The neoliberalization of security and violence in Cambodia’s transition more

8 The neoliberalization of security and violence in Cambodia’s transition Simon Springer Security should mean freedom from the fear of direct and indirect physical harm, defined in military, criminal, political and economic terms. This chapter differs from these conventional interpretations in adding that it also means more than the preservation of the market, a position reflected in the actions of Cambodia’s donor community, in particular the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). While drawing on postmodernist concerns for governmentality, the theoretical edifice here is rooted in a Marxian political economy approach,1 offering a skeptical perspective on calls for security from the international financial institutions and powerful bilateral donors. In examining the political economy of Cambodia’s recent triple transition – from war to peace, from command economy to free market economics, and from authoritarianism to democracy – I argue that donor-promoted notions of security have been rhetorical in terms of concern for humanitarianism. Instead, Cambodia’s donor community has focused on security as it relates to the preservation of market principles. Complementing the preceding chapters, I offer an opportunity for critical reflection on the theory and praxis of the human security agenda. In particular, for collaborative action to retain the emancipatory potential of a freedom-fromviolence agenda in pushing the human security doctrine forward, a cynical vigilance is required of both the actors involved, and their degree of involvement in any collaborative effort. As the discourse of human security has been inundated by the neoliberal fervor of governments, international financial institutions, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) alike, it has been rendered nearly hollow by the inherent tensions of neoliberal ideology. Cutting to the crux of the security discourse promoted by Cambodia’s donor community reveals it as deceptive, having little to do with the prevention of violence, a defining feature of human security. Rather, what I have termed the ‘security pretext’ effectively translates into acceptance and promotion of the political status quo, as secured hegemony for the reigning political party means a stabilized marketplace. Members of the international community, including donors, are viewed as somewhat complacent to state violence in transitional settings, so long as the state remains committed to a type of governmentality based on market reforms. The authoritarian actions of transitional governments can be understood as resulting from their inability to respond to the demands of the citizenry in 126 Human Security in East Asia meaningful ways, a position fostered by prescribed ‘rollbacks’ that remove the state from the workings of the economy. The rolling back of the state is a rationale of neoliberal governance, not an informed choice of the autonomous agents that comprise the nation. Thus, we find those marginalized by neoliberal reform in continuous struggle to have their voices heard, which is frequently met with state violence when expressed as dissent. As inequality sharpens under neoliberalism, citizens are more likely to express dismay with particular characteristics of neoliberalization, most prominently the privatization of essential social provisions such as education and healthcare. Recourse to violence thus becomes one of the few available options to governments weakened by neoliberal reform as they attempt to retain legitimacy. Approval of such violence is never given explicitly by international donors, yet violence is implicitly accepted as necessary for maintaining the ‘hollowed-out’ shell of the neoliberalized state, which in turn preserves the market.2 I challenge this dominant discourse of security, recognizing unscripted and embodied individual representation – something the security pretext seeks to marginalize when manifested in a form other than ‘consumer’ – as essential for empowering the people, furthering democratization and enhancing human security. The chapter begins with a critical examination of the human security discourse, illuminating the potential danger involved in sharing some theoretical imperatives with neoliberalism. I emphasize collaboration as having more than one context, and if inattentive to the question of who is actually collaborating, the potential for collaborative action may be subsumed by neoliberal orthodoxy becoming partiality-based, leaving the honourable cause and fundamental elements of human security unaddressed. I then turn to the empirical experience of Cambodia’s transitional political economy, where I explain authoritarian tendencies in Cambodia as a reality of maintaining both domestic and international political motivations. Domestically, security is premised on maintaining the hegemony of the incumbent regime, a concern that shapes the extraneous imperative, which has a stake in preserving such hegemony inasmuch as maintaining security is crucial for the free flow of capital and a functioning market economy. I make no allusions to the enormous and politically complex tasks of identifying concrete alternatives to neoliberalism and Cambodia’s current predicament of aid dependency, as each is beyond the scope of a single chapter. My main purpose instead is to question the potential of neoliberalism to ensnare the human security discourse. The task of (re)imagining and (re)constructing Cambodian society should rightfully be an ongoing, protean and democratic process, enacted through collective will and empowered by the unanimity of Cambodians themselves. It is this type of solidarity-based collaborative action, founded on struggle and protest, that may open pathways toward change that will be meaningful, and hence lasting, for Cambodians. Such a positive incarnation of collaboration as grassroots, radical democracy has the potential to undo Cambodia’s ‘actually existing’ version of neoliberalism-as-kleptocracy.3 Neoliberalization of security and violence in Cambodia 127 Neoliberalizing human security The human security doctrine has emerged as a response to the problems presented by failed states, where the United Nations Development Program’s (UNDP) 1994 Human Development Report is credited with introducing the term into the vernacular of academic and policy discourses (see other chapters in this volume).4 The basic argument presented by the report is that human emancipation is concomitant to international security, whereby ensuring the protection of the individual requires mitigating the inequalities and social tensions that might later erupt into conflict. The Commission on Human Security (CHS) has adopted a similar definition.5 The concept of human security embraces an expansive agenda, one that William Bain contends ‘enlarges significantly the scope and substance of the word security – that includes issues such as environmental degradation, human rights, equity, human potential, health, children, labour standards, narcotic trafficking, organised crime, small arms proliferation, religion, ethnicity, gender, identity, governance, civil society, and internal conflict’.6 Compiling a list of this sort provides a useful initial step, but may be criticized for not providing a conceptual definition, failing to offer a method of evaluating the components of the list, and attempting to do too much.7 In spite of such critiques, and in accepting a conceptual definition of human security as broadly concerned with reducing the potential for conflict and existing inequalities – social, political and, importantly, economic – we need to allow for a significant degree of flexibility. Human security represents a complex picture, one that is as protean as the human experience itself, and consequently it can be assured only through the adaptability and continuous negotiation of democratic means. Democracy is the crux of human security. While disagreements about the meaning of human security are frequent, questions of timing have not been problematized to the same degree. Advocates point to the post-Cold War security environment, where the deepening of globalization has been said to produce ‘new information networks and media capacity, which have exacerbated the problems faced by failed and failing states, and which have produced new forces for democratisation’.8 What such accounts fail to identify is the potential for globalization in the form of neoliberal economics to aggravate the difficulties facing states in terms of their ability to respond to the demands of the citizenry due to privatization, deregulation and withdrawal from most areas of social provision.9 Such prescribed rollbacks undermine human security, as neoliberalism’s much touted assumption of the ‘trickle-down effect’ – which holds that poverty can be eliminated through secured free markets and free trade – has failed to materialize. According to the UNDP, ‘the income gap between the fifth of the world’s people living in the richest countries and the fifth in the poorest was 74 to 1 in 1997, up from 60 to 1 in 1990 and 30 to 1 in 1960’.10 Importunate inequality is such a persistent feature of neoliberalization as to be regarded as structural to the whole project. Thus neoliberalism is a doctrine concerned with the restoration of class power where it exists, and its creation where it does not.11 128 Human Security in East Asia In some ways, the timing of the emergent human security agenda is not surprising in that it coincides with the post-Cold War global ‘triumph’ of capitalism and the associated drive toward its current neoliberal incarnation. This is because neoliberalism’s exacerbation of inequality runs counter to the notion of human security ascribed to it here, where only a society free from extreme socioeconomic and political hierarchy, guaranteeing a decent livelihood and living standard for all, can ensure sustained human security. How the agenda is operationalized is still very questionable given its related interests with neoliberalism over reconfiguring the relationship between state and citizen, the associated push for individualism, and the shared potential for atomization. Invoking political slogans to mask specific strategies beneath vague rhetorical devices is commonplace realpolitik, and thus ‘[a]ny political movement that holds individual freedoms to be sacrosanct is vulnerable to incorporation into the neoliberal fold’.12 This is the precarious position the human security doctrine now finds itself in, as questionable global initiatives are increasingly justified by the ethics of human security.13 Submergence to the neoliberal tide is made clear in the World Bank’s working paper that links human security to poverty levels in four Asian countries, including Cambodia, where continued structural adjustment is the order of the day.14 Neoliberal pragmatism is also evident in the CHS manifesto, which states, ‘Markets and trade are basic to economic growth and … use of markets will be required to generate the kinds of growth and human security measures that an expanding human population needs.’15 The human security doctrine underscores how the state has marginalized and oppressed many groups, thus allowing its proponents to bring greater force to arguments about the need to lessen the influence of entrenched state elites in the processes of development.16 Herein rests a potentially problematic feature of human security, insofar as ‘it raises the moral claims of individual human beings above those of the communities in which they live’.17 This is precisely why human security is emerging as a rallying cry for neoliberals everywhere, because neoliberalism rests on the idea of rejecting both direct state control and all forms of social solidarity. Through freedom in the marketplace, each individual is held responsible for her or his own actions and wellbeing, leaving little room for shared aims and the collectivism required by democracy. In this sense, human security and neoliberalism both pose questions of governmentality, and both envision a similar solution as they make the same fundamental arguments regarding the role the state should play in guaranteeing freedom and development. While much of the existing literature tends to interpret neoliberal orthodoxy as a political and economic philosophy, there is relatively little understanding of neoliberalism as a political–economic practice relying on a new construction of citizen-subjects.18 Thus we must come to grips with the tension between neoliberalism as a theory and the actual pragmatics of neoliberalization.19 Following Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality offers considerable insight in this regard, as power is de-centered and the rationalities of governance take place at a distance where ‘the conduct of conduct’ is not dependent on juridical or administrative apparatuses of the state.20 Instead, the ‘art of governance’ takes place at numerous sites, through an array of ‘techniques of power’ designed to observe, Neoliberalization of security and violence in Cambodia 129 shape and control the behavior of individuals situated in a range of institutional domains such as the prison, factory or school.21 Accordingly, neoliberalism is governmentality par excellence, as the shift from government (state power on its own) to governance (a broader configuration of state and central elements of civil society) has been marked under neoliberalism.22 In the neoliberal art of governance, it is the newly atomized and now fiercely individualistic citizen-subjects to whom the theory must pander in order to allow governance at a distance to continue to operate. The rhetorical employment of the human security discourse by entrenched powerful state actors and international institutions works hard to accomplish the task, as few would question the benevolence of an agenda that espouses freedom from want, freedom from fear, and freedom to take action on one’s own behalf as its primary tenets,23 especially in a post-Cold War context where leviathan fears continue to show much resilience. Neoliberalism is, by definition, a global governmentality, and it is therefore unsurprising that the UN represents the originator and primary practitioner of the human security discourse. Given the ever-increasing cries for help born of exponentially growing inequality, the UN has actively sought collaboration on human security with the World Bank and IMF, as well as national governments, NGOs and regional institutions.24 In East Asia, few governments or scholars showed immediate interest in human security, concluding that the agenda and its premises were inconsistent with the region’s strong notions of government (as opposed to governance) where states continued to be viewed as the best providers of security, and absolute sovereignty and non-interference are ferociously guarded principles.25 In contrast, civil society has been quick to respond to this call, as the human security agenda provides a powerful argument against the state-centered model of development that has dominated the region in recent decades. Amid such calls for a new division of responsibility between state and nonstate actors in political and economic development are arguments for more international accountability in procuring human security, whether or not individual states agree with this situation.26 The potential for new modes of imperialist intervention is apparent. While typically collaboration is referred to as the notion of working jointly with others, the term has another, more sinister context. MerriamWebster’s Collegiate Dictionary provides the following two alternative definitions for collaboration: 1) ‘to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one’s country and especially an occupying force’; and 2) ‘to cooperate with an agency or instrumentality with which one is not immediately connected’.27 These connotations make perfect sense in the context of how the human security discourse is currently deployed in feeding into a neoliberal mode of governance. Accordingly, we can identify two visions of collaborative action. The first is a solidarity-based version, which is a grassroots attempt to radicalize democracy through visible struggles and protests launched in public space. Such an approach implies a significant amount of uncertainty, and there will inevitably be innumerable