Power, security and regional conflict management in Southern Africa and South Asia

Laurie Nathan

doi:10.1108/S0195-6310(2010)0000027016

Login

Welcome:
Guest

Search for:

Browse:

Product Information:

Resources:

Comparative Social Research

ISSN: 0195-6310
Series editor(s): Dr Fredrik Engelstad

Subject Area: Sociology and Public Policy

Content: Series Volumes | Current Volume RSS

Options: To add Favourites and Table of Contents Alerts please take a Emerald profile

Document request:
Power, security and regional conflict management in Southern Africa and South Asia

Document Information:
Title:	Power, security and regional conflict management in Southern Africa and South Asia
Author(s):	Laurie Nathan
Volume:	27 Editor(s): Kristian Berg Harpviken ISBN: 978-0-85724-101-6 eISBN: 978-0-85724-102-3
Citation:	Laurie Nathan (2010), Power, security and regional conflict management in Southern Africa and South Asia, in Kristian Berg Harpviken (ed.) Troubled Regions and Failing States: The Clustering and Contagion of Armed Conflicts (Comparative Social Research, Volume 27), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.309-332
DOI:	10.1108/S0195-6310(2010)0000027016 (Permanent URL)
Publisher:	Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Article type:	Chapter Item
Abstract:	This article explores the ways in which hegemony and power impact on the emergence, development and conflict management function of regional organizations. It compares the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), both of which include a strong regional power. These powers have contrasting postures: South Africa is a keen regionalist, a reluctant hegemon and a pacific power, whereas India is a keen hegemon, a reluctant regionalist and a militarist power. The presence of the hegemon has stimulated regionalism in Southern Africa but retarded regionalism in South Asia. Despite these differences, SADC and SAARC have similarly failed to manage regional conflict effectively. This has been due in large measure to the conflictual relationship between the hegemon and another powerful state in each region, Zimbabwe in the case of South Africa, and Pakistan in the case of India. Some of these dynamics are well explained by neorealist theory, but other dynamics are best explained by constructivist and liberal positions. This supports the argument by Katzenstein and Okawara (2001–2002) that in the field of international relations an eclectic analytical approach is required to comprehend complex processes that combine material, ideational, international, domestic, contemporary and historical factors.