Southeast Asia is made up of closely intertwined nations. There is shared history and common

War is not a common phenomenon anymore after the post cold war era. According a research conducted on active armed conflict across the world at the Uppsala University in Sweden, of all the 101 active armed conflicted between the late 80s and mid 90s, only six were actually between two different states (Solenberg &Wallensteen, 1997). These statistics clearly indicates that the conflict in today's world is more internal and ethnic based.

Meanwhile, Australia has recognized the significance of ASEAN in assuring Australia’s foreign regional and domestic security. There are certain institutions such as the East Asia Summit and ASEAN Regional Forum (Harvey, 2015). In recent years, Australia has worked robustly with the EAS to ensure its security and interests are protected. In return, the EAS has not only supported in regional security but it also has

Key factors in weakening violent Islamist groups in Southeast Asia have been: the generally moderate nature of Islam in Southeast Asia; a relatively high level of economic development; the existence of democratic political systems in many affected countries; the miscalculation of JI’s radical wing in killing Muslim civilians in their bomb attacks; and the ability of most national governments to marshal the resources and public support to root out the most violent groups. One possible exception to these observations is the southern

The following wars have been divided between 1.) Wars caused by ethnic issues and 2.) Wars not caused by ethnic issues. After determining the cause of war, I will focus on particular aspects of the war predominantly the death toll, how long the war lasted, if core states got involved in the conflict and if so how far removed were they from the region of conflict. Finally and most importantly, I will compare and contrast the two types of wars (1.) Wars caused by ethnic conflict and 2.) Wars not caused by ethnic conflict) and determine how these wars were ultimately resolved. More specifically, I am determining if wars caused by ethic issues are resolved by internal means or whether they are resolved by external factors such as core states or states that have an invested interest in the matter.

This essay will address important question of “what are key triggers of violent conflict in the Middle East and Asia and how can the Intelligence Community (IC) improve its collection and analytical efforts in regard to these issues?”

The process of decolonization in Southeast Asia was not totally a violent struggle due to the divers natures of the process of decolonization and the fight for independence in the various Southeast Asian nations. Furthermore, although the struggle for the withdrawal of the colonial masters was lined with bloodshed and violence, there were still moments in which peaceful negotiations managed to take place, rendering the process of decolonization in Southeast Asia a largely violent struggle as one cannot say that it was totally violent due to the differing situations that occurred in the different Southeast Asian nations during the process of

Understanding security issues and giving it a specific definition has been much debated over for many years. This is because theorists of international relations look at security from different perspectives just like they examine the concept of polarity and power from different perspectives. The argument the essay poses is that the concept of polarity can be useful in helping us to understand security issues and this is because by looking at the three different types of polarity, it can demonstrate to us how the security level of states differentiates. In addition, the essay will also state that the neorealist perception on polarity is more convincing in today’s world in comparison to the view that the liberalist and constructivist has. In order to support the argument, the essay will firstly look at the concept of security itself and the views that some theorists take on it. Secondly, it will look at the concept of power. Thirdly, it will look at the three different types of polarity which are; a) multipolarity, b) bipolarity and c) unipolarity. Fourthly, it will look at how polarity was before, during and after the Cold War and following that it will look at the neorealist view on polarity in comparison to the constructivist and liberalist. In addition to the above, it will look at how China is rising.

In this memo I argue that Myanmar is likely to be a greater risk of political violence. From the theoretical perspective, there is a curvilinear relationship between the level of democracy and political violence; from the empirical perspective, the problems with legislation system, minority and religion, and natural resources lead to aggravation of violence.

Security communities have been classified into two basic types, an amalgamated and pluralist form. In an amalgamated community, there would be two or more independent political states merged and form one large unit that is in charged and governed by only one common government, such as the USA. On the other hand, under the pluralistic form of security community, state members are also came together for negotiation and discussion over political issues, but formally retaining under a sovereign government, for example, the EU (European Union), the Canada-US and Mexico, and ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations). Base on early postwar researches and analysis, pluralistic communities have been extremely vigorous and success as the process of formation is considered to be simpler in attaining and preserving than their counterparts.

Conflict is a relatively new concept in development, and the relation between the two is complex and remains not entirely understood. However, and given that the correlation among insecurity and development is clear, there is a general consensus in arguing that development cannot happen without security. In 2015, end of the Millennium Development Goals cycle, fragile and conflict-affected countries are lagging far behind other developing countries in meeting these goals. Thus, the success of the MDGs is threatened and it depends, to a great extent, in the way conflict is addressed. We do believe that including a security-related target in the post-2015 agenda is essential

Throughout history, South Asia has struggled to protect its’ borders from both foreigners and their own states. India, especially, has been known for it’s long history of dealing with security issues which has weakened the state. Conflicts risen from affairs such as the Partition have caused civilian battles that India struggled to contain. Other regional conflicts such as the Kashmir conflict and Indo-Pakistani war has led to India’s involvement and struggle to protect their own borders and welfare of their people. India has been forced to deal with maintaining stability not only within their own state but between themselves and other states as well. Despite India’s strain to provide welfare and security for their people, superpowers such as the United States and China view it as a legitimate state and worth having a relationship with. The dynamic of India’s insecurity yet legitimacy as a global force has coined the country to be known as a “strong-weak” state. India has the ability to be seen as a dominating state not only internationally, but in South Asia as well if they were able to overcome their security issues. The multidimensional insecurity of India is the main reason the state is a strong-weak state.

In the 21st century, it is inevitable for states to make a diplomatic and strategic decision without being influenced by defence capabilities of their enemies and friends. Post World War II the approach adopted by India, the Philippines and Switzerland are defensive in nature. The Swiss National Redoubt and Indian Sundarji were developed within these states, while the Philippines strategy was based on foreign military dependency. For all these three countries their approach is greatly influenced by geography, economy, their history of existence (culture) and aggressive neighbours. Since the art of war is changing significantly, these states are finding themselves in a vulnerable

The first paragraph of this essay will explain the concept of security dilemma, security issues in the constructivist approach and the construction of identity in international relations. The second paragraph will introduce ASEAN and its identity. The paragraph before last will mention the interaction of the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America in the region which resulted in a security dilemma in ASEAN, then the last section will be the conclusion and the summary of answers to the aforementioned.

ASEAN has played a key role in managing the disputes over the South China Sea (SCS) as part of its commitment to promote peace and stability in the region. The disputes were related to territorial claims over Spratly and Paracel islands and maritime boundaries involving four ASEAN members, namely Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam as well as the People’s Republic of China (and Taiwan). The potential escalation of conflict to open war in the region, due to military build up by China and external intervention by the United States, puts ASEAN into a central position to play its role as an ‘honest broker’ or mediator. The stalemate of discussion over the SCS disputes since the 2012 ASEAN Summit should be an indication for ASEAN to revitalize its role and to start taking serious steps in a diplomatic manner to provide peaceful solution for the conflicts.

In those settings, making people feel safe and secure and (re)-building confidence between the State and its people is vital for sustainable peace and development. In different contexts, from Gen Pangilinan’s lecture, I was informed that SSR can even prevent conflicts or crises from emerging or resurging and it is also a process that many States undertake on a regular basis to respond to emerging threats or potential internal or external pressures.