mistakes, hiccups and setbacks along the way to improving human security, but the frame of democracy advocated here – a radicalized and processual one, 130 Human Security in East Asia where democracy is a grassroots and incomplete project, always in a process of becoming – sees this as the only legitimate form of democratic action inasmuch as all other forms remove those most affected, through representation or otherwise, from direct ownership of the democratic process. My position, following critical scholars such as Chantal Mouffe and C. Douglas Lummis,28 is that if we really believe in democracy – the gateway to lasting human security – then the merging of demos (the people) and kratia (power), or radical democracy, is the only genuine incarnation. The underlying concern of solidarity-based collaborative action is empowerment, emancipation from tyranny (whether of the state or the market), and improved human security through tangible democratic means. This is the collective establishing their own terms, on their own terms. Contrasting this democratically virtuous conception of collaborative action is a more authoritarian version, where a bias for any actions that will preserve, enhance or deepen the penetration of the market is adopted in a one-size-fits-all-styled prescriptive approach. Neoliberalism is the lynchpin upon which a partiality-based notion of collaborative action turns. In this context, we should rightly ask to what extent the now orthodox neoliberal governmentality and its associated economic reforms have been successful in increasing meaningful employment, distributing resources evenly, and ensuring equal access to fundamental provisions such as healthcare and education, which each lay at the heart of conflict alleviation. The answer is bleak, yet such questioning is mandatory if we are to conceive of human security as the reduction of socioeconomic inequalities and poverty as is commonly understood.29 Opening for business and the renewal of patron–client politics In response to the de facto privatization that crept across Cambodia since the early 1980s, and coinciding with the emerging sea change in global geopolitics, the government in Phnom Penh introduced a number of economic reforms in 1989. These reforms, consisting of changes in land tenure, tax and marketing policies, a new investment law designed to attract foreign capital, and a separation of the state from production through the reduction of subsidies and the privatization of state-owned businesses,30 were not incidental, as the fall of the Soviet Union that same year signalled to Cambodian political elites that the communist era had ended, leaving them with little option but to embrace the free market economics of the West. Such economic liberalization also coincided with renewed interest from state leaders in the West in ending Cambodia’s three decades of civil war after ten years of indifference throughout the 1980s. Humanitarian intervention is the most arduous aspect of the human security agenda, suggesting that even when phrased as a ‘responsibility to protect’, the call for states and citizens to intervene in the affairs of neighbors has been poorly received in many parts of the world.31 The termination of the Cold War, however, reinvigorated the UN, and the newfound unity of the Security Council gave the organization the moral certitude ‘to act in a relatively large number of conflicts, and in the process raised expectations with regard to its primary responsibility Neoliberalization of security and violence in Cambodia 131 for maintaining international peace and security’.32 In this respect, although the human security doctrine was yet to be officially defined, the UN intervention in Cambodia can be understood as a litmus test of instituting human security at a global level. Through the dispatch of the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) to settle the ongoing conflict, Cambodia became the proverbial guinea pig to a rejuvenated UN. What is particularly salient here is the association between neoliberalism and what would soon become formally defined as the human security agenda, as the UN mission had as much to do with securing a footing for marketization as it did for bolstering human rights in Cambodia. With foreign capital poised at the door, awaiting conditions that would guarantee security on investments,33 economic reform became a major factor in the timing of the UN’s attempt to settle Cambodia’s ongoing civil conflict. One of the principal aspects of the proposed UN intervention was the establishment of a (neo)liberal order via Cambodia’s reconnection to the international economy.34 The demise of the Soviet Union and the 27 September 1989 exit of the Vietnamese client government meant the USA could end its policy of covert subversion in backing the Khmer Rouge, and begin engaging openly with the Phnom Penh government.35 Cambodian markets were now open for business, where logging, fishing, petroleum and tourism ventures were among the many enterprises that stood to profit. Equally, the UN proposal was an opportunity to jettison some of the guilt that surely lingered after the decade of international apathy that followed in the wake of the Khmer Rouge atrocities.36 With at least somewhat dubious motives, in 1991 the UN negotiated a settlement to the long-running civil war between the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK), consisting of Cambodian resistance groups including remnants of the Khmer Rouge, and Vietnam’s former clients, the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP).37 The signing of the Paris Peace Agreements on 23 October 1991 marked the official beginning of Cambodia’s triple transition, a process initially overseen by UNTAC, which was charged with disarming the warring factions and creating a ‘neutral political environment’ for future ‘free and fair’ elections, laying the groundwork in which a new constitution would be ratified to included human rights and basic freedoms.38 In early 1992, Sophal Ear suggests Cambodia began ‘normalising relations with the developed world and accepting large amounts of aid in the form of grants and loans from bilateral and multilateral sources … with the idea of becoming fully reintegrated into the global economy’.39 Conferring the attribute of ‘normal’ to such a relationship is a problematic rendering, and can only refer to the procurement of the status quo with respect to aid dependency and debt that encumbers much of the third world. The UN’s subsequent articulation of the human security concept immediately following the UNTAC mission in the 1994 UNDP Human Development Report is neither inconsequential nor mere coincidence in this regard, as it retroactively provided the necessary language to justify intervention in the Cambodian conflict as an exclusively humanitarian concern, effectively diffusing attention away from the mission’s neoliberal imperative of opening the Cambodian marketplace to global capital. 132 Human Security in East Asia Despite signing the Paris Peace Agreements, it was not long before Cambodian authorities violated the ‘democratic’ spirit of the agreements when faced with opposition to their newly realized neoliberal mode of governance. On 17 December 1991, for instance, demonstrators consisting of both government employees and students gathered in Phnom Penh to protest privatization and high-level government corruption related to this process.40 In an early appearance of the ‘shadow state’ at work,41 government staff accused their superiors of appropriating money made from selling or leasing factories and official residences to private foreign entrepreneurs.42 The demonstrations proceeded without incident until 21 December 1991, when police beat two students.43 Over the next two days police stepped up their aggression, assaulting protesters with batons and firing their weapons into the crowds.44 By 24 December 1991, the demonstrations were dispersed, but not without bloodshed, as eight civilians had been left dead, with another 26 injured. In the days following the protests, the government imposed a curfew in Phnom Penh and passed legislation restricting permission for demonstrations it believed could lead to violence.45 This response represents both a temporal and spatial strategy to deny democracy, thus undermining human security, and ultimately functioning to preserve the social, political and economic status quo. Contrary to the prevailing perceptions of Cambodia’s donor community, the participation of government employees in the demonstrations indicated that the patronage system in the country is in fact not monolithic, and holds its own tensions and contradictions that evidently can cause public condemnation.46 The government response to such discontent, however, conveyed a strong message to Cambodians that it would not budge on its agenda of economic liberalization, presumably because those in high positions quickly realized that, via shadow state politics, they could amass extraordinary wealth whereby their position of political power was guaranteed by their rising economic power as patron–client networks were reinforced. The former communists had recognized the utility of neoliberal governmentality to the maintenance of their own elite status, and the politics of patronage were retooled to accommodate this ideological shift. For Cambodian economic and political elites, the move to free market economics seemed to offer ‘a matrix of resources that could shore up exclusionary loyalties within the weak state apparatus, and reduce the field of action for resistance in rural villages, as a means to strengthen the state militarily and politically’.47 In other words, economic liberalization transformed patron–clientelism, which effectively translated into the attenuation of villagers’ individual and collective freedoms, and in direct contrast to the language of the human security discourse, market principles intensified the oppression and marginalization of poor Cambodians at the hands of elites. Illustrating the contradictions between neoliberal theory and practice, marketization in Cambodia offered increased opportunities for the ruling elites to solidify their economic and political power, where neoliberalism-as-governmentality blinded citizens to the source of their domination as they came to accept the supposed virtues of neoliberal policy. That many of CPP’s high-ranking officials received education in the economically liberal West should not be overlooked,48 and the move toward free market Neoliberalization of security and violence in Cambodia 133 economics, and particularly its timing, suggests that Cambodia’s political elites were shrewd planners who intended this transformation as a strategic manoeuvre to ensure their position of power into the future, albeit requiring a new modus operandi. This was to be found in building their personal wealth, and since a Marxian political economy recognizes capitalism as an exploitative system that allows for very few ‘winners’, the newfound embracement of neoliberalism allowed elites to harden their political power vis-á-vis society. Despite rapid economic liberalization after 1991, the benefits were mostly limited to the urban areas and the elite, as Cambodian leaders seized every opportunity to enrich themselves and fortify their power bases.49 Such entrenchment was effected principally through their ability to control privatization schemes prescribed by international financial institutions, where many state-owned enterprises were either purchased by members of the ruling class themselves, or corruption and bribery were used to negotiate the purchase or lease of public land and enterprise. In the context of human security, as elites accumulated ever more of the country’s resources and land for themselves, this lent itself to a future of heightened conflict, where the contemporary situation of rampant land grabbing, numerous land-swap deals, and widespread dispossession of the poor serves as a dire testament.50 The ongoing plunder of Cambodian forests provides another example of such rampant corruption and refurbished patronage, as public lands are leased to foreign companies not only with the typical neoliberal practices of allowing tax holidays and renewable leases, but also under circumstances of bribery, where government royalties fail to reflect the value of the timber.51 Many private companies have gained access to concessions through hostile takeovers and intimidation of locals through payoffs to local military personnel, and by forming alliances with Cambodian elites enabling them to skirt laws, manipulate judicial processes and influence national legislation.52 Global Witness, Cambodia’s former official forest-crime monitor, which in 2003 was sacked under dubious circumstances of government intimidation and the complicity with international financial institutions,53 have argued that Cambodia’s kleptocratic elite generates much of its wealth via the seizure of public assets and natural resources, particularly forests, with the most powerful logging syndicate led by relatives of Prime Minister Hun Sen.54 The poor, who have become increasingly militant towards such siphoning of public resources into private hands, attempt to erect their own version of solidarity-based collaborative action by frequently mobilizing protests in hope of stemming the activities directly responsible for threatening their human security via a decline in their ability to sustain their own livelihoods. Such wholesale privatization of public resources increases the likelihood of conflict by reducing collective, democratic control, and thus serves as an example of how the partiality-based collaborative action of elites, logging companies, and those donors promoting privatization and deregulation of the economy runs counter to the stated goals of the human security agenda. The only way to reconcile these practices of pillage with the human security discourse is to mask the systemic inequality fostered by an elitist project under a wash of rhetoric stressing benevolence and equal benefit to all. 134 Human Security in East Asia Subverting democracy in the name of market security The first indication that democratization would not be as smooth as envisioned by the Paris Peace Agreements came when the CGDK’s Khmer Rouge element destroyed the prospect of moving from war to peace soon after UNTAC arrived in Cambodia. Although signatories to the Paris Peace Agreements, the Khmer Rouge ultimately rejected the plan and resumed guerrilla activities from Cambodia’s periphery when they realized that they would be unable to attain political power through democratic means as their support base had all but evaporated following years of abuse.55 This withdrawal threatened the entire UNTAC mission by throwing the disarmament proposal into disarray when other factions refused to hand over their weapons as the Khmer Rouge ignored the ceasefire. Failed disarmament subsequently had detrimental effects on the creation of a neutral political environment, as the continued strength of the military, and its control by CPP, made it impossible to disentangle CPP from the state apparatus.56 Despite the obvious threats to human security posed by resumed insurgency, the UN mission was successful in terms of the election proceeding in May 1993. Three major parties competed: CPP, headed by Hun Sen; and the two remaining CGDK elements, the Royalist Party National United Front for an Independent, Neutral, Peaceful, and Co-operative Cambodia (FUNCINPEC), headed by Prince Norodom Ranariddh; and the Buddhist Liberal Democratic Party (BLDP), headed by former Prime Minister Son Sann, who ran independently of each other.57 Regardless of one’s position on the utility of UNTAC, it is important to recognize that the UN-sponsored transition did not end the violence. The predominant characteristics of the run-up to the 1993 elections were threats, intimidation and bloodshed. Although scholars such as Michael Vickery and David Roberts deny any pattern to CPP violence during the elections,58 both have reputations as CPP apologists. More balanced analyses suggest that CPP acted with extreme brutality, killing more than 100 opposition members, and subjecting the population at large to arbitrary violence and intimidation,59 implicitly informing voters that that democracy was not attainable. CPP did everything it could to sabotage the attempt