Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:19:53.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sovereignty, intervention, and social order in revolutionary times

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2013

LEE JONES
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores how sovereignty and (non-)intervention are implicated in the (re)production of specific social orders. Sovereignty and the non-interference principle circumscribe ‘domestic’ politics from ‘the international’, defining who is legitimately included or excluded from the struggles that determine political and social orders. State managers seek to admit forces and resources favourable to the order they are seeking to create, whilst excluding those deleterious to it. In revolutionary periods, however, these attempts to ‘cage’ social relations often crumble as transnational forces engage in fierce, multifaceted conflicts overlapping territorial borders. In such circumstances, both norms of non-interference and practices of intervention may be used by dominant forces to help contain the spread of sociopolitical conflict and to strengthen their hand in the struggle to (re)define social order. Sovereignty regimes are thus shaped by the strategies and ideologies of the various social groups locked in conflict at a particular historical moment. This argument is illustrated through the case of Cold War Southeast Asia, where sovereignty and intervention were both used to stabilise capitalist social order and curtail transnational, radical threats from below.

Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 39 , Issue 5: Intervention and the Ordering of the Modern World , December 2013 , pp. 1149 - 1167
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Vincent, R. John, Non-Intervention and International Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), p. 14Google Scholar. See also the introduction to this Special Issue.

2 LeFebvre, Henri, The Production of Space, trans. Nicholson-Smith, Donald (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1991), p. 279Google Scholar.

3 Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital and European States, AD 900–1990 (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1990)Google Scholar; Spruyt, Hendrik, The Sovereign State and its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

4 Agnew, John, Globalization and Sovereignty (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2009), pp. 60–1Google Scholar.

5 Lawson, George and Shilliam, Robbie, ‘Beyond Hypocrisy? Debating the “Fact” and “Value” of Sovereignty in Contemporary World Politics’, International Politics, 46:6 (2010), p. 664Google Scholar.

6 Walker, R.B.J., Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

7 See Ayoob, Mohammed, The Third World Security Predicament: State Making, Regional Conflict, and the International System (London: Lynne Rienner, 1995)Google Scholar.

8 For an argument that, consequently, intervention produces sovereignty, see Chong, Ja Ian, External Intervention and the Politics of State Formation: China, Indonesia, and Thailand, 189–1952 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Halliday, Fred, Revolution and World Politics: The Rise and Fall of the Sixth Great Power (London: Macmillan, 1999), p. 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 This has enabled the fragile social orders of many ‘quasi-states’ to prevail. See Jackson, Robert H., Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Clapham, Christopher, Africa and the International System: The Politics of State Survival (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Lacher, Hannes, ‘Putting the State in its Place: The Critique of State-Centrism and its Limits’, Review of International Studies, 29:4 (2003), p. 529CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Hameiri, Shahar, Regulating Statehood: Statebuilding and the Transformation of the Global Order (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 For examples, see, inter alia, Robinson, William I., Transnational Conflicts: Central America, Social Change and Globalization (London: Verso, 2003)Google Scholar; Chamberlin, Paul T., The Global Offensive: The United States, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the Making of the Post-Cold War Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar; Harmer, Tanya, Allende's Chile and the Inter-American Cold War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Nguyen, Lien-Hang, Hanoi's War: An International History of the War for Peace in Vietnam (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

14 Halliday, Revolution, p. 209.

15 Rosenberg, Justin, The Empire of Civil Society: A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations (London: Verso, 1994), p. 35Google Scholar.

16 See Dodge, Woodward, and Williams, this Special Issue.

17 See Hobsbawm, Eric J., The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789–1848 (London: Cardinal, 1973), pp. 127–79Google Scholar.

18 Colás, Alejandro, ‘Open Doors and Closed Frontiers: The Limits of American Empire’, European Journal of International Relations, 14:4 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Silvia Colombo, ‘The GCC Countries and the Arab Spring: Between Outreach, Patronage and Repression’, Instituto Affari Internazionali working paper 12/9 (March 2012), available at: {http://www.iai.it/pdf/DocIAI/iaiwp1209.pdf} accessed 24 August 2012.

20 Krasner, Stephen D., Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), pp. 223, 24, 7, 64Google Scholar.

21 Agnew, Globalization and Sovereignty.

22 Krasner, Sovereignty, p. 7.

23 Ayoob, Security Predicament, p. 71.

24 Acharya, Amitav, Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009), p. 74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moon, Chung-in and Chun, Chaesung, ‘Sovereignty: Dominance of the Westphalian Concept and Implications for Regional Security’, in Alagappa, Muthiah (ed.), Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003), p. 107Google Scholar. For a welcome revisionist treatment of China's record, see Lawson and Tardelli, this Special Issue.

25 See, for example, Acharya, Whose Ideas Matter; Acharya, Amitav, Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order (2nd edn, London: Routledge, 2009)Google Scholar. Cf. Jones, Lee, ASEAN, Sovereignty and Intervention in Southeast Asia (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Scott, James C., The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008)Google ScholarPubMed.

27 Guan, Ang Cheng, ‘The Origins of the Cold War in Southeast Asia: The Case of Vietnam’, in Murfett, Malcolm H. (ed.), Cold War Southeast Asia (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish, 2012), pp. 13–14Google Scholar.

28 For detailed analyses of this process, see Ang, ‘Origins’; Cheah Boon Kheng, ‘The Communist Insurgency in Malaysia, 1948–1989: Was it Due to the Cold War?’, in Murfett (ed.), Cold War, pp. 31–49; Tung, Phạm Hông, ‘The Cold War and Vietnam, 1945–54: How Did a Nationalist Struggle Turn into a Class Struggle?’, in Lau, Albert (ed.), Southeast Asia and the Cold War (London: Routledge, 2010), pp. 153–73Google Scholar.

29 Bruce Lockhart, ‘The Fate of Neutralism in Cambodia and Laos’, in Murfett (ed.), Cold War, p. 222.

30 Guan, Ang Chen, Southeast Asia and the Vietnam War (London: Routledge, 2010), pp. 18–19Google Scholar.

31 Danny Wong Tze Ken, ‘View From the Other Side: The Early Cold War in Malaysia From the Memoirs and Writings of Former MCP Members’, in Lau (ed.), Southeast Asia, p. 86.

32 Cheah ‘Communist Insurgency in Malaysia’, p. 43.

33 Ricklefs, M. C., Lockhart, Bruce, Lau, Albert, Reyes, Portia, and Aung-Thwin, Maitrii, A New History of Southeast Asia (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), pp. 375, 422CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 See, inter alia, Yen, Ching-Hwang, The Chinese in Southeast Asia and Beyond (Singapore: World Scientific, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ricklefs et al., New History, pp. 327, 334, 401, 408, 418; Ang, Vietnam War, pp. 4, 17, 19, 64, 66; Ooi Keat Gin, ‘The Cold War and British Borneo: Impact and Legacy 1945–63’, in Lau (ed.), Southeast Asia, passim.

35 Ang, Vietnam War, p. 19.

36 See Alexander, Robert J., International Maoism in the Developing World (London: Praeger, 1999)Google Scholar.

37 Slater, Dan, Ordering Power: Contentious Politics and Authoritarian Leviathans in Southeast Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Rajaratnam, S., ‘ASEAN and the Indochina Refugee Problem’, in Guan, Kwa Chong, (ed.), S. Rajaratnam on Singapore: From Ideas to Reality (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2006), p. 165Google Scholar.

39 Girling, John L. S., Thailand: Society and Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981), pp. 263–4Google Scholar.

40 Sutayut Osornprasop, ‘Thailand and the Secret War