Mô tả
Nikilas Swanstrom, PhD Candidate, Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University The purpose in this paper is to study how the conflict management process in the South China Sea (SCS) has been conducted in order to see which strategies have proved to be most successful in reaching a solution or in decreasing the intensity of the conflict, and why. To do this, I have chosen to look into the different management styles that have been used in Asia after 1949, i.e. the so called “ASEAN Way” also referred to as the “informal” style and the “formal” management style that is proposed by the West. This division is especially interesting since the former Malaysian deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim argued in Newsweek “We need to intervene before simmering problems erupt into full-blown crises”(italics added). After criticism from Thailand and Philippines concerning the Anwar incident in Malaysia, where Anwar was charged for misuse of power and sexual misconduct cleavages between the ASEAN emerged. A political demand for an increase in the formality and open criticism and break with the non-interventionist rule inside the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) developed. The ASEAN Hanoi Summit that followed the declaration proved to be more open and for the first time members criticized each other openly in what priorly was considered internal affairs