to enforce democratic political and judicial norms, reinforcing its grasp on the population by reorienting state administrative structures to party-building tasks.60 CPP appeared monolithic insofar as it maintained tight control over the bureaucracy, military, police, civil service, media and judiciary.61 While the Paris Peace Agreements stipulated there must be a separation of party and state, in reality the two moved closer together during the UNTAC period, meaning that the UN failed to implement its primary mandate of creating a neutral political environment through disentanglement of CPP and the State of Cambodia (SOC). This failure struck a blow to human security, and on the surface appeared to be detrimental to the larger project of neoliberalization as well. However, in recognizing the contradictions between the declared goals of neoliberal theory – the wellbeing of all – and its actual pragmatics – the consolidation of elite power and the procurement of markets regardless of the social consequences,62 the continued CPP/SOC nexus could provide the Neoliberalization of security and violence in Cambodia 135 necessary hegemony for securing market principles should they win the forthcoming elections. That this entire situation clearly defies the logic of the human security agenda in terms of the freedom-from-violence imperative speaks to the security pretext. For their part, the Khmer Rouge rebels terrorized the countryside using random violence, arbitrary detention, execution of SOC officials, and propaganda all aimed at preventing the elections from taking place.63 The prospect of a neutral political environment was clearly in tatters, and given the potential for political catastrophe and personal danger, voter turnout was remarkable, as UNTAC managed to persuade 95 per cent of the population to register to vote, and 90 per cent of those registered showed up at the polls.64 The turnout sent a clear message to political parties and the world: peace and democracy were overwhelmingly desired, and violence and intimidation would not be a deterrent to the Cambodian people’s realization of these goals. Yet despite this strong showing at the polls, controversy swirled over the outcome. FUNCINPEC won the election with 45.5 per cent of the votes, CPP placed second with 38.2 per cent, while the BLDP placed third with 3.8 per cent,65 and although UNTAC quickly declared the elections ‘free and fair’, Hun Sen and CPP refused to accept the results. Claiming electoral fraud, CPP threatened secession of all the land to the east of the Mekong River if removed from power, an ultimatum to which UNTAC acquiesced.66 The most common explanation for UNTAC’s acceptance of an outcome inconsistent with the 1993 election results was that it was not in a position to confront CPP militarily or to challenge the fundamental power dynamics in Cambodia.67 This, however, does not answer why then the UN felt it was appropriate to get involved in the first place. Securing a neutral political environment, a key UNTAC mandate, is an objective that is manifestly involved in changing the underlying power arrangement, where UNTAC’s failure to do so speaks to a lack of commitment. A slightly more skeptical view of the UNTAC’s docility to CPP threats suggests that Cambodia was to become the model both for the subsequent articulation of the human security agenda, and for future UN peacekeeping interventions. The Cambodian mission was thus pre-ordained as the organization’s biggest success story to date, and in order to avoid the whole operation blowing up in their face, the UN presided over the creation of an inauspicious coalition between CPP and FUNCINPEC.68 Given the neoliberal imperative of the UNTAC process, the mission can be interpreted as an exercise in realpolitik, intended to confer legitimacy upon Hun Sen’s regime as CPP offered not only the best prospect for electoral victory, but also, more importantly, for market security. Indeed, the Paris Peace Agreements ‘were not designed to undermine SOC’s hegemonic status. In fact, one could argue that they weakened the resistance forces and could enhance SOC’s political legitimacy by electoral means’.69 This assessment fits neatly with the neoliberal focus on the prominence of market security, which can be viewed as the primary goal of the Paris Peace Agreements as the UN was looking for options that would bring political stability to Cambodia, regardless of the result of the vote.70 In this respect, the UN took power out of the hands of the Cambodian electorate 136 Human Security in East Asia and gave it to the factional leaders. Reinforcing the powerful position of the CPP/SOC would increase security in the short term, and allow for an immediate influx of foreign companies eager to exploit Cambodia’s natural resources and its newly opened markets following an early international financial institution prescription adopted by SOC, which called for the removal of barriers impeding the establishment of foreign firms.71 The electoral victory of FUNCINPEC not only came as a shock to most observers,72 but also posed a significant obstacle to the machinations of foreign enterprise insofar as CPP was still firmly in control of the military, and the change of government to a party without military hegemony threatened political and hence economic stability. Moreover, UNTAC lent implicit support to the ‘iron fist’ of Hun Sen by sitting idle as he forced his way into a renewed position of power, thus complicitly allowing democracy to take a backseat to neoliberal pragmatism. While Prince Ranariddh and Hun Sen became co-Prime Ministers, with Ranariddh as the ‘official’ leader of the country, CPP never truly shared power, and dominated the new regime. This was easily predictable because of the continued entanglement of CPP and the state apparatus, the failure of disarmament and, as the following section will illustrate, civil service downsizing prescribed by international financial institutions. Thus, from the very beginning of the operation, the UN’s preoccupation with the security pretext over the will of the people undermined the prospect of Cambodian democracy and hence the realization of non-rhetorical human security. We can either recognize UNTAC as an unmitigated failure; acknowledge that its underlying goal was to deepen the economic stability offered by an entrenched regime that was already displaying an affinity for a neoliberal policy orientation via privatization schemes, or both. Economic stability would pave the way for neoliberalization, a task that could be accomplished through organizing supposedly democratic elections to confer legitimacy on CPP. The UN clearly has the ability to involve the powerful militaries of many first-world nations when necessary, and thus had the capacity to enforce the election results in Cambodia, which they appropriately should have been committed to after involving themselves at the outset. Instead, they simply lacked the political–economic motivation to do so. Thus, when CPP surprisingly lost an election where the fix was thought to be in, this jeopardized the potential future penetration of foreign capital. FUNCINPEC could not offer the same degree of political-cum-economic stability, and accordingly the will of the Cambodian people was disrespected in favor of an authoritarian regime seen as the best chance of both commitment to, and capacity for, neoliberalizing Cambodia. The repercussions of such a partiality-based version of collaborative action reflected by this decision would later come back to haunt Cambodia. Indeed, as the shocking coup d’état of July 1997 would subsequently illustrate when Hun Sen led a murderous campaign against FUNCINPEC officials, ousting Prince Ranariddh as first Prime Minister during two days of factional warfare in the streets of Phnom Penh,73 human security is born not of submission to the whims of the powerful, but through the collective good of democracy and solidarity-based collaborative action. Neoliberalization of security and violence in Cambodia 137 The neo-authoritarianism of neoliberalism Following the elections, a new constitution was promulgated, which reinstated the monarchy and renamed the country the Kingdom of Cambodia. Along with renewed pledges to ensure structural adjustment and continued privatization,74 Cambodia’s experiment with economic liberalization was also signed into law. Article 56 of the new constitution states ‘The Kingdom of Cambodia shall adopt a market economy system’,75 which in effect pre-emptively silences any future democratic debate over the economic arrangement of the country, not that there had been any collective accountability in its choosing to begin with. The signing of a new constitution also officially ended UNTAC’s mandate, and the entire operation left Cambodia before the end of 1993.76 Despite the presence of international peacekeepers until September 1993, armed clashes between factional groups lingered for several years,77 meaning the imposed liberal peace was tenuous at best. Similarly, it was not long before cracks began to show in the new coalition government, attributable to international financial institutions’ preoccupation with macroeconomic stabilization and structural adjustment, which undermined the potential of building political consensus and subverted other programs essential to the consolidation of peace, such as addressing humanitarian needs.78 Neoliberalism was the order of the day, as immediately following the 1993 election the Ministry of Economy and Finance, under tutelage from the World Bank, IMF and the Asian Development Bank, was already promising that a stringent fiscal plan would be in place by 1995.79 Furthermore, Cambodia was locked into a condition of dependency on foreign assistance as nearly half the country’s budgetary allocations were being drawn from foreign aid, translating into a limited ability to challenge donor agendas and timetables.80 Most technical assistance projects since 1993 have undermined government ownership and capacity in that they have been donor-driven in their identification, implementation and design.81 In a statement that appears emblematic of the entire UN operation’s position, given its fixation on economic security, former Secretary-General of the UN for Human Rights in Cambodia Michael Kirby states, ‘I have always made the point that an improvement in the economy, filtering down to the average citizen, is a vitally important step on the path of rebuilding human rights in Cambodia. It helps to give a sense of well-being, purpose and commitment to society’.82 These comments echo the neoliberal theory of the trickle-down effect, as the focus is shifted from democracy to economics as the vehicle providing individuals with a sense of agency and a participatory stake in society. It is, however, hard to see the efficacy of the trickle-down effect when the gap between rich and poor has only increased in post-transition Cambodia.83 Even Ronald St John, a scholar who appears inspired by neoliberalism, recognizes that while ‘some disparities existed before liberalization, social and economic inequalities are significantly greater now’.84 Similarly, one has to wonder how those Cambodians whose political, civil and social liberties have been sacrificed to excesses of ‘anarchic freedom as a consequence of rampant marketization 138 Human Security in East Asia and the weakening of state authority’ view current conditions of human security.85 The rapid and unreflective transition to a free-market economy drove a relatively weak state to financial crisis, raised inflation to three-digit levels, and weakened Cambodia’s social and economic infrastructure, particularly in rural areas.86 The poor, punished by nearly 15 years of international abandonment, were now forced via Structural Adjustment Programmes to pay the further costs of reintegration into the international mainstream. Further neoliberal reforms were ordered in 1994, as donors emphasized downsizing the civil service – the traditional power base for CPP – in an effort to build administrative capacity. Prioritizing a reduction in the civil service is one example of ‘rolling back’ the state, and it derives from the international financial institutions’ preoccupation with controlling public expenditure as a method of achieving macro-economic stability.87 Such a focus is highly problematic in that it contributes to shadow-state politics by encouraging rent-seeking behavior and hardening patron–client relations, as civil service members become reliant on alternative means to supplement their incomes. Following the shift to the free market, many officials began making their living in the speculative underground economy.88 The international financial institutions approached downsizing as an administrative exercise, while ignoring the social and political costs, and the negative ramifications this might have for human security. Furthermore, such a prescription was deleterious to the stability of the fragile power-sharing arrangement in Cambodia, as the new coalition government was originally premised on the integration of large numbers of FUNCINPEC and BLDP functionaries into the CPP-dominated administrative apparatus.89 Thus a strengthening, not a weakening, of the Cambodian government’s administrative capacity was required. In what appears to be a self-interested and calculated response to downsizing efforts, the government enshrined impunity in the law in 1994 by prohibiting civil servants, including police and soldiers, from being charged or arrested without the permission of the relevant minister.90 In this instance, CPP used downsizing of the civil service prescribed by international financial institutions to its advantage, as this amendment would further entrench its hold on power via the politics of patronage. Thus the so-called ‘culture of impunity’, a frequent Orientalist rendering of Cambodia by the donor community,91 is not a cultural feature at all. Rather, impunity can be seen as another example of the shadow-state response to neoliberal reforms, again illustrating the contradictions between neoliberal theory and its ‘actually existing’ practice. CPP’s jovial mood following its commandeering of the 1993 election results, coupled with a renewed position of hegemony and what appears to be a pandering to Cambodia’s new patrons in the West, led Hun Sen to proclaim 1994 as the year of the resurrection of the media.92 This honeymoon period was shortlived, and by July 1994 the media were effectively muzzled after the government issued a list of instructions indicating what the press could and could not say.93 Journalists became subject to the whims of the political leadership and confined to expressing the status quo. As a result, 1994 saw several attacks against the press, including the prosecution and imprisonment of several reporters, and the Neoliberalization of security and violence in Cambodia 139 murder of three high-profile journalists who were particularly critical of the new coalition government.94 In April 1995, action was extended to foreign journalists when the American editor of the Phnom Penh Post, Michael Hayes, was faced with charges of ‘misinformation’ and ‘incitement’. King Sihanouk stepped in and assured Hayes of an official pardon if convicted, but Cambodian journalists were not so fortunate, as four editors of Khmer-language newspapers were either fined or imprisoned.95 In light of such developments and an ongoing pattern of repressive violence, long-time Cambodia observer Steve Heder refers to Cambodia’s transition as one to neo-authoritarianism, where ‘In the name of political stability and economic development, as well as in order to fight a lingering and murderous insurgency, the country’s current ‘multiparty’ ruling elite coalition … has been working to dampen open political contestation and to deliberalize the political atmosphere by co-opting, cowing, or marginalising contesting centers of power’.96 While Heder recognizes that such restriction of political contestation is done in the name of economic security in order to see the ‘integration of Cambodia into the world capitalist system’,97 he fails to make the connection that this neo-authoritarian behavior not only falls in line with the neoliberal canon, but also appears to be a direct outcome of this doctrine.98 Although Cambodia’s donor community is very vocal about democracy promotion, it generally accepts the perceived need for ‘order’ and ‘security’ at face value precisely because it shares the same concern with order as necessary for promoting economic liberalism. In contrast, democracy must be open and accommodating to all social groups, including ‘unruly’ elements, so that the public as a whole may define the public interest. Recognizing this may help us to realize that predetermining and enforcing an economic model on a country is not only undemocratic, but also an act of sedition with respect to the emergence of a democratic polity. In line with neoliberalism as a project seeking the (re)creation of class power,99 it is not at all surprising that democracy is suppressed. Democratic subversion is illuminated in the presupposed purpose that neoliberalism imposes on citizens, where individuals must define their social, political and economic relationships through the market mechanism. While this is not necessarily effected through juridical means, a market orientation to social relations is paramount to the canon of order, most often produced through governance at a distance, where citizen-subjects ‘freely’ conduct themselves as market agents (consumers and sellers). It is only when the neoliberal code of conduct breaks down that such ‘freedom’ is revealed as a chimera. Those engaging in solidaritybased collaborative action on human security through protesting privatization, land-grabbing, inflation, poverty, and other outcomes of the state’s adherence to free market principles quickly learn this precept, as they are frequently subjected to authoritarian violence that enforces the neoliberal line. Here, again, the contradictions of neoliberalism are revealed. In theory the state is to be removed from market interference, yet in practice, if the market comes into question by citizens, the engagement of the state is required to go beyond governmentality to the realm of violence in enforcing the market’s vaunted position. 