factor, which has not decisively lost its relevance and topicality, being on the contrary strengthened. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article talked about the position of academic researchers of the both neighbour regarding Mongolia’s «Third Neighbor» policy. Mongolia’s foreign policy analysis in south neighbour underway at the Academy of Social Sciences under the State Council of China, Global Times, the central daily newspaper of the CPC in chinese and english languages, School of International Studies, Beijing People’s University, Beijing Foreign Studies University. It should be emphasized that the Institute of Russian and Mongolian Studies of the Academy of Social Sciences, Inner Mongolia, the Department of Mongolian Studies of the Inner Mongolia University, the Inner Mongolian University of Education, and the Institute of Near Neighbour Studies of the Shanghai East China Normal University are concentrated. Regarding Russia, it is mainly focused on the Institute of Oriental Studies, the Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, the Moscow State University, the Diplomatic Academy, MFA, the Russian International Affairs Council, St. Petersburg State University, Irkutsk State University, and Ulan-Udе University, ect., China’s researchers has a tendency in “advise” and some times “educate” to Mongolia on the importance of developing cooperation with its “real neighbour”. For Example, Mongolia’s geopolitical position shows that it should cooperate smartly with China and Russia. The researchers of Russia wrote that Mongolia’s “Third Neighbour” policy is utopian, and it is observed that the principle is “stuck” in its principles. Recently, the deepening of the geopolitical conflict between the two neighbour and the “third neighbour” is a matter of concern, and the criticism of the neighbouring countries is expected to transation from the level of Track 1 to the level of Track 1.5. Finally, The New paradigms of Mongolia’s foreign policy has priority to vital national interests, openness, peaceful, multi-pillars, multi-dimensional, non-Aligned, independently, priority to democratic values and pragmatism. It should be emphasized that it is not a policy directed against the two neighbors, but only peacetime geopolitics. Монгол Улсын «Гуравдагч хөрш»-ийн бодлого: Хоёр хөршийн судлаачдын дүн шинжилгээ Хураангуй: Монгол Улсын «гуравдагч хөрш»-ийн бодлогын тухайд хоёр хөршийн судлаачид ямар байр суурь, хандлагатай байна гэдэг анхаарал татсан нэн чухаг асуудал мөн. Өмнөд, Умард хөршүүд албан ёсны түвшинд дурдсан асуудалд тааламжгүй эсвэл бүр сөрөг байр суурь албан ёсоор илэрхийлж байгаагүй ч, олон улсын харилцаа, геополитик, стратеги судлаачид олон нийтийн хэвлэл, мэдээллийн хэрэгслүүд үзэл бодол, байр сууриа чөлөөтэй илэрхийлж ирсэн байна.

The authors begin from the premise that it is useful to analyse broad trends in international affairs by identifying key moments of change. The primary focus is the current phase of international affairs that has been labelled the post-Cold War world. The authors accept that the fall of the USSR at the end of 1991 marked an important change in geopolitics but argue that the 30-year time period since the fall of the Soviet Union has been marked by some very important changes. The era began with a seemingly omnipotent United States that proclaimed a New World Order of peace, prosperity and democracy. The authors analyse how that vision did not come to pass in the context of wars in the Middle East and the rise of China as a great power and the recovery of Russia. Cuba's role in the post-Cold War era is analysed and preliminary thoughts are made on the potential changing world order in the context of the Russia-Ukraine War. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines how melancholia constitutes a psycho-geopolitical space interweaving Korean subjects' psychic and political lives with the dynamics of the (post) Cold War alliance between Japan and the US. The Wednesday Demonstration is the weekly protest in Seoul that calls for an official apology and legal compensation from the Japanese government for comfort women who worked in the sexual slavery system under the Japanese Empire during WWII. The fact that the weekly protests have continued for 30 years since 1992 signifies that the comfort women issue has remained an unresolved (geo)political issue between South Korea and Japan for three decades, despite apologies and monetary compensations by the Japanese government. This article offers a psychoanalytic-geopolitical rationale for the endless grief of Korean postcolonial subjects who cannot accept the measures of the Japanese government regarding the comfort women issue. Based on 1-year's participant observations and in-depth interviews with Korean activists who engaged in the Wednesday Demonstration from September 2019 to August 2020, this article aims to accomplish three goals. Firstly, this article shows how Korean postcolonial subjects were/are haunted by colonial past. Secondly, I examine why Koreans cannot complete mourning for comfort women in the context of ROK-US-Japan geopolitical relations. Lastly, this article interrogates how ethno-nationalists intervene to turn melancholia into a motivation for ethnic solidarity and how their attempt might have failed by exploring a Korean postcolonial subject's psychic lives. In doing so, I argue that the wounds of Koreans related to the comfort women issue are not simply from colonial history, but they are postcolonial wounds that have not healed 'appropriately' under the (US-sponsored) South Korean/Japanese (post-)Cold War security arrangement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims & Backgrounds: The US and the Soviet Union led the east and the west camps during the cold war and the geopolitical