Latin America And East Asia Attempts At Diversification

Many efforts have been spend on investigating increasing interdependence within the Pacific Rim. However, the dynamic development of relations between Latin America und East Asia in the last two decades have not attracted much academic attention. In order to fill this gap the authors of this volume present one of the first encompassing analysis of political and economic relations between Latin America and East Asia.

This book analyses the economic, political and socio-cultural relations between Asia and Latin America and examines their growing importance in international relations.

This book has two mutually reinforcing aims/parts. The first aim is to contribute to a more productive debate between different theoretical standpoints. There is surprisingly little theoretical and conceptual debate in this burgeoning field, which is one major reason for the failure to fully grasp the diversity of today’s interregionalism. Too often theorists speak past each other, without really engaging with alternative theoretical perspectives or competing research results. Indeed, this book constitutes the first systematic attempt to bring together leading theories and theorists of interregionalism. Leading scholars from around the world develop their own distinctive theoretical perspectives on interregionalism, with a particular emphasis on the dynamic relationship between regionalism and interregionalism. These highly acclaimed theorists have all been associated over the years with a variety of disciplines, institutions, schools and debates and so bring a rich set of insights and connections to this pioneering project. The second part of the book ‘unpacks’ and problematises the region, the driving actors and institutions that are engaged in interregional relations. There is a strong tendency in the field to treat regions as coherent units actors in an interregional relationship, and such simplified notions about ‘regions’ and ‘regional organisations’ necessarily result in superficial and misleading understandings of interregionalism. This part of the book connects the theoretical discussion in the first part with a manageable empirical object.

The last quarter of the twentieth century was a period of economic crises, increasing indebtedness as well as financial instability for Latin America and most other developing countries; in contrast, China showed amazingly high growth rates during this time and has since become the third largest economy in the world. Based on several case studies, this volume assesses how China's rise - one of the most important recent changes in the global economy - is affecting Latin America's national politics, political economy and regional and international relations. Several Latin American countries benefit from China's economic growth, and China's new role in international politics has been helpful to many leftist governments' efforts in Latin America to end the Washington Consensus. The contributors to this thought provoking volume examine these and the other causes, effects and prospects of Latin America's experiences with China's global expansion from a South - South perspective.

This book examines the role of external powers in Latin America in the 21st century. Non-traditional partners have significantly increased their political and economic engagement with the continent. Five key questions arise: why has this surge taken place; when has it happened; in which regions and sectors is it mostly felt; what is the Latin American perspective; and what are the actual results? The book analyses 16 case studies: the United States, the European Union, China, Russia, Japan, Canada, India, Turkey, Iran, Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, the ASEAN countries, South Africa and Australia. The spectrum of existing explanations in the literature spans from neo-extractivism to South-South cooperation. This volume places them in context and proposes a more multifaceted approach, stressing a combination of systemic factors and internal dynamics both in Latin America and in the external partner countries. Geopolitics still matters and so do nation states, their interests and leaders. Ultimately, this surge in engagement has largely reproduced past patterns. Are new partners that different from the old ones?