140 Human Security in East Asia That a people may freely choose the economic policies and practices that directly affect their lives, and articulate their opinions, concerns, desires and demands freely and openly, appears to be a frightening proposition to neoliberals. Capitalism is premised on inequality, and democracy threatens to reveal this truth by firing the collective imagination so that ordinary individuals without institutionalized power can mobilize to change the status quo, seize power from those refusing to share it, or exercise it justly for the benefit of all.100 Such action represents the heart of solidarity-based collaborative action on human security, and is an affront to those who effect its partiality-based version. Thus, within the larger discursive practices of the human security agenda, the authoritarianism of third-world governments is, on the one hand, a symptom of the neoliberal doctrine they often subscribe to and abide by, and on the other, an easy and ideal scapegoat to deflect attention away from the profound socioeconomic injustices of capitalism. In essence, neoliberalism’s partiality-based appropriation of the human security doctrine provides free-market ideology with the necessary language to veil its inherent hypocrisy, shrouding the frequent need for authoritarian responses behind a humanitarian discourse that supposedly aims to protect from this very circumstance. Conclusion This chapter’s account of the human security agenda in the context of Cambodia’s transition has shown the international donor community’s interest to be far from altruistic in terms of genuine concern for grassroots democratic empowerment and its corollary, improved human security. Instead, partiality-based collaborative efforts have been a contradictory exercise in realpolitik. The Cambodian holocaust was followed by a decade of neglect, as those in the outside world turned a blind eye to the misery they had done much to create. The sudden renewed interest in Cambodia following the fall of the Iron Curtain is thus at least somewhat peculiar, insofar as concern expressed for the political, social and economic conditions in Cambodia could hardly be taken at face value as humanitarian. The situation of Cambodia tells a very different story, where most often, extraneous expressions of concern for democracy and human security were mere rhetoric serving an ulterior motive: to pry open the Cambodian economy. Any discussion about the prospects of human security in society is futile when the competitiveness of neoliberal economics leaves problems of poverty and inequality unaddressed.101 In this chapter, I have attempted to peel back the layers of lies that have been heaped on Cambodia’s transition to capitalist democracy. The goals of security and order for the purpose of economic investment have been exposed as taking precedence over both the desire for democracy expressed by the Cambodian electorate, and any conception of human security as freedom from fear and violence. This security pretext was reaffirmed by UNTAC’s failure to create a neutral political environment, and its subsequent haste in deeming the elections free and fair. While the victory of FUNCINPEC was definite, it could have been even more resounding had UNTAC been more diligent in its attempts to unravel CPP Neoliberalization of security and violence in Cambodia 141 from the state apparatus. Such disentanglement may have avoided the need for a coalition government, and certainly would not have left CPP in the militarily strong position that has ultimately allowed the party to continue to intimidate and coerce the population to this day. UNTAC was not prepared for CPP’s failure at the polls, and Hun Sen was accordingly allowed to force his way into a co-Prime Ministerial position. It would appear that the consolidation of CPP hegemony was the goal of the UN mission all along.102 Hun Sen, given his economic inclinations throughout the late 1980s, was pre-ordained as the ideal candidate to bring the stability necessary for further economic liberalization in Cambodia. In this capacity, Cambodia’s ‘strongman’ was more than willing to engage in a partialitybased collaboration with the global instrumentality of neoliberal reform, as such action would further entrench his socioeconomic and political position vis-á-vis Cambodian society, a prediction he made in the late 1980s when he started the liberalization process. With CPP’s implementation and institutionalization of neoliberal modes of governance, and its subsequent deeper penetration via governmentality in Cambodia, Hun Sen’s continual subversion of democracy in the immediate post-UNTAC years was of little consequence to the donor community. In truth, such authoritarian action was often a feature and/or outcome of instituting neoliberal reforms, and represented a move toward greater market security in the country. Of course, donors would quickly call for Cambodia’s political parties to respect the constitution and adhere to the principles of democracy whenever violence was employed, but such criticism was always little more than lip service. What donors really wanted was the restoration of the sociopolitical status quo so that the neoliberal agenda could be implemented and subsequently preserved, thus illustrating all too well the rhetorical nature of partiality-based collaborative action on human security. 168 Notes 64 Annan 2002. 65 CIJ and OSJI 2004: 1–2. 66 UN Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste, ‘Report on human rights development in Timor-Leste: August 2006-August 2007’: 27. 67 CIJ and OSJI 2004: 1. 68 Jakarta Post, 31 July 2007: 12. 69 Human Rights Watch 2002a. 70 UN News Centre, 10 May 2004. 71 See ‘Special report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission of Support in Timor-Leste’, UN Doc. S/2004/117, 13 February 2004: 7; S/2002/333, 29 April 2004: 7. 72 Human Rights Watch 2002b: 5. 73 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of China 2003. 74 Hammarberg undated: 3. 75 Marks 1999: 713. 76 Hammarberg undated: 1. 77 Reasmei Kampuchea Daily, 20 February 2002 (translated by Bunsou Sour). 78 International Herald Tribune & Asahi Shimbun, 23 November 2007. 79 Economides 2003: 46. 80 Cited by Bell 1996: 659. 81 Noguchi 2006: 587–92. 82 Hampson et al. 2002: 77. 83 Department of Foreign Affairs, Philippines, 29 December 2000, Press Release No. 171-00. 84 Xinhua General News Service, 6 June 2002. 85 Hampson et al. 2002: 77. 86 Nguyen Thi Thanh Ha, ‘On Agenda Item 76: Report of the International Criminal Court’, New York: 1 November 2007. 87 Christie 1995: 204–18; Toon 2004: 219, 230. 88 Christie 1995: 204. 89 Cambodia Daily, 15–16 September 2001. 90 United Nations 1999: 29. 91 Khmer Intelligence (sent to undisclosed list of recipients, 19 October 2002). 92 Bangkok Post, 23 November 2006. 93 Agence France-Presse, 6 September 2002. 94 Bell 1996: 644. 95 Judicial System Monitoring Program Press Release, 22 June 2004. 96 Cited by D. Greenlees, Weekend Australian, 4–5 May 2002, cited by Thakur 2006: 128. 97 Thakur 2006: 120; see also Hayden 2003: 259–85. 98 Thakur 2006: 132. 8 The neoliberalization of security and violence in Cambodia’s transition 1 On the importance of a Marxian political economy approach in understanding contemporary encounters with violence, inequality and poverty, each of which is an important obstacle to human security, see Springer 2008. 2 Peck and Tickell 2002. 3 On ‘actually existing neoliberalism’ see Brenner and Theodore 2002; for its application in Cambodia see Springer 2009. 4 UNDP 1994. 5 Commission on Human Security 2003. 6 Bain 2001: 283. 7 King et al. 2002. 8 Ibid.: 264. Notes 169 9 Despite variance in doses among regions, states and cities, the basic neoliberal policy treatment is underpinned by a vision of naturalized market relations seeking to eradicate obstacles to the operation of markets; stifle collective initiative and public expenditure, primarily via privatization of common assets and imposition of user fees; advocate individualism, competitiveness and economic self-sufficiency as fundamental virtues; attenuate or nullify social protections and transfer programs; and actively ‘recruit’ the poor and marginalized into a flexible labor regime of precarious work and low-wage employment (Peck and Tickell 2002). 10 UNDP 1999: 3. 11 Harvey 2005. 12 Ibid.: 41. 13 Bain 2001. 14 Michel 2005. 15 Commission on Human Security 2003: 75. 16 Lizée 2002. 17 Bain 2001: 285. 18 Hay 2003: 165–206. 19 Harvey 2005. 20 Foucault 1991: 53–72. 21 Gordon 1991: 1–52. 22 Harvey 2005. 23 Commission on Human Security 2003. 24 Alagappa 1997. 25 Evans 2004. 26 Lizée 2002. 27 Mish 2003: 243. 28 Lummis 1996; Mouffe 1992. 29 Jain 2002. 30 Irvin 1993; St John 1997. 31 Evans 2004. 32 Alagappa 1997: 423. 33 Um 1990. 34 Ojendal 1996. 35 Roberts 2001. 36 The abandonment is attributable to America’s embarrassment with its war effort in Vietnam, as it was Vietnamese troops who had brought down the Khmer Rouge and continued to rule Cambodia as a client state throughout the 1980s. Using Cambodia as the instrument of Vietnam’s punishment, Washington compelled the UN to withhold development aid and bar Cambodia from all international agreements on trade and communications (Roberts 2001). 37 Brown and Timberman 1998. 38 Doyle 1995. 39 Ear 1997: 73. 40 Jones and PoKempner 1993: 43–68. 41 ‘Shadow state politics’ refers to the system through which leaders draw authority from their abilities informally to control markets and material rewards. Rather than oppose the dominant paradigm of neoliberal reform, third world governments often assimilate the interests of international financial institutions, reshaping them into instruments of power. The emergence of the shadow state is indicative of the contradictions between neoliberal theory and its actual practice, because it allows elites to amass astonishing wealth obtained through unofficial channels that are pocketed rather than put back into developing the country, thereby reinforcing systems of clientelism and patronage. Thus the neoliberal axiom asserting that if individuals are left to pursue their narrow 170 Notes self-interest, then society as a whole will benefit, is clearly erroneous. Rather, only an elite few along with their circle of patrons benefit, while the much-touted neoliberal assumption of the ‘trickle-down’ effect fails to materialize as the forthcoming developmental rewards promised to those on ‘the bottom’ are swallowed in the vagaries of the shadow state. On shadow state politics see Reno 1995. For its application in the Cambodian context see Le Billon and Springer 2007. On the contradictions of neoliberalism and its practice see Harvey 2005. Hughes 2003. Jones and PoKempner 1993. Peou 2000. Ibid. Hughes 2003. Ibid.: 19. For example, Minister of Economy and Finance Keat Chhon was educated at the National Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology in Saclay, France; Minister of International Cooperation and Foreign Affairs Hor Namhong studied at the University of Paris: Ministry of Economy and Finance, Kingdom of Cambodia 2006; Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Kingdom of Cambodia 2006. Hendrickson 2002. LICADHO 2006. Le Billon and Springer 2007. Global Witness 2007. Le Billon and Springer 2007. Global Witness 2007. Heder 1996: 73–113. Ibid. Findlay 1995. Vickery 2007; Roberts 2001. Brown and Zasloff 1998; Hughes 2003; Peou 2000. Shawcross 2002. Doyle 1995. Harvey 2005. Heder 1996; Shawcross 2002. Brown and Zasloff 1998. Gallup 2002: 165–85. Shawcross 2002; Um 1994. Boutros-Ghali 1995; Doyle 1995. Shawcross 2002. Peou 2000: 255. Lizée 1993. Ear 1997. Chandler 2000; McCargo 2005. For discussions of the 1997 coup see Human Rights Watch 1997; Peou 1998c; Springer 2008b. St John 1995. Jennar 1995: 17. Findlay 1995. Brown and Zasloff 1998; Jeldres 1996; Lizée 1996. Hendrickson 2002. Um 1994. Hendrickson 2002; Lizée 1996. Godfrey et al. 2002. Kirby 1995: 31. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Notes 171 83 The Gini coefficient is a number between 0 and 100, where 0 corresponds with perfect equality (where everyone has the same income) and 100 corresponds with perfect inequality (where one person has all the income, and everyone else has zero income). Prior to UNTAC in 1990, Cambodia’s Gini coefficient was 41.6. In 2004 it represented the highest recorded value to date at 46.3 (World Bank 2004). 84 St John 1997. 85 Hendrickson 2002: 99. 86 Irvin 1993. 87 Hendrickson 2002. 88 van der Kroef 1991. 89 Hendrickson 2002. 90 Human Rights Watch 1999a. 91 US Ambassador Joseph A. Mussomeli suggested that the ‘culture of impunity that we see throughout Cambodia today is rooted in the irrefutable belief among its people that no crime is so great that it must be punished’ (Mussomeli 2006). 92 Peou 2000. 93 Lizée 1996. 94 Jeldres 1996. 95 Lizée 1996. 96 Heder 1995: 425. 97 Ibid.: 428. 98 Canterbury 2005; Springer 2009. 99 Harvey 2005. 100 Tan 2002. 101 Jain 2002. 102 Lizée 1993. Conclusion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Peou 2008. Abad 2000. Tow 2000: 3. Burke 2001. Thomas and Tow 2002b: 381. Tow 2000: 5. Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy 2007: 153. Peou, 2008a, 2008b. Kiernan 1996. Kolko 1997: 6. Ibid.: 13. Ibid.: 12. See for instance Schwartz 1996. Thakur 2006: 190. Sen 1999: 92. Akiko Fukushima, the author of Chapter 3, brought out this point. Sanders 2002: 62. See for instance Atack 2002. Thakur 1994; Makinda 1993. Burke 2001: 224. Dosch 2006: 92, 94, 104, 105–6, 107. Welsh 2002. Hampson et al. 2002: 146–47. Gallis 2008: 2, 18. Bibliography Abad Jr, M. C. (2000) ‘The Challenge of Balancing State Security with Human Security’, Indonesian Quarterly, 28(4): 403–10. Acharya, A. (2001a) ‘Human Security: East versus West’, International Journal, 61(3): 442–60. —— (2001b) Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order, London and New York: Routledge. —— (2002) ‘Redefining the Dilemmas of Humanitarian Intervention’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 56(3): 373–82. —— (2006) ‘Securitization in Asia: Functional and Normative Implications’, in M. CaballeroAnthony et al. (eds) Non-traditional Security in Asia: Dilemmas in Securitization, Hampshire: Ashgate. Adekanye, J. B. (1997) ‘Review Essay: Arms and Reconstruction in Post-Conflict Societies’, Journal of Peace Research, 34(3): 359–66. Alagappa, M. (1997) ‘Regional Institutions, the UN and International Security: A Framework for Analysis’, Third World Quarterly, 18(3): 421–41. —— (1998) ‘International Politics in Asia: The Historical Context’, in M. Alagappa (ed.) Asian Security Practice, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Alger, C. F. (2002) ‘The Emerging Roles of NGOs in the UN System: From Article 71 to a People’s Millennium Assembly’, Global Governance 8(1): 93–117. Alkire, S. (2003) A Conceptual Framework for Human Security, CRISE Working Paper 2, Oxford: Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford. Akhavan, P. (1999a) ‘Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities?’, American Journal of International Law, 95(1): 7–31. —— (1999b) ‘Justice in The Hague: Peace in the former Yugoslavia?’ Human Rights Quarterly, 20(4): 737–816. Amnesty International and JSMP (2004) Justice for Timor-Leste: The Way Forward, Dili, East Timor: Justice System Monitoring Programme, www.jsmp.minihub.org Anderson, M. B. (1999) Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace – or War, London: Lynne Rienner. Annan, K. (1998) ‘The Quiet Revolution’, Global Governance, 4(2): 123–38. —— (1999a) ‘The Question of Intervention: Statements by the Secretary General’, New York: United Nations Department of Public Information. —— (1999b) ‘Speech of the UN Secretary-General to the General Assembly’, New York: United Nations. 174 Bibliography —— (2000) ‘Opening Remarks at the Symposium on Humanitarian Action’, New York: International Peace Academy. —— (2002) ‘Dili, East Timor – Press Encounter upon Arrival (unofficial transcript)’, 19 May, UN Secretary General, ‘Off the Cuff’. www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff. asp?nid=61 APA (2001) An ASEAN of the People, by the People, for the People: Report of the First ASEAN People’s Assembly, Batam, Jakarta: Centre for Strategic and International Studies. —— (2003a) APA 2002 Report: Challenges Facing the ASEAN People, Jakarta: Centre for Strategic and International Studies. —— (2003b) Towards an ASEAN Community of Caring Societies, Manila: Institute for Strategic and Development Studies. APEC (2003) Leaders’ Declaration: Bangkok Declaration on Partnership for the Future, Bangkok: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. www.apec.org/apec/leaders_declarations/2003.html ASEAN (2001) 7th ASEAN Summit Declaration on HIV/AIDS, Jakarta: Association of Southeast Asian Nations. www.aseansec.org/8582.htm —— (2003) The ASEAN People’s Declaration 2003: Towards a Community of Caring Societies, Jakarta: Association of Southeast Asian Nations. www.asean-isisaseanpeoplesassembly.net/declarations.htm —— (2004a) The ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) Plan of Action, Jakarta: Association of Southeast Asian Nations. www.aseansec.org/16832.htm —— (2004b) Co-chairs’ Summary Report of the Meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum Inter-sessional Support Group on Confidence Building Measures, Jakarta: Association of Southeast Asian Nations. www.aseansec.org/16096.htm —— (2006) Report of the Eminent Persons Group on the ASEAN Charter, Jakarta: Association of Southeast Asian Nations. www.aseansec.org/19247.pdf ASEAN + 3 Summit (2002) Final Report of the East Asia Study Group, Jakarta: Association of Southeast Asian Nations. www.aseansec.org/pdf/easg.pdf ASEAN Eminent Persons Group (2000) Vision 2020, Jakarta: Association of Southeast Asian Nations. www.aseansec.org/5304.htm ASEAN Regional Forum (2005) Co-chair’s Summary Report of the ARF Workshop on ‘Evolving Changes in the Security Perceptions of the ARF Countries’, Jakarta: Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Atack, I. (2002) ‘Ethical Objections to Humanitarian Intervention’, Security Dialogue, 33(3): 279–92. Axworthy, L. (1998) ‘The New Diplomacy: The UN, The International Criminal Court and the Human Security Agenda’, paper presented at Conference on UN Reform, Kennedy School, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, 25 April 1998. Ayoob, M. (2004) ‘Third World Perspectives on Humanitarian Intervention and International Administration’, Global Governance, 10(1): 99–118. Bain, W. (1999) ‘Against Crusading: The Ethic of Human Security and Canadian Foreign Policy’, Canadian Foreign Policy, 6(3): 85–98. —— (2001) ‘The Tyranny of Benevolence: National Security, Human Security, and the Practice of Statecraft’, Global Society: Journal of Interdisciplinary International Relations, 15: 277–94. Banerjee, D. (2005) ‘Current Trends in UN Peacekeeping: A Perspective from Asia’, in M. Caballero-Anthony and Amitav Acharya (eds), UN Peace Operations and Asian Security, London/New York: Routledge. Barash, D. (1999) ‘Human Rights’, in D. Barash (ed.) Approaches to Peace, New York: Oxford University Press. Bibliography 175 —— (2000) Approach to Peace, New York: Oxford University Press. Barnett, M., Kim, H., O’Donnell, M. and Sitea, L. (2007) ‘Peacebuilding: What is in a Name?’, Global Governance, 13(1): 35–58. Bartu, P. (2000) ‘The Militia, the Military, and the People of Bobonaro District’, in D. Kingsbury (ed.) Guns and Ballot Boxes: East Timor’s Vote for Independence, Victoria, Australia: Monash Asia Institute. Bassiouni, M. C. (1996) ‘Searching for Peace and Achieving Justice: The Need for Accountability’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(4): 9–28. —— (1999) ‘Policy Perspectives Favoring the Establishment of the International Criminal Court’, Journal of International Affairs, 52(2): 795–810. Bauer, O. R. and Bell, D. A. (eds) (1999) The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Bell, C. (2000) ‘East Timor, Canberra and Washington: A Case Study in Crisis Management’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 54(2): 171–76. —— (2003) ‘Human Rights and Minority Protection’, in J. Darby and R. MacGinty (eds) Contemporary Peacemaking: Conflict, Violence and Peace Processes, London: Palgrave. Bell, D. A. (1996) ‘The East Asian Challenge to Human Rights: Reflections on an East West Dialogue’, Human Rights Quarterly, 18(3): 641–67. Bellamy, A. and MacDonald, M. (2002) ‘The Utility of Human Security: Which Humans, What Security? A Reply to Thomas and Tow’, Security Dialogue, 33(3): 373–77. Berdal, M. (1996) Disarmament and Demobilization after Civil Wars: Arms, Soldiers and the Termination of Armed Conflict, Adelphi Paper 303, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Berger, T. U. (1998) Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan, Baltimore, MD, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bergeson, H. O. and Lunde, L. (1999) Dinosaurs or Dynamos? The United Nations and the World Bank at the Turn of the Century, London: Earthscan. de Bertodano, S. (2003) ‘Current Developments in International Courts’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 1: 226–44. Betts, R. K. (1994) ‘The Delusion of Impartial Intervention’, Foreign Affairs, 73(6): 20- 33. Bolton, J. (1999) ‘The Global Prosecutors: Hunting Criminals in the Name of Utopia’, Foreign Affairs, 78(1): 157–64. Booth, K. (1991) Security and Emancipation’, Review of International Studies, 17(4): 313–26. Bouchet-Saulnier, F. (2002) The Practical Guide to International Law, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Boutros-Ghali, B. (1992) An Agenda for Peace, New York: United Nations. —— (1995) The United Nations and Cambodia 1991–1995, New York: United Nations Department of Public Information. Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2002) ‘Cities and the Geographies of ‘Actually Existing Neoliberalism’, Antipode, 34: 349–79. Brown, C. (2002) Sovereignty, Rights and Justice: International Political Theory Today, Cambridge: Polity Press. Brown, F. and Timberman, D. G. (1998) ‘Peace, Development, and Democracy in Cambodia: Shattered Hopes’, in F. Z. Brown and D. G. Timberman (eds) Cambodia and the International Community: The Quest for Peace, Development, and Democracy, New York: Asia Society. Brown, M. and Zasloff, J. J. (1998) Cambodia Confounds the Peacemakers 1979–1998, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Brzoska, M. (2003) ‘From Dumb to Smart? Recent Reforms of UN Sanctions’, Global Governance, 9(4): 519–35. 176 Bibliography Buchanan, A. (2003) ‘Reforming the Law of Humanitarian Intervention’, in J. L. Holzgrefe and R. O. Keohane (eds) Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Budiardjo, C. and Soei, L. L. (1984) The War against East Timor, London: Zed Books. Burke, A. (2001) ‘Caught between National and Human Security: Knowledge and Power in Post-crisis Asia’, Pacific Review, 13(3): 215–39. Buzan, B. (1991) People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, 2nd edn, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. —— (2001) ‘Human Security in International Perspective’, in M. Anthony- Caballero and M. J. Hassan (eds) The Asia Pacific in the New Millennium, Kuala Lumpur: ISIS Malaysia. Byers, M. and Chesterman, S. (2003) ‘Changing the Rules about Rules?’, in J. L. Holzgrefe and R. Keohane (eds) Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caballero-Anthony, A. (2002) ‘Human Security in the Asia-Pacific: Current Trends and Prospects’, in D. Dickens (ed.) The Human Face of Security: Asia-Pacific Perspectives, Canberra: Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. Caballero-Anthony, M. (1998) ‘Mechanisms of Dispute Settlement: The ASEAN Experience’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 20(1): 38–66. —— (2004a) ‘Non-State Regional Governance Mechanism for Economic Security: The Case of the ASEAN Peoples’ Assembly’, Pacific Review, 17(4): 567–85. —— (2004b) ‘Revisioning Human Security in Southeast Asia’, Asian Perspectives, 28(3): 155–89. —— (2005) Regional Security in Southeast Asia: Beyond the ASEAN Way, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Caballero-Anthony, M. and Emmers, R. (2006) ‘Understanding the Dynamics of Securitizing Non-Traditional Security’, in M. Caballero-Anthony, R. Emmers and A. Acharya (eds) Non-traditional Security in Asia: Dilemmas in Securitization, Hampshire: Ashgate. Cai, P. (2008) ‘China and ASEAN in Non-Traditional Security Cooperation’, in A. S. P. Baviera (ed.) Regional Security in East Asia: Challenges to Cooperation and Community Building, Diliman, Quezon City: Asian Center, University of the Philippines. Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (2000) Freedom from Fear: Canada’s Foreign Policy for Human Security, Ottawa: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Canterbury, D. C. (2005) Neoliberal Democratization and New Authoritarianism, Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Capie, D. and Evans, P. (2007) The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Carey, H. F. and Richmond, O. P. (2003a) ‘Mitigating Conflict: The Role of NGOs’, International Peacekeeping, Special Issue, 10(1): 1–8. —— (eds) (2003b) Mitigating Conflict: The Role of NGOs, London: Frank Cass. Carlson, A. (2002) Protecting Sovereignty, Accepting Intervention: The Dilemma of Chinese Foreign Relations in the 1990s, China Policy Series No. 18, New York: National Committee on United States–Japan Relations. —— (2004) ‘Helping to Keep the Peace (Albeit Reluctantly): China’s Recent Stance on Sovereignty and Multilateral Intervention’, Pacific Affairs, 77(1): 9–27. Carr, E. H. (1946) The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939, London: Macmillan. Chanda, N. (1986) Brother Enemy, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Chandler, D. (2000) The Tragedy of Cambodian History, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bibliography 177 Chalk, P. (2001) Australian Foreign and Defense Policy in the Wake of the 1999/2000 East Timor Intervention, Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Chang, Y. (2002) ‘The Right to Life’, paper presented at Conference on ‘The Experiences of Local Actors in Peace-building Reconstruction and the Establishment of Rule of Law’, 23–25 March, Singapore (unpublished). Chari, P. R. (ed.) (2001) Security and Governance in South Asia, Colombo: Regional Centre for Strategic Studies. Chen, L. (1995) ‘Human Security: Concepts and Approaches’, in T. Matsumae and L. Chen (eds) Common Security in Asia: New Concepts of Human Security, Tokyo: Tokai Press. Chesterman, S. (2003) Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chesterman, S. and Pouligny, B. (2003) ‘Are Sanctions Meant to Work? The Politics of Creating and Implementing Sanctions through the United Nations’, Global Governance, 9(4): 503–18. Christensen, T. (1996) ‘Chinese Realpolitik’, Foreign Affairs, 75(5): 37–52 Christie, K. (1995) ‘Regime Security and Human Rights in Southeast Asia’, Political Studies, XLIII (Special Issue): 204–18. Chu, S. (2000) China, Asia, and Issues of Sovereignty and Intervention, Beijing: China Institute of International Relations. —— (2002) China and Human Security, North Pacific Policy Paper 8. Vancouver: Program on Canada–Asia Policy Studies, Institute of Asian Research, University of British Columbia. CIJ and OSJI (2004) Unfulfilled Promises: Achieving Justice for Crimes Against Humanity in East Timor, New York: Coalition for International Justice and Open Society Justice Initiative. Claude, I. L. (1966) Power and International Relations, New York: Random House. Commission on Global Governance (1995) Our Global Neighborhood, New York: Oxford University Press. Commission on Human Security (2003) Human Security Now: Protecting and Empowering People, New York: United Nations Publications. Corpwatch (2000) Tangled up in Blue: Corporate Partnership at the United Nations, San Francisco, CA: Transnational Resource and Action Center. Cotton, J. (1999) ‘ “Peacekeeping” in East Timor: An Australian Policy Departure’, Australian Journal of International Affairs 53(3): 237–46. —— (2004) East Timor, Australia and Regional Order: Intervention and its Aftermath in Southeast Asia, London and New York: Routledge Curzon. Council for the Promotion of Cultural Diplomacy (2004) Establishing Japan as a ‘Peaceful Nation of Cultural Exchange’, Cabinet Secretariat. www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/policy/ bunka/050711bunka_e.html Cousens, E. and Kumar C. (eds) (2001) Peacebuilding as Politics: Cultivating Peace in Fragile Societies, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Detter, I. (2000) The Law of War, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dickens, D. (2002) ‘Can East Timor be a Blueprint for Burden Sharing?’, Washington Quarterly, 25(3): 29–40. Dickens, D. and Wilson-Roberts, G. (eds) (2000) Non-Intervention and State Sovereignty in the Asia-Pacific, Wellington: Centre for Strategic Studies. Dickinson, L. A. (2003) ‘Notes and Comments: the Promise of Hybrid Courts’, American Journal of International Law, 97(2): 295–310. Dosch, J. (2006) The Changing Dynamics of Southeast Asian Politics, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. 