order was laid on the foundation of the rivalries between these two superpowers. But, after the collapse of the bipolar system, the US became the undisputed power in the international arena and the geopolitical order underwent changes during three decades after that and the conflicts between the superpowers was continued. Based thereon, the current study aims at explaining the geopolitical structure after the cold war and the method of power distribution in the situation after the collapse of Soviet Union up to the present time. Methodology: The present study makes use of a descriptive-analytical method using qualitative content analysis and reviewing literature and the theories presented through reasoning and inference to find answers to three key questions in line with perceiving the relations between the superpowers after the cold war. The method of data and information Collectionis library and documentary. Findings: The present study will show that the world witnessed a geopolitical transition after cold war and that no power is in a hegemonic position currently and the world is bearing witness to a spectrum of unipolar, bipolar and multipolar fluid powers. The conflict between the superpowers can be explained based on subjective and objective geopolitical factors. Conclusion: Powers have chosen such strategies as withdrawal, bandwagoning and, balance of power which is including soft and hard in respect to one another according to the type of conflicts

Despite different perceptions, discourses and approaches, the post-Cold War Arctic is with a high geopolitical stability based on institutional, international cooperation started by the Arctic states and supported by Arctic indigenous peoples, non- governmental organizations and sub-national governments. As a result, there are neither armed conflicts nor serious disputes on national borders. Behind the high geopolitical stability are on the one hand, common interests of the Arctic states to decrease military tension and increase political stability by causing a transformation from confrontation to environmental cooperation. On the other hand, there are certain features of Arctic geopolitics as prerequisites for a transformation, such as firm state sovereignty, high degree of legal certainty, and flexibility in agenda setting. When assessing a state of Arctic geopolitics and IR of the post-Cold War era, there is an ambivalence on how ‘geopolitics’ is defined. Behind are the dualism of military presence based on the nuclear weapons’ systems and the high stability based on international, institutional cooperation between the eight Arctic states. As well as, that there are two major competing discourses: first, the Arctic as a ’zone of peace’ and exceptional in world politics, and second, that there is a race of resources and the consequent emerging conflicts in theArctic. In addition, there are fresh reminders that Arctic geopolitics is impacted by (grand) environmental challenges and ‘wicked problems’, in particular climate change; and that new multi- dimensional dynamics has made Arctic geopolitics global. The article aims to draw up a holistic picture of the post-Cold War Arctic, and discuss what might be special features of Arctic geopolitics in globalization. The article examines and discusses the transformation of approach from classical geopolitics to critical geopolitics by applying main approaches of geopolitics to the Arctic/Arctic geopolitics.

Copyright of Codrul Cosminului is the property of Codrul Cosminului and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In recent years, satellite mapping of North Korea, especially of its labor camps, has become an important form of evidence of human rights violations, used by transnational advocacy groups to lobby Western governments for change. A phenomenon of "citizen cartography" has emerged where non-expert humanitarian actors use commercially available software like Google Earth to "infiltrate" the borders of North Korea. This essay interrogates the politics of seeing that takes place in creating the site and sight of North Korea by citizen cartographers, and historicizes these processes of seeing in Cold War and post-Cold War visual culture. Specifically, citizen cartography of North Korea engages in rhetorics of resolution, where the cartographer continually searches for a better, clearer view of the ground below, while still constrained by corporate software and logics of state sovereignty that make it difficult to "resolve" the problem of forced labor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Ukraine crisis and Russia's contribution to it have raised numerous concerns regarding the possible emergence of a new 'Cold War' in Europe. At the same time, Ukraine's popular choice and enthusiasm for European integration expressed clearly on the streets of Kyiv seem to have caused Russia to adopt a (neo)revisionist attitude. In this context, relations between Russia and the EU (and the West for that matter) have been limited, frozen and directed on path towards conflict. This article analyses how the traditional dichotomy between conflict and cooperation in EU--Russia relations was replaced by conflict in the context of the Ukraine crisis. The article contends that the breakdown of the symbolic and peaceful cohabitation between the EU and Russia has been influenced by the fact that both actors have chosen to ignore key tensions that characterized their post-Cold War interactions. The article identifies three such tensions: the first emphasizes divisions between EU member states and their impact on coagulating a common EU approach towards Russia; the second (geopolitical) tension highlights the almost mutually exclusive way in which the EU and Russia's security interests have developed in the post-Soviet