The current research aims to provide analytical understandings on the costs and benefits of Korean unification from political, social, and economic aspects. Upon the two years of earlier works, we constructed an analytical model encompassing both spatial and temporal dimensions of the unification process, and built comprehensive architecture, ‘the Guiding Type of Unification.’ Based on this model, we have broaden the scope of the research by collecting diverse perspectives from the worldwide experts of the leading countries. We expect to observe the global trends of world governance. Indeed, the increasing importance of Group of Twenty (G‐20) countries in managing global problems reflects both political and social aspects of the changes occurring in global governance. Another reason for this would be South Korea’s diversified international relations in the recent years. Hence, it seems necessary to take a closer look on the international dimensions of Korean unification. In this vein, we requested thirteen experts of the leading countries to express their opinions on Korean unification. In order to collect international perspectives in a coordinated manner, scholars were provided with a guideline to include their perspectives on the expected effects of Korean Unification and the potential roles of their countries during and after the process. Participants were also asked to present candid implications for Korean unification. Argentina, whose food supply is abundant, laid stress on providing assistance in terms of food security during the unification. Australia, who has special concerns in Asian security, suggested a comprehensive support not only as a mediator but also as one of the U.S. alliance. Due to remote distance to Asia, Brazil is relatively less affected by the unification. Brazil, however, expressed that it has a keen interest in transmission of its experience regarding nuclear issues with Argentina. Similar to Brazil’s stance, the effects of the unification influence is indirect to Canada. Nevertheless, Canada could play a role in providing humanitarian assistance, and could be a potential destination for North Korean refugee resettlement. France, one of the most influential members in the European Union and the United Nations, made a suggestion to promote institution building in East Asia that can promote stability in the region. Germany, the only country who had experienced unification, presented its interest in participating actively in the process of Korean unification through public and private sectors. India assumed that the unification of Korea leads to the denuclearization of the peninsula, and would see this as a positive sign for stability of the region, since it would limit or end North Korea’s nuclear weapon transmits with Pakistan. Indonesia could contribute to regional peace and stability through ASEAN and its extensions as South Korea can call upon Indonesia to engage in the peace process. Italy, who especially pointed out the role of European Union as a whole, is well-poised to contribute to economic and social development with North Korea through technical assistance. Mexico can, and expressed its willingness to play an active role in the unification process through international organizations. South Africa, who had been successful in national reconciliation and denuclearization, is very likely to provide its experience and can be a strong voice for the NPT and arms control in the international society. Advocating South Korea’s policy in Korean unification, Turkey explicitly mentioned that it will side with Seoul if there is a possible conflict in the peninsula. The author emphasized that the international community must be well-informed on how Korean unification will take place. Last but not least, the United Kingdom author suggested that Koreans will have to resolve emotional conflicts for reconciliation. Considering how both Koreas have dealt educational matters concerning the division of the peninsula, this may face a major challenge in the future generation. Thirteen countries’ diversely manifested positions on the unifying process are indicative of perceptual change that the issue of Korean unification is no longer a regional issue, but an international one, in which multiple actors have their own stakes within. Upon the previously suggested implications, we categorized the countries into three groups: bystanders, supporters, and interveners. This categorization reflects the assertiveness of each country, or coercive level of each country’s assistance instrumented towards the two Koreas during the unifying process. In the conclusion, based on our final analysis, we provided recommendations for the policy makers. First, diversified diplomacy creates an amicable international environment for unification policies beyond the power politics of the Four Powers. Second, activation of leading countries’ roles is strategically advantageous to activate the meaningful roles of these leading countries to minimize the Four Powers’ concerns. Third, emphasizing the formation of multilateral system would provide leading countries with an additional motivation to actively participate in the unification process. Furthermore, multilateral efforts to achieve Korean unification are also expected to contribute to the furtherance of democratic elements in the dynamics of international relations as a whole. Fourth, it is now high time for us to conduct more public diplomacy by devising new and creative methodologies. The global research project of this kind could be one of the most effective public diplomatic tools. Lastly, the unification between two Koreas can no longer be considered as a regional issue within Northeast Asia since others, including the leading countries, conceive their national interests along the process of unification on the Korean peninsula in diverse ways. Overall, thirteen countries’ recommendations underline the significance of collective efforts in addressing the unification process and suggest South Korea to learn lessons from the experience that they have undergone in the past. Keywords: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom, Expectation, Role, Effect ------------- CONTENTS ------------- Acknowledgments Abstract Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION Ⅱ. EFFECTS AND ROLES 1. Argentina 2. Australia 3. Brazil 4. Canada 5. France 6. Germany 7. India 8. Indonesia 9. Italy 10. Mexico 11. South Africa 12. Turkey 13. United Kingdom Ⅲ. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 1. Expected Effect 2. Potential Roles 3. Classification of Leading Countries Ⅳ. CONCLUSION References Recent Publications

The European Union and Interregionalism is the most comprehensive study of interregionalism to date, providing a vigorous analysis of its role and functions in the architecture of global governance and of the place of qualitative differences between regional actors in shaping interregional relationships. This book should be read by all those engaged in consideration of interregional structures.

This is an open access book. Relations between Brazil and Japan progressed dynamically in the 1960s and 1970s, centering on the substantial complementarity between Japan’s needing primary goods to sustain high economic growth and Brazil’s seeking non-hegemonic investment to invigorate its resource potential. Now that this complementarity has lost significance, the two countries are restructuring their relations to protect shared values of democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and the need for maintaining good relations with both China and the United States. Analyzed here is the development of this renewed bilateral relationship in multiple directions: productivity, global environment and health, migration, and triangular cooperation in third countries’ development. Facing the prospect of a declining population, Japan may become more open to international migration, but the experience with Japanese-descent Brazilian workers since the amendment of the migration control law in 1990 presents many lessons and challenges for the symbiosis of multicultural groups. Brazil, for its part, needs to address social inequality. To this end, it is fundamental to improve the quality of work. This book argues that Brazil and Japan can benefit from cooperation in managing those country-specific issues. It also discusses ways that Brazil and Japan can profit from coordinating action on global problems such as greenhouse gas reduction, mitigation of tropical diseases, healthy community building, and high-quality infrastructure for poverty reduction.