178 Bibliography Doyle, M. (1983a) ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(3): 205–35. —— (1983b) ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(4): 323–53. —— (1995) UN Peacekeeping in Cambodia: UNTAC’s Civil Mandate, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Duffield, M. (1997) ‘NGO Relief in War Zones’, Third World Quarterly, 18(3): 527–42. Dupont, A. (2000) ‘ASEAN’s Response to the East Timor Crisis’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 54(2): 163–70. Ear, S. (1997) ‘Cambodia and the ‘Washington consensus’, Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 11: 73–97. East Asia Vision Group (2001) Towards an East Asia Community: Region of Peace, Prosperity and Progress. www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/report2001.pdf Economides, S. (2003) ‘The International Criminal Court: Reforming the Politics of International Justice’, Government and Opposition, 38(1): 29–51. Edström, B. (2003) ‘Japan’s Foreign Policy and Human Security’, Japan Forum, 15(2): 209–25 Elaraby, N. (1986) ‘The Office of the Secretary-General and the Maintenance of International Peace and Security’, Revue Egyptienne du Droit International, 42: 1–42. Evans, P. (2004) ‘Human Security and East Asia: In the Beginning’, Journal of East Asian Studies, 4: 263–84. Fatic, A. (1996) ‘The Need for Politically Balanced Works of the Hague International War Crimes Tribunals’, Review of International Affairs, XLVII (2): 8–11. Feher, M. (2000) Powerless by Design: The Age of the International Community, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ferrero-Waldner, B. (2005) ‘Human Rights, Security and Development in a Global World’, speech to Women Building Peace Conference, Soroptimist International, Vienna, 8 July 2005. European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/news/ferrero/2005/ sp05_428.htm Findlay, T. (1995) Cambodia: The Legacy and Lessons of UNTAC, New York: Oxford University Press. Finnemore, M. (1996) National Interests in International Society, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. —— (2003) The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Fischer, T. (2000) Seven Days in East Timor, St Leonards, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin. Foucault, M. (1991) ‘Governmentality’, in G. Burchell et al. (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Friedberg, A. L. (1991) ‘The Changing Relationship between Economics and National Security’, Political Science Quarterly, 106(2): 265–76. Friedman, T. L. (2006) The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century, London: Penguin. Gallis, P. (2008) NATO in Afghanistan: A Test of the Transatlantic Alliance, Congressional Research Report for Congress. http://infoalert.usembassy.de/trans/f11_507.htm Gallup, J. C. (2002) ‘Cambodia: A Shaky Start for Democracy’, in J. F. Hsieh and D. Newman (eds) How Asia Votes, New York: Chatham House/Seven Bridges Press. Gasper, D. (2005) ‘Securing Humanity: Situating “Human Security” as Concept and Discourse’, Journal of Human Development, 6(2): 221–45. Bibliography 179 Gill, B. and Reilly, J. (2000) ‘Sovereignty, Intervention and Peacekeeping: The View From Beijing’, Survival, 42(3): 41–60. Gilpin, R. (2003) ‘Sources of American–Japanese Economic Conflict’, in J. Ikenberry and M. Mastanduno (eds) International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific, New York: Columbia University Press. Global Witness (2007) Cambodia’s Family Trees: Illegal Logging and the Stripping of Public Assets by Cambodia’s Elite, London: Global Witness. www.globalwitness.org Godfrey, M., Sophal, C., Kato, T., Piseth, L. V., Dorina, P., Saravy, T., Savora, T. and Sovannarith, S. (2002) ‘Technical Assistance and Capacity Development in an Aid-Dependent Economy: The Experience of Cambodia’, World Development, 30: 355–73. Goldstone, R. (1995) ‘Exposing Human Rights Abuses: A Help or Hindrance to Reconciliation’, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 22(3): 607–21. Goodhand, J. and Atkinson, P. (2001) Conflict and Aid: Enhancing the Peacebuilding Impact of International Engagement: A Synthesis of Findings from Afghanistan, Liberia and Sri Lanka, London: International Alert. Gordon, C. (1991) ‘Governmental Rationality: An Introduction’, in G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Gorjão, P. (2002) ‘Japan’s Foreign Policy and East Timor, 1975–2002’, Asian Survey, 42(5): 754–71. Goulding, M. (1993) ‘The Evolution of United Nations Peacekeeping’, International Affairs, 69: 451–64. Government of Japan (2003) Japan’s Official Development Assistance Charter. www. mofa.go.jp/policy/oda/reform/revision0308.pdf Greenlees, D. and Garran, R. (2003) Deliverance: The Inside Story of East Timor’s Fight for Freedom, Crows Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin. Guéhenno, J. M. (2002) ‘On the Challenges and Achievements of Reforming UN Peace Operations’, in E. Newman and A. Schnabel (eds) Recovering from Civil Conflict: Reconciliation, Peace and Development, London: Frank Cass. Galtung, J. (1975) ‘Three Approaches to Peace: Peacekeeping, Peacemaking and Peacebuilding’, in J. Galtung (ed.) Peace, War and Defense – Essays in Peace Research Vol.2, Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers. Gunn, G. (1999) ‘Lost and Found: How did the World Rediscover the “Lost Cause” of East Timor?’, Inside Indonesia, 60(Oct/Dec). www.insideindonesia.org/edit60/ gunn.htm Guttman, R. and Rieff, D. (eds) (1999) Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know, New York: W.W. Norton. Hainsworth, P. (2000) The East Timor Question: The Struggle for Independence from Indonesia, London: I.B. Tauris. Hammarberg, T. (2000) Situation of Human Rights in Cambodia, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of Human Rights in Cambodia, New York: United Nations Economic and Social Council. —— (undated) ‘How the Khmer Rouge Tribunal was Agreed: Discussions between the Cambodian Government and the UN: Part II, March 1999–January 2001’, Searching for the Truth! A Magazine of the Documentation Center of Cambodia, 20 (August): 42–46. www.dccam.org/Projects/Magazines/Previous%20Englis/Issue20.pdf Hampson, F. O., Daudelin, J., Hay, J., Reid, H. and Martin, T. (2002) Madness in the Multitude: Human Security and World Disorder, Ontario: Oxford University Press. 180 Bibliography Harris, S. (1993) ‘Economic Cooperation and Institution Building in the Asia-Pacific Region’, in R. Higgott, R. Leaver and J. Ravenhill (eds) Pacific Economic Relations in the 1990s: Cooperation or Conflict?, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Hartung, W. D. and Washburn, J. (1997) US Arms Transfer to Indonesia 1975–1997: Who’s Influencing Whom? New York: World Policy Institute. Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism, New York: Oxford University Press. Hawk, D. (1998) ‘The Cambodian Genocide’, in I. W. Charney (ed.) Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review, New York: Facts on File Publications. Hay, J. (2003) ‘Unaided Virtues: The (Neo)Liberalization of the Domestic Sphere and the New Architects of Community’, in J. Z. Bratich, J. Packer and C. McCarthy (eds) Foucault, Cultural Studies, and Governmentality, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hayden, R. M. (2003) Biased Justice: ‘Humanrightism’ and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia,’ in R. G. C. Thomas (ed.) Yugoslavia Unravelled: Sovereignty, Self-Determination, and Intervention, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Heder, S. (1995) ‘Cambodia’s Democratic Transition to Neoauthoritarianism’, Current History, 94: 425–29. —— (1996) ‘The Resumption of Armed Struggle by the Party of Democratic Kampuchea: Evidence from National Army of Democratic Kampuchea ‘Self-Demobilizers’, in S. Heder and J. Ledgerwood (eds) Propaganda, Politics, and Violence in Cambodia: Democratic Transition under United Nations Peace-Keeping, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. —— (2002) ‘Dealing with Crimes against Humanity’, Southeast Asian Affairs 2001, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Affairs, 129–41. Henderson, J. (1999) Reassessing ASEAN, Adelphi Paper 328, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hendrickson, D. (2002) ‘Globalisation, Insecurity and Post-War Reconstruction: Cambodia’s Precarious Transition’, IDS Bulletin, 32: 98–105. Higgins, R. (1984) ‘Intervention and International Law’, in H. Bull (ed.) Intervention in World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hobbes, T. (1998 [1651]) Leviathan, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hochschild, A. (1999) King Leopold’s Ghost, London: Macmillan. Holsti, K. J. (1986) ‘The Horseman of the Apocalypse: At the Gate, Detoured, or Retreating’, International Studies Quarterly, 30: 355–72. Holzgrefe, J. L. (2003) ‘The Humanitarian Intervention Debate’, in J. L. Holzgrefe and R. Keohane (eds) Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hughes, C. (2002) ‘International Intervention and the People’s Will: The Demoralization of Democracy in Cambodia’, Critical Asian Studies, 34: 539–62. —— (2003) The Political Economy of Cambodia’s Transition, 1991–2001, New York: Routledge Curzon. Human Rights Watch (1997) ‘Aftermath of the Coup’. www.hrw.org/reports/1997/ cambodia —— (1998) ‘Human Rights Watch Welcomes New Japanese Position on International Court’, Rome: 28 June. http://hrw.org/press98/june/japn0626.htm —— (1999a) ‘Impunity in Cambodia: How Human Rights Offenders Escape Justice’. www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cambo2/ —— (1999b) World Report 1999: Special Issues and Campaigns – International Criminal Court. www.hrw.org/worldreport99/special/icc.html —— (1999c) ‘International Criminal Court’, Issue 10. www.hrw.org/wr2k/Issues-09.htm Bibliography 181 —— (2002a) ‘Justice Denied for Timor-Leste’. Human Rights Watch: Backgrounders. www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/timor/etimor1202bg.htm —— (2002b), World Report: ‘International Justice’, www.hrw.org/wr2k2/internationaljustice. html —— (2003) Serious Flaws: Why the UN General Assembly Should Require Changes to the Draft Khmer Rouge Tribunal Agreement. www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/ cambodia040303-bck.htm —— (undated) ‘International Justice’. www.hrw.org/wr2k2/international justice.html Human Security Centre (2004) Human Security Report 2004, Vancouver: University of British Columbia. —— (2005) Human Security Report 2005: War and Peace in the 21st Century, New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press. ICISS (2001a) ‘Beijing: Roundtable Consultation with Nongovernmental and other Interested Organizations, June 14 2001’, in Regional Roundtables and National Consultations, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, pp. 391–94, www.iciss.ca —— (2001b) The Responsibility to Protect, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, www.iciss.ca Ignatieff, M. (1998) The Warrior’s Honour: Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience, New York: Viking Press. —— (2002) Virtual War, London: Vintage. International Peace Academy (1992) Options for Promoting Corporate Responsibility in Conflict Zones: Perspectives from the Private Sector, New York: International Peace Academy. Irvin, G. (1993) ‘Cambodia: Why recovery is unlikely in the short term’, European Journal of Development Research, 5: 123–41. Ishizuka, K. (2004) ‘Australia’s Policy towards East Timor’, Round Table, 93(374): 271–85. Jackson, R. H. (1993) ‘Armed Humanitarianism’, International Journal, 48(4): 579–606. Jain, P. (2007) ‘Australia’s Attitude toward Asian Values and Regional Community Building’, Politics & Policy, 35(1): 26–41. Jain, R. (2002) ‘Globalisation, Liberalisation and Human Security in India: Challenges for Governance’, Journal of Developing Societies, 17: 111–29. JCIE (1999a) The Asian Crisis and Human Security: An Intellectual Dialogue on Building Asia’s Tomorrow, Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange. —— (1999b) Sustainable Development and Human Security: Second Intellectual Dialogue on Building Asia’s Tomorrow, Tokyo/Singapore: Japan Center for International Exchange/Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. —— (2002) Health and Human Security: Moving from Concept to Action, Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange. www.jcie.or.jp/thinknet/tomorrow/4.html —— (undated) Dialogue and Research Monitor: Inventory of Multilateral Meetings on Asia Pacific Security and Community Building, 1994–2002, Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange. www.jcie.or.jp/drm Jarasa, J. (1999) ‘The ASEAN Troika on Cambodia: A Philippine Perspective’, in D. Ball and A. Acharya (eds) The Next Stage: Preventive Diplomacy and Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific, Canberra: Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. Jardine, M. (1992) ‘Forgotten Genocide’, Progressive 56(12): 19–21. Jeldres, J. A. (1996) ‘Cambodia’s fading hopes’, Journal of Democracy, 7: 148–57. Jennar, R. M. (ed.) (1995) The Cambodian Constitutions (1953–1993), Bangkok: White Lotus. 182 Bibliography JETRO (1999) Nihon no Boeki Aitekoku Top 50: 1999 [Japan’s Trade Partners Top 50: 1999], Tokyo: Japan External Trade Organization. www.jetro.go.jp/jpn/stats/trade/excel/ rank1999.xls Jin, L. (2000) ‘The Principle of Non-intervention in the Asia Pacific Region: A Chinese Perspective’, in D. Dickens and G. Wilson-Roberts (eds) Non-Intervention and State Sovereignty in the Asia-Pacific, Wellington: Center for Strategic Studies. Johnson, J. (2002) ‘How Conceptual Problems Migrate: Rational Choice, Interpretation, and the Hazards of Pluralism’, Annual Review of Political Science, 5: 223–48. Jones, S. and PoKempner, D. (1993) ‘Human Rights in Cambodia: Past, Present, and Future’ in F. Z. Brown (ed.) Rebuilding Cambodia: Human Resources, Human Rights and Law, Arlington, VA: Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy. Josselin, D. and Wallace, W. (eds) (2001) Non-State Actors in World Politics, London: Palgrave. Joyner, C. (1999) ‘The United Nations and Democracy’, Global Governance, 5: 333–57. JSMP (2004) The Future of the Serious Crimes Unit, Dili, East Timor: Judicial System Monitoring Programme, www.jsmp.minihub.org/Reports Kabashima, I. and MacDougal, T. (1999) ‘Japan: Democracy with Growth and Equity’, in J. W. Morley (ed.) Driven by Growth: Political Change in the Asia-Pacific Region, Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe. Kagan, R. (2003) Paradise and Power, London: Atlantic Books. Kammen, D. (1999) ‘Notes on the Transformation of the East Timor Military Command and its Implications for Indonesia’, Indonesia, 67: 61–76. Kaufmann, C. (1996) ‘Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil Wars’, International Security, 20(4): 136–75. Keating, T. and Knight, A. (eds) (2006) Building Sustainable Peace, New Delhi: Academic Foundation. Kegley, C. (1993) ‘The Neoidealist Moment in International Studies? Realist Myths and the New Internationalist Realities’, International Studies Quarterly, 37: 131–46. Keohane, R. (1989) International Institutions and State Power, Boulder, CO, San Francisco, CA and London: Westview Press. Keohane, R. and Nye, J. (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, Boston, HA: Little, Brown. Kerr, R. (2001) ‘International Peace and Security and International Criminal Justice’, in E. Newman and O. Richmond (eds) The United Nations and Human Security, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Khan, A. R. (ed.) (2001) Globalization and Non-Traditional Security in South Asia, Colombo: Regional Centre for Strategic Studies. Khong, Y. F. (2001) ‘Human Security: A Shotgun Approach to Alleviating Human Misery?’, Global Governance, 7(3): 231–36. Kiernan, B. (ed.) (1993) Genocide and Democracy in Cambodia: The Khmer Rouge, the United Nations and the International Community, New Haven, CT: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies. —— (1996) The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power and Genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kikkawa, F. (2007) ‘Japan and East Timor: Change and Development of Japan’s Security Policy and the Road to East Timor’, Japanese Studies, 27(3): 247–61. Kim, Woosang and Hyun, In-Taek (2000) ‘Toward a New Concept of Security: Human Security in World Politics’, in W. T. Tow, R. Thakur and I. Hyun (eds) Asia’s Emerging Regional Order: Reconciling Traditional and Human Security, Tokyo: United Nations Press. Bibliography 183 King, G., Murray, C. and Christopher, J. L. (2002) ‘Rethinking Human Security’, Political Science Quarterly, 116(4): 585–610. Kirby, M. (1995) ‘Human rights, the United Nations and Cambodia’, Australia Quarterly, 67: 26–39. van Klinken, G. (1998) ‘No Autonomy for East Timor without Democracy in Indonesia’, Inside Indonesia Digest 72: 4 December, http://insideindonesia.org/digest/dig72.htm Knight, A. (1996) ‘Toward a Subsidiarity Model for Peacemaking and Preventive Diplomacy’, Third World Quarterly, 17(1): 31–52. Kolko, G. (1997) Vietnam: Anatomy of a Peace, London and New York: Routledge. Kondoch, B. (2001) ‘The United Nations Administration of East Timor’, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 6(2): 245–65. Kotsopoulos, J. (2006) A Human Security Agenda for the EU? EPC Issue Paper 48, European Policy Centre. www.epc.eu/TEWN/pdf/245249_Human%20Security%20IP.pdf Knudsen, T. B. (1996) ‘Humanitarian Intervention Revisited: Post-Cold War Responses to Classical Problems’, International Peacekeeping, 3(4): 146–65. Korey, W. (2001) NGOs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, New York: Palgrave. Krasner, S. D. (1983) ‘National Security and Economics’, in T. Trout and J. G. Harf (eds) National Security Affairs, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Krieger, H. (ed.) (1997) East Timor and the International Community: Basic Documents, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van der Kroef, J. M. (1991) ‘Cambodia in 1990: The Elusive Peace’, Asian Survey, 31(1): 94–102. Kumar, K. (ed.) (1998) Post-Conflict Elections, Democratization