space; finally, the third contends that a clash of values and worldviews between the EU and Russia makes conflict virtually unavoidable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the breakup of Soviet Union in December 1991, the landscape of the Eurasian heartland has been changed and Central Asia rediscovered itself in the comity of nations with the dawn of the twenty first century. But after the breakup, Central Asia did not remain in the priority of the Russian foreign policy as Central Asia being considered as its natural backyard. This vacuum gave birth to the 'New Great Game', thus, the major powers-US, China, Russia and European Union (EU) involved in Central Asian geopolitics was further substantiated by Zbigniew Brzezinski. Following the geopolitical thinkers-Huntington and Mackinder, Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book entitled "The Grand Chessboard: American Primary and its Geostrategic Imperatives" (1997), renamed the Eurasian Heartland as a Chessboard. According to him, five countries-France, Germany, Russia, China, and India are as "pivots" to control the Eurasian landmass. For the given rich mineral resources and its geostrategic location, the 'pivots' have been making efforts to control Central Asia for their vested interests. Though, India and Central Asia had been sharing historical and civilizational relations, even after its independence, the fact is that Central Asia did not find pivotal place in Indian foreign policy. Some perceptible scholars are of the opinion that during the last decade, India has been outfoxed from Central Asia because of the geopolitics of the region. In the very beginning of the 21st century, India realized this diplomatic mistake and redesigned its foreign policy under various frameworks vis-à-vis Central Asia. Connect Central Asia Policy is one of them. Against this background, the main focus of this paper is to find out how geopolitical and geostrategic interests of India are being effected in Central Asia; how India is being outfoxed from Central Asia; how and to what extent Connect Central Asia Policy be helpful in engaging India more positively and constructively with Central Asia to check its outfoxing? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I argue that after having experienced a distinctly cool relationship throughout most of the post-war period and for the 10 years following the end of the Cold War, India and North Atlantic Organization (NATO) are now gradually moving towards each other. Indeed, during the past decade, NATO's 'out-of-area' operations have taken it eastwards from the Mediterranean, while India's 'extended neighbourhood' framework has brought it westwards from the Indian subcontinent. This has created a geopolitical overlap between these two actors, most notably in Afghanistan but also elsewhere in the Indian Ocean. Common advocacy of liberal democracy and overt concerns over jihadist destabilization have brought these two actors together. In NATO's post-Cold War search for relevance and India's post-Soviet search for partners, they have found each other. Unstated potential concerns over China are also a feature in this strategic convergence. However, while NATO has adopted a flexible range of 'Partnership' frameworks, India's sensitivity on retaining 'strategic autonomy' will limit their cooperation to informal ad hoc arrangements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How is the world organized at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century? What are the structure and the character of the geopolitical order in place today? What elements it is constituted of? How it took form? How can it evolve in the future? What are the factors driving these processes? Those question marks have been at the center of the problematic and the thematic of international relations since its inception as a discipline and emerge forcefully today in view that the international scheme that took form after the Cold War was over has been modified over the last decade by a series of events that have altered its structure and working dynamics. The purpose of this paper is to make an effort aimed at finding an answer to them in reference to the order in place today, and stress the implications of the resulting findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Latin America, post–Cold War ideas about defence and security broke down geopolitical logics that had been historically accepted by Latin American armed forces. These ideas also provoked a partial downfall of one component of their traditional strategic representations: This geopolitical determinism explained post-colonial conflicts as being due to historical influences and to disputes about power and territory. Paradoxically, national frontiers are emerging and are threatened by destabilisation. The new conception of ‘the border’ and its revalorisation at the strategic level must be related not only to the character of post–Cold War threats but also to the new security vision prevailing in the international system. This vision cannot be separated from US strategic representations, which emphasise the “global” character of risks and security mechanisms. Thus, it appears that the transnational dimension of the strategic representations promoted by the United States does not correspond to the traditional concept of national territory. This concept, which is the basis of the reshuffling of military architecture in Latin America after the Cold War, is rooted in a representation of the region that has been present since the 1940s but was systematised under the Democratic Clinton Administration in the 1990s and further developed under the presidency of Republican George W. Bush in the early twenty-first century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]