In contrast to the pervasive confidence that the development of nuclear weapons ensures peace and stability by making wars too expensive to fight for, South Asian strategic stability has drifted into nasty security competition through arms race with an episodical crisis that continues at the sub-conventional level. Deterrence studies that were relegated to the bins of history soon after the end of the Cold War received a renewed interest of scholars on the subject since the demonstration of deterrent capabilities by South Asian rivals in 1998. A new wave of deterrence studies has developed in the current multipolar world with some scholars adopting Cold War models of analysis in the contemporary realms of South Asia, whereas other are attempting new analytical approaches. This article aims to offer a fresh look at how to provide a clear concept of strategic stability, how strategic stability is applicable in contemporary South Asia and what the recent crisis between India and Pakistan being interwoven with terrorism tells us about crisis stability between the two countries under the shadows of nuclear weapons.
Concomitant with China's rise as a major economic powerhouse over the last few decades has been its greater presence around the globe. More so is in the area of the maritime domain where China is currently competing with both global and regional powers for greater access such that is has successfully created what is known as the Chinese 'string of pearls'. While Beijing has constantly argued that its activities are peaceful and aimed at securing its Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) and ensuring its trade, commerce and energy security, however, not all the global and regional players are convinced. Over the last two decades, China has been pushing for greater access and presence into the Indian Ocean region such that it has created much uneasiness and anxiety in New Delhi and Washington. The aim of this article is therefore to analyze Chinese activities and strategic ambitions in the Indian Ocean region. While the Chinese policy of creating its string of pearls is not solely confined to the Indian Ocean region alone, this article will, however, focus on the said ocean for at least three reasons. Firstly, the Indian Ocean is important for it serves as the bridge between Asia and the world, and secondly, it has witnessed heightened Chinese activity over the last decade such that it is indeed one of China's major focal point on the global stage. Last, but not least, it has also became, to some extent, a pawn in the rivalries between major global and regional players, namely the United States (U.S.), China and India. Apart from that, this article will also consider Chinese activities in the states of the
What is the European Union (EU) trying to achieve in Myanmar? Is the EU speaking with one voice and acting collectively (and does it really matter)? Were the sanctions lifted too early? These are some of the key questions surrounding the current role of the EU in relation to Myanmar. A close analysis of the EU's Myanmar policy demonstrates that, while clearly driven by normative convictions, the EU's approach and posture vis-à-vis Myanmar since 1988 has been more reactive than carefully planned and strategised. Whereas in the period from 1988 until early 2011 the EU's Myanmar policy frequently fluctuated between a “carrot” and a “stick” approach, depending on the circumstances, since 2011 the emphasis has been on carrots, which signifies an important shift in the application of normative power. The EU has generously provided large amounts of aid intended mainly to assist Myanmar in its transition. This approach does not seem to factor in the possibility of backward steps and is based on a scenario of ongoing, linear political and economic reforms. This optimism is shared by both the European Commission and most EU member states. However, the similar perceptions and compatible normative foundations on which their policies are based have so far not translated into well-coordinated and coherent strategies and development cooperation programmes.
While Myanmar is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country, the Bamar (Burmese) nonetheless comprise almost 70 percent of the country’s total population. Of the many ethnic groups in Myanmar, the Muslim Rohingya, are mainly centered in the Rakhine (Arakan) State, which borders Bangladesh. Although the position of these people as a distinct ethnic group was recognized by the U Nu government (1948-1962), the introduction of the 1982 Citizenship Act by the country’s military government, however, have rendered them stateless. Subject to a wide range of systematic human rights violations by the Myanmar authorities, the Rohingya have often sought refugee in Bangladesh as well as many other countries in the region and beyond. Whilst most like-minded states and international organizations have duly responded to the issue, especially by providing humanitarian assistance and criticizing the Myanmar junta for its treatment of the Rohingya, however, much remains to be done to find a permanent solution to the issue of statelessness of these people. The purpose of this article is therefore to analyze responses from some segments of the international community over the issue of human rights violations on the Rohingya and the resulting exodus of these people from Myanmar. As such, this article will examine responses from Bangladesh, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the regional community, the United States, the European Union (EU), the United Nations (UN) and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
This paper assists in understanding contesting technological capabilities and doctrinal modification between India and Pakistan that are drifting South Asia towards instability, leaving the nuclear deterrence in a dark abyss. Hawks on both sides of the nuclear armed rivals are unprecedentedly chanting threats of nuclear war. More bothersome is the indications of shifting the Indian policy of No First Use (NFU), calls for doctrinal modifications and counterforce temptations. An Indian quest for escalation dominance and Pakistani quest for stability against India is in fact a mutual struggle beyond ‘minimum credible’ to ‘assured second strike’ capabilities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.