and International Assistance, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Kupchan C. A. and Kupchan, C. A. (1991) ‘Concerts, Collective Security, and the Future of Europe’, International Security, 16(1): 114–61. —— (1998) ‘The Promise of Collective Security’, in M. E. Brown, O. R. Coté Jr, S. M. Lynn-Jones and S. E. Miller (eds) Theories of War and Peace: An International Security Reader, Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press. Kurth, J. (2005) ‘Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq: Legal Ideals vs. Military Realities’, Orbis, 50(1): 87–101. Lam, P. E. (2006) ‘Japan’s Human Security Role in Southeast Asia’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 28(1): 141–59 Lawless, R. (1976) ‘The Indonesian Takeover of East Timor’, Asian Survey 16(10): 948–64. Leaver, R. (2001) ‘Introduction: Australia, East Timor and Indonesia’, Pacific Review 14(1): 1–14. Le Billon, P. (2000) ‘The Political Ecology of Transition in Cambodia, 1989–99: War, Peace and Forest Exploitation’, Development and Change, 31: 785–805. Le Billon, P. and Springer, S. (2007) ‘Between War and Peace: Violence and Accommodation in the Cambodian Logging Sector’, in W. de Jong, D. Donovan and K. Abe (eds) Extreme Conflict and Tropical Forests, New York: Springer. Lee, C. (2003) Human Security: Implications for Taiwan’s International Roles. Canadian Consortium on Human Security. www.humansecurity.info LICADHO (2006) Human Rights in Cambodia: The Façade of Stability, Phnom Penh: Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights. www.licadho.org Link, A. S., Hirst, D. W., Little, J. E. and Aandahl, F. (eds) (1983) The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, 41, January 24–April 6, 1917, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 184 Bibliography Lizée, P. (1993) ‘The challenge of conflict resolution in Cambodia’, Canadian Defence Quarterly, 23: 35–44. —— (1996) ‘Cambodia in 1995: From hope to despair’, Asian Survey, 36: 83–88. —— (2002) ‘Human security in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia’, Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International & Strategic Affairs, 24: 509–28. Locke, J. (1980 [1689]) Second Treatise on Government, London: Hackett Publishing Co. Lummis, C. D. (1996) Radical Democracy, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Luttwak, E. (1999) ‘Give War a Chance’, Foreign Affairs, 78(4): 36–44. MacFarlane, S. N. (2002) Intervention in Contemporary World Politics, Adelphi Paper 350, London: International Institute for Strategic Studies. MacFarlane, S. N. and Khong, Y. F. (2006) The UN and Human Security: A Critical History, Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press. MacFarlane, S. N. and Weiss, T. G. (1994) ‘The United Nations, Regional Organizations and Human Security: Building Theory in Central America’, Third World Quarterly, 15(2): 277–95. Mack, A. (2003) ‘The Human Security Report Project’, unpublished, Vancouver: Human Security Centre. Mack, A. and Khan, A. (2000) ‘The Efficacy of UN Sanctions’, Security Dialogue, 31(3): 279–92. de Magalhaes, A. B. (ed.) (1990) East Timor: Land of Hope, Apartado: Oporto University. Mak, J. N. (1999) ‘The Security Environment in Southeast Asia’, in D. Ball (ed.) Maintaining the Strategic Edge: The Defence of Australia in 2015, Canberra: Strategic and Defense Studies Centre. Makinda, S. M. (1993) Seeking Peace from Chaos: Humanitarian Intervention in Somalia, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Maley, W. (2000) ‘Australia and the East Timor Crisis: Some Critical Comments’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 54(2): 151–61. Mandelbaum, M. (2003) The Ideas that Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets in the Twenty-first Century, Oxford: Public Affairs. Marks, S. P. (1999) ‘Elusive Justice for the Victims of the Khmer Rouge’, Journal of International Affairs, 52(2): 691–718. Martin, I. (2001) Self-Determination in East Timor: The United Nations, the Ballot, and International Intervention, Boulder, CO and London: Lynne Rienner. Martin, I. and Mayer-Rieckh, M. (2005) ‘The United Nations and East Timor: From SelfDetermination to State-Building’, International Peacekeeping, 12(1): 125–45, reprinted in M. Caballero-Anthony and A. Acharya (eds) (2005) UN Peace Operations and Asian Security, London: Routledge. McCargo, D. (2005) ‘Cambodia: Getting Away with Authoritarianism’, Journal of Democracy, 16: 98–112. McDougall, D. (2001) ‘Regional Institutions and Security: Implications of the 1999 East Timor Crisis’, in A. Tan and K. Boutin (eds) Non-Traditional Security Issues in Southeast Asia, Singapore: Select Publishing. McKenzie, M. M. (2001) ‘The UN and Regional Organizations’, in E. Newman and O. Richmond (eds) The United Nations and Human Security, London: Palgrave/Macmillan. McRae, R. and Hubert, D. (eds) (2001) Human Security and the New Diplomacy: Protecting People, Promoting Peace, Montreal and Kingston: McGill–Queen’s University Press. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1998a) ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, in M. E. Brown, O. R. Coté Jr, S. M. Lynn-Jones and S. E. Miller (eds) Theories of War and Peace: An International Security Reader, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bibliography 185 —— (1998b) ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War’, in M. E. Brown, O. R. Coté Jr, S. M. Lynn-Jones and S. E. Miller (eds) Theories of War and Peace: An International Security Reader, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. —— (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York/London: W.W. Norton. Mearsheimer, J. J. and Pape, R. (1993) ‘The Answer: A Partisan Plan for Bosnia’, New Republic, (14 June): 22–28. Mearsheimer, J. J. and Van Evera, S. (1995) ‘When Peace Means War’, New Republic, (18 December): 16–21. Miall, H., Ramsbotham, O. and Woodhouse, T. (1999) Contemporary Conflict Resolution, Oxford: Polity Press. Michel, J. (2005) ‘Human Security and Social Development: Comparative Research in Four Asian Countries’, working paper for World Bank Conference ‘New Frontiers of Social Policy: Development in a Globalizing World’, 12–15 December, Arusha, Tanzania. http://siteresources. worldbank.org/INTRANETSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/Michel.rev.pdf Miller, L. H. (2001) ‘The Idea and the Reality of Collective Security’, in P. F. Diehl (ed.) The Politics of Global Governance: International Organizations in an Interdependent World, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Ministry of Economy and Finance, Kingdom of Cambodia (2006) ‘A Lifelong Record of Outstanding and Visionary Leadership’. www.mef.gov.kh/Department/department.html Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of China (2002) ‘China’s Position Paper on Cooperation in the Field of Non-Traditional Security Issues’. www.fmprc.gov.cn —— (2003) ‘China and the International Criminal Court’. www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/ zzjg/tyfls/tyfl/2626/2627/t15473.htm Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Kingdom of Cambodia (2006) ‘Hor Namhong Curriculum Vitae’. www.mfaic.gov.kh/mhor.php Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (1999a) ‘Dispatch of Civilian Police Officers to the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET)’. www.mofa.go.jp/announce/ announce/1999/6/629.html —— (1999b) ‘Japan’s Position in Regard to the East Timor Issue and the Possibility of Japan Participating in United Nations Peacekeeping Forces’, Press Conference by the Press Secretary. www.mofa.go.jp/announce/press/1999/9/910.html#3 —— (1999c) ‘Higashi Chimoru ni Tenkai suru Takokusekigun no tameno Shikin Kyoshutsu ni tsuite [On Financial Support for the Multilateral Force Operating in East Timor]’. www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/easttimor/kyoshutu.html Mish, F. C. (ed.) (2003) Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edn, Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. Missiroli, A. (2006) ‘Foreword’ in J. Kotsopoulos, A Human Security Agenda for the EU? EPC Issue Paper 48, Brussels: European Policy Centre. Mohanty, M. (2002) ‘Humanitarian Intervention in an Unequal World – A View from Below’, paper presented at the International Seminar on Humanitarian Intervention, Beijing, 27–28 August (unpublished). Moller, K. (1998) ‘Cambodia and Burma: The ASEAN Way Ends Here’, Asian Survey, 38(12): 1087–104. Monk, P. M. (2000) A Slippery Slope to Complicity: Australian Policy on Portuguese Timor 1963–76 as Revealed by the National Archives, Melbourne: Australian Thinking Skills Institute. www.austhink.org/monk/SLIPPERY.pdf Morada, N. (2006) ‘R2P Roadmap in Southeast Asia: Challenges and Prospects’, UNISCI Discussion Papers, (11): 59–70. www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php?module=u ploads&func=download&fileId=229 186 Bibliography Morgenthau, H. (1993) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York: McGraw Hill. Mouffe, C. (1992) Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community, New York: Verso. Moynihan, D. P. (1978) A Dangerous Place, Boston: Little, Brown. Mussomeli, J. A. (2006) ‘The Khmer Rouge Genocide and the Need for Justice’. http:// cambodia.usembassy.gov/sp_032806.html Nairn, A. (2000) ‘US Support for the Indonesia Military: Congressional Testimony’, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 32(1/2): 43–48. Narine, S. (1997) ‘ASEAN and the ARF: The Limits of the “ASEAN Way” ‘, Asian Survey, 37(10): 961–78. Nevins, J. (2002) ‘The Making of “Ground Zero” in East Timor in 1999: an Analysis of International Complicity in Indonesia’s Crimes’, Asian Survey, 42(4): 623–41. Newman, D. (1999–2000) ‘A Human Security Council? Applying a “Human Security” Agenda to Security Council Reform’, Ottawa Law Review, 31(2): 213–41. Newman, E. and Richmond, O. (eds) (2006) Challenges to Peacebuilding: Managing Spoilers during Conflict Resolution, New York: United Nations University. Newman, G. and Kopras, A. (1999) Australia’s Trade with Indonesia, Parliament of Australia, Research Note 5 1999–2000. www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/RN/ 1999–2000/2000rn05.htm Nicolson, H. (1928) Peacemaking 1919, London: Constable & Co. Noguchi, M. (2006) ‘Criminal Justice in Asia and Japan and the International Criminal Court’, International Criminal Law Review, 6: 585–604. Nossal, K. R. (1999) ‘Liberal–Democratic Regimes, International Sanctions and Global Governance’, in R. Väyrynen (ed.) Global Governance and Enforcement: Issues and Strategies, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Nye, J. S. (2003) Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History, New York: Longman. Obama, B. (2007) ‘Renewing American Leadership’, Foreign Affairs, (July/August): 2–16. Obuchi, K. (1998a) ‘Opening Remarks at a Meeting on “Intellectual Dialogue on Building Asia’s Tomorrow”, Tokyo, 2 December 1998’, in The Asian Crisis and Human Security (1999), Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange. —— (1998b) ‘Toward the Creation of a Bright Future for Asia’, speech at the Lecture Program hosted by the Institute for International Relations, Hanoi, Vietnam, 16 December. Tokyo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/asean/ pmv9812/policyspeech.html Ogata, S. and Cels, J. (2003) ‘Human Security – Protecting and Empowering the People’, Global Governance, 9(3): 273–82. Ojendal, J. (1996) ‘Democracy Lost? The Fate of the UN-implanted Democracy in Cambodia’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 18: 193–218. Omura, K. (1986) Indoneshia Seiji Doyo no Kozu [The Structure of Political Instability of Indonesia], Tokyo: Yuhikaku. Open Society Institute (2007) Recent Developments at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, August Update, New York: Open Society Institute, www.soros.org/ resources/articles_publications/publications/eccc_20070803 Ottaway, M. (2001) ‘Corporatism Goes Global: International Organizations, Nongovernmental Organization Networks, and Transnational Business’, Global Governance, 7: 265–92. Bibliography 187 Ottaway, M. and Carothers, T. (2002) Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Paris, R. (1997) ‘Peacebuilding and the Limits of Liberal Internationalism’, International Security, 22(2): 54–89. —— (2001a) ‘Echoes of the Mission Civilisatrice: Peacekeeping in the Post-Cold War Era’, in E. Newman and O. Richmond (eds) The United Nations and Human Security, New York: St Martin’s Press. —— (2001b) ‘Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?’, International Security, 26(2): 87–102. Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002) ‘Neoliberalizing space’, Antipode, 34: 380–404. Peou, S. (1997) Conflict Neutralization in the Cambodia War: From Battlefield to BallotBox, Kuala Lumpur, New York and Singapore: Oxford University Press. —— (1998a) ‘Cambodia in 1997: Back to Square One?’, Asian Survey, 38: 69–74. —— (1998b) ‘Diplomatic Pragmatism: ASEAN’s Response to the July 1997 Coup’, in D. Hendrickson (ed.) Safeguarding Peace: Cambodia’s Constitutional Challenge, Accord: An International Review of Peace Initiatives, London: Conciliation Resources. —— (1998c) ‘Hun Sen’s Pre-emptive Coup: Causes and Consequences’, Southeast Asian Affairs, 86–102. —— (1998d) ‘The Subsidiarity Model of Global Governance in the UN–ASEAN Context’, Global Governance, 4: 439–59. —— (2000) Intervention and Change in Cambodia: Towards Democracy? New York: St Martin’s Press. —— (2002a) ‘The UN, Peacekeeping and Collective Human Security: From an Agenda for Peace to the Brahimi Report’, in E. Newman and A. Schanabel (eds) Recovering from Civil Conflict: Reconciliation, Peace and Development, London: Frank Cass. —— (2002b) ‘Constructivism in Contemporary East-Asian Security Studies: Assessing its Strengths and Weaknesses’, Pacific Focus, 17(2): 177–211. —— (2005) ‘Collaborative Human Security? The UN and other Actors in Cambodia’, International Peacekeeping, 12(1): 105–24; reprinted in M. Caballero-Anthony and A. Acharya (eds) UN Peace Operations and Asian Security, London and New York: Routledge. —— (2007) International Democracy for Peacebuilding: Cambodia and Beyond, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. —— (2008a) ‘Regional Security Communities: Theory, Practice, and Future Prospects for East Asia,’ in A. S. P. Baviera (ed.) Regional Security in East Asia: Challenges to Cooperation and Community Building, Quezon City: University of the Philippines Asian Center. —— (2008b) ‘Security Community Building in Pacific Asia: Liberal Democratic Norms, Leadership, and Prospects’, in W. Tow (ed.) Re-envisioning Asia-Pacific Security: A Regional-Global Nexus?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pettman, R. (2005) ‘Human Security as a Global Security: Reconceptualizing Strategic Studies’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 18(1): 137–50. Pinto, C. and Jardine, M. (1997) East Timor’s Unfinished Struggle: Inside the Timorese Resistance, Boston, MA: South End Press. Ponzio, R. (2005) ‘Why Human Security is a New Concept with Global Origins’, Stair, 1(2): 66–71. Popovski, V. (2000) ‘A Necessary Step towards Global Justice’, Security Dialogue, 31(4): 405–19. Posen, B. R. (1993) ‘The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict’, Survival, 35(1): 27–47. 188 Bibliography —— (2001) ‘The Struggle Against Terrorism: Grand Strategy, Strategy and Tactics’, International Security, 26(3): 39–55. Pugh, M. (1995) ‘Peacebuilding as Developmentalism: Concepts from Disaster Research’, Contemporary Security Policy, 16(3): 320–46. Railsback, K. (1989–90) ‘A Genocide Convention Action against the Khmer Rouge: Preventing a Resurgence of the Killing Fields’, Connecticut Journal of International Law, 5(457): 457–81. Ramsbotham, O. and Woodhouse, T. (1996) Humanitarian Intervention in Contemporary Conflict, Cambridge: Polity Press. Reisman, M. (1998) ‘Stopping Wars and Making Peace: Reflections on the Ideology and Practice of Conflict Termination in Contemporary World Politics’, Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 6: 46–49. Reno, W. (1995) Corruption and State Politics in Sierra Leone, New York: Cambridge University Press. Richmond, O. (2003) ‘Introduction: NGOs, Peace and Human Security’, in H. F. Carey and O. P. Richmond (eds) Mitigating Conflict: The Role of NGOs, London: Frank Cass, p. 6. —— (2005) The Transformation of Peace, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Rieff, D. (1995) ‘The Lessons of Bosnia: Morality and Power’, World Policy Journal, 12(1): 76–88. —— (2000) ‘International Conference: Are Good Intentions Good Enough? The Limits of the New World of International Justice’, McGill Law Journal, 46: 173–77. —— (2002) A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis, London: Vintage. Roberts, A. (1998) ‘Implementation of the Laws of War in late 20th Century Conflicts: Part II’, Security Dialogue, 29(3): 265–89. Roberts, A. and Guelff, R. (eds) (2000), Documents on the Law of War, 3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, D. (2001) Political Transition in Cambodia 1991–99: Power, Elitism and Democracy, Richmond: Curzon Press. Roht-Arriaza, N. (1999) ‘Institutions of Justice’, Journal of International Affairs, 52(2): 474–84. Rothschild, E. (1995) ‘What is Security?’ Daedalus, 124(3): 53–98. Rousseau, J. J. (1998 [1762]) The Social Contract, London: Wordsworth. Rubin, A. R. (1999) ‘Challenging the Conventional Wisdom: Another View of the International Criminal Court’, Journal of International Affairs, 52(2): 783–94. Ruggie, J. G. (2003) ‘The United Nations and Globalization: Patterns and Limits of Institutional Adaptation’, Global Governance, 9: 301–22. Sachs, J. (2005) The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for our Time, New York: Penguin. Sado, N. (2005) ‘Higashi Timoru ni okeru Nichi ASEAN Kyoryoku [Japan–ASEAN Cooperation in East Timor]’, Report of the Japan Institute of International Affairs, 31 March. www2.jiia.or.jp/pdf/resarch/h16_east_timor/east_timor_sado.pdf Salla, M. E. (1995) ‘Australian Foreign Policy and East Timor’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 49(2): 207–22. Samuel, T. (2003) ‘East Timor: the path to self-determination’, in C. L. Sriram and K. Wermester (eds) From Promise to Practice: Strengthening UN Capacities for the Prevention of Violent Conflict, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Samuels, R. J. (2007) Securing Japan: Tokyo’s Grand Strategy and the Future of East Asia, Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press. Sanders, D. (2002) ‘Behaviouralism’, in D. Marsh and G. Stoker (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bibliography 189 Sato, S. (1999) ‘Kokubo ga Naze Anzenhosho ni Nattanoka [Why has defence shifted to security?]’, Gaiko Forum, Special Issue: 5–6. Scheiner, C. (2000) ‘The United States: from complicity to ambiguity’, in P. Hainsworth and S. McCloskey (eds) The East Timor Question: The Struggle for Independence from Indonesia, London and New York: I.B. Tauris. Scholte, J. A. (2000) Globalization, London: Macmillan. Schwartz, J. M. (1996) The Permanence of the Political: A Democratic Critique of the Radical Impulse to Transcend Politics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Schweller, R. (2000) ‘US Democracy Promotion: Realist Reflections’, in M. Cox, J. Ikenberry and T. Inoguchi (eds) American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts, New York: Oxford University Press. Scott, J. C. (1995) Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Sebastian, L. and Smith, A. L. (2000) The East Timor Crisis: A Test Case for Humanitarian Intervention, Southeast Asian Affairs 2000, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Sen, A. (1999), ‘Human Rights and Economic Achievements’, in J. R. Bauer and D. A. Bell (eds) The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense of Australia (1983) The Human Rights and Conditions of the People of East Timor, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Severino, R. (2000) ‘Sovereignty, Intervention and the ASEAN Way’, address by the Secretary General at the ASEAN Scholars’ Roundtable, Singapore, 3 July 2000. Seymour, C. (1928) The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, Vol. 3, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, cited by D. Fromkin (1989) A Peace to End All Peace, London: Phoenix Press. Shawcross, W. (2002) ‘Cambodia and the Perils of Humanitarian Intervention’ Dissent, Spring: 47–53. Shinoda, H. and Uesugi, Y. (eds) (2005) Funso to Ningen no Anzenhosho [Conflict and Human Security], Tokyo: Kokusai Shoin. Shuto, M. (2004) ‘Higashi Timoru no Kokka Keisei to Funso Yobo no Kadai [The Nation Building in East Timor and the Issues for Conflict Prevention]’, in Heisei 15 nendo Gaimusho Itaku Kenkyu ‘Funso Yobo’. www.jiia.or.jp/pdf/global_issues/h15_funsou-yobou/ 4_shutou.pdf Sil, R. (2000a) ‘The Foundations of Eclecticism: The Epistemological Status of Agency, Culture, and Structure in Social Theory’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 12(3): 353–87. —— (2000b) ‘Against Epistemological Absolutism: Towards a Pragmatic Center”, in E. Sil and E. Doherty (eds), Beyond Boundaries? Disciplines, Paradigms and Theoretical Integration in International Studies, Albany: State University of New York Press. Simpson, B. (2005) ‘Illegally and Beautifully’: The United States, the Indonesian Invasion of East Timor and the International Community, 1974–76’, Cold War History, 5(3): 281–315. Smith, M. G. and Dee, M. (2003) Peacekeeping in East Timor: The Path to Independence, Boulder, CO and London: Lynne Rienner. Smith, S. (1991) ‘Mature Anarchy, Strong States and Security’, Arms Control, 12(2): 325–39. Smith, T. W. (2002) ‘Moral Hazard and Humanitarian Law: The International Criminal Court and the Limits of Legalism’, International Politics, 39: 175–92. Snyder, C. A. (2006) ‘Southeast Asian Perceptions of Australia’s Foreign Policy’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 28(2): 322–40. 190 Bibliography Snyder, J. and Vinjamuri, L. (2003/04) ‘Trials and Errors: Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice’, International Security, 28: 5–44. Song, Y. (2002) ‘The Concepts of Human Security and Non-Traditional Security: A Comparison’, paper presented at the Human Security Conference, Taipei, 16 December (unpublished). Soros, G. (1998) The Crisis of Global Capitalism: Open Society Endangered, 1st edn, New York: Public Affairs. Springer, S. (2008) ‘The Nonillusory Effects of Neoliberalisation: Linking Geographies of Poverty, Inequality, and Violence’, Geoforum, in press. —— (2009) ‘Violence, Democracy, and the Neoliberal ‘Order’: The Contestation of Public Space in Post-transitional Cambodia’, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 98 (4). St John, R. B. (1995) ‘The Political Economy of the Royal Government of Cambodia’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 17: 265–81. —— (1997) ‘End of the Beginning: Economic Reform in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 19: 172–89. Stares, P. B. (ed.) (1998) The New Security Agenda: A Global Survey, Tokyo and New York: Japan Center for International Exchange. Sucharithanarugse, W. (2000) ‘The Concept of “Human Security” Extended: “Asianizing” the Paradigm’, in W. T. Tow, R. Thakur and I. Hyun (eds) Asia’s Emerging Regional Order, Tokyo: United Nations University. Tadjbakhsh, S. (2005) ‘Human Security: Concepts and Implications’, Les Etudes du CERI, 117–18: 1–29. Tadjbakhsh, S. and Chenoy, A (2007) Human Security: Concepts and Implications, London/ New York: Routledge. Tan, A. and Boutin, K. (eds) (2001) Non-Traditional Security Issues in Southeast Asia, Singapore: Select Publishing. Tan, S. (2002) ‘Is Public Space Suited to Co-Operative Inquiry?’, Innovation, 15: 23–31. Tayler, J. (1991) Indonesia’s Forgotten War: The Hidden History of East Timor, London: Zed Books. Terry, F. (2002) Condemned to Repeat? The Paradox of Humanitarian Action, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Thakur, R. (1994) ‘From Peacekeeping to Peace Enforcement: The UN Operation in Somalia’, Journal of Modern African Studies, 32: 387–410. —— (2003) ‘Intervention Could Bring Safeguards to Asia’, Daily Yomiuri, 14 May. —— (2006) The United Nations, Peace and Security: From Collective Security to the Responsibility to Protect, New York: Cambridge University Press. Thambipillai, P. (1985) ‘ASEAN Negotiating Styles: asset or hindrance?’ in P. Thambipillai and J. Saravanamuttu (eds) ASEAN Negotiations: Two Insights, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Thiparat, P. (ed) (2001) The Quest for Human Security: The Next Phase of ASEAN? Bangkok: Institute of Security and International Studies. Thomas, C. (2000) Global Governance, Development, and Human Security: The Challenge of Poverty and Inequality, London: Pluto. Thomas, C. and Wilkin, P. (1999) (eds) Globalization, Human Security and the African Experience, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Thomas, N. and Tow, W. (2002a) ‘The Utility of Human Security: Sovereignty and Humanitarian Intervention’, Security Dialogue, 33(2): 177–92 —— (2002b) ‘Gaining Security by Trashing the State? A Reply to Bellamy and McDonald’, Security Dialogue, 33(3): 379–82. Bibliography 191 Thomas, R. G. C. (ed.) (2003) Yugoslavia Unravelled: Sovereignty, Self-Determination, and Intervention, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Tiffen, R. (2001) Diplomatic Deceits: Government, Media and East Timor, Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. Toon, V. (2004) ‘International Criminal Court: Reservations of Non-State Parties in Southeast Asia’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 26: 218–26. Tostensen, A. and Bull, B. (2002) ‘Are Smart Sanctions Feasible’, World Politics, 54: 373–403. Tow, W. T. (2000) ‘Introduction’, in W. T. Tow, R. Thakur and I. Hyun (eds) Asia’s Emerging Regional Order: Reconciling Traditional and Human Security, Tokyo: United Nations Press. Tow, W. T. and Trood, R. (2000) ‘Linkages between Traditional Security and Human Security’, in W. T. Tow, R. Thakur and I. Hyun (eds) Asia’s Emerging Regional Order: Reconciling Traditional and Human Security, Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Tow, W. T., Thakur, R. and Hyun, I. (eds) (2000) Asia’s Emerging Regional Order: Reconciling Traditional and Human Security, Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Tucker, R. (2001) ‘The International Criminal Court Controversy’, World Policy Journal, 18(2): 71–82. Um, K. (1990) ‘Cambodia in 1989: Still Talking but No Settlement’, Asian Survey, 30: 96–104. —— (1994) ‘Cambodia in 1993: Year Zero Plus One’, Asian Survey, 34 (1): 72–81. UNDP (1994) Human Development Report: New Dimensions of Human Security, New York: Oxford University Press. —— (1999) Human Development Report: Globalization with a Human Face, New York: Oxford University Press. —— (2002) Human Development Report 2002, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. United Nations (1999) Report of the Group of Experts for Cambodia Pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 52/135, www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cambodia-1999.html —— (2004) A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, Report of the SecretaryGeneral’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, New York: United Nations Foundation, www.un.org/secureworld United Nations Department of Public Information (2002) East Timor – UNTAET Background, New York: United Nations, www.un.org/peace/etimor/UntaetB.htm UN Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (2004) A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, United Nations Foundation, New York. United States Census Bureau (2007) International Data Base. www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb Urquhart, B. E. (1983) ‘Peacekeeping: A View from the Operational Center’, in H. Wiseman Peacekeeping: Appraisals and Proposals, New York: Pergamon. Van Evera, S. (1998) ‘Offense, Defense, and the Causes of War’, in M. E. Brown, O. R. Coté Jr, S. M. Lynn-Jones and S. E. Miller (eds) Theories of War and Peace: An International Security Reader, Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press. Vickery, M. (2007) Cambodia: A Political Survey, Phnom Penh: Editions Funan. Vincent, R. J. (1974) Nonintervention and International Order, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. —— (1987) Human Rights and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walt, S. M. (1991) ‘The Renaissance of Security Studies’, International Studies Quarterly, 35: 211–39. 192 Bibliography —— (2001/02) ‘Beyond bin Laden: Reshaping US Foreign Policy’, International Security, 26(3): 56–78. Walton, D. (2004) ‘Japan and East Timor: Implications for the Australia–Japan Relationship’, Japanese Studies, 24(2): 233–46. Waltz, K. N. (2000) ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’, International Security, 25(1): 5–41. Walzer, M. (1996) Just and Unjust Wars, A Moral Argument with Historical Illustration, New York: Basic Books. Wang, Y. (2006) ‘China Facing Non-Traditional Security: A Report on Capacity Building’, in R. Emmers, M. C. Anthony and A. Acharya (eds) Studying Non-Traditional Security in Asia: Trends and Issues, Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic. Washburn, J. L. (1996) ‘United Nations Relations with the United States: The UN Must Look Out for Itself’, Global Governance, 2(1): 81–96. Watanabe, K. (2003) Humanitarian Intervention: The Evolving Asian Debate, Tokyo: Centre for International Exchange. Watanabe, T. (1999) ‘Higashi Timoru Dokuritsu to Indonesia Josei [East Timor’s Independence and the Situation in Indonesia]’, Ajia Jiho. Watt, F. (1998) An Independent and Effective International Criminal Court, Ottawa: World Federalists of Canada. www.worldfederalistscanada.org/icceffective.html Wedgwood, R. (1999) ‘The International Criminal Court: An American View’, European Journal of International Law, 10(6): 93–107. Weiss, T. G. (2004) ‘The Sunset of Humanitarian Intervention? The Responsibility to Protect in a Unipolar Era’, Security Dialogue, 35(2): 135–53. Weiss, T. G., Cortright, D., Lopez, G. A. and Minear, L. (1997) Political Gain and Civilian Pain: Humanitarian Impacts of Economic Sanctions, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Welsh, J. M. (2002) ‘From Right to Responsibility: Humanitarian Intervention and International Society’, Global Governance, 8: 503–21. Wesley, M. (1995) ‘The Cambodian Waltz: The Khmer Rouge and United Nations Intervention’, Terrorism and Political Violence, London: Frank Cass. Wheeler, N. J. (2000) Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wheeler, N. J. and Bellamy, A. J. (2001) ‘Humanitarian Intervention and World Politics’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wheeler, N. J. and Dunne, T. (2001) ‘East Timor and the New Humanitarian Interventionism’, International Affairs, 77(4): 805–27. Wheeler, N. J. and Morris, J. (1996) ‘Humanitarian Intervention and State Practices at the End of the Cold War’, in R. Fawn and J. Larkins (eds) International Society after the Cold War: Anarchy and Order Reconsidered, Houndsmill: Macmillan. White, N. D. (2002) The United Nations System: Toward International Justice, Boulder, CO and London: Lynne Rienner. Willetts, P. (2000) ‘From ‘Consultative Arrangements’ to ‘Partnership’: The Changing Status of NGOs in Diplomacy at the UN’, Global Governance, 6: 191–212. Williams, A. (1998) Failed Imagination? New World Orders, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Williamson, J. (1999) ‘What Should the Bank Think about the Washington Consensus?’ paper prepared as a background to the World Bank’s World Development Report 2000, Washington, DC: World Bank. Bibliography 193 Wippman, D. (1999–2000) ‘Atrocities, Deterrence, and the Limits of International Justice’, Fordham International Law Journal, 23(473): 473–88. Wolfers, A. (1962) Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. World Bank (2004) ‘Steering a Steady Course: Strengthening the Investment Climate in East Asia’, East Asia Update, November, Washington, DC: World Bank. Yacoubian, G. (1999) ‘The Efficacy of International Criminal Justice’, World Affairs, 161(1): 186–92. Young, N. (1987) ‘Peace Movements in History’, in S. Mendlovitz and R. B. J. Walker (eds) Towards a Just World Peace, London: Butterworths. Zhang Y. (ed.) (2001) Stability and Security of Socio-Economic Development in East Asia, Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. Ziauddin, A. (2001) ‘A Continent in Need of the ICC – International Criminal Court Campaigns in Asia’, International Criminal Court Monitor 19 (December): 6,15. Zwanenburg, M. (1999) ‘The Statute for an International Criminal Court and the United States: Peacekeepers under Fire?’ European Journal of International Law, 10(1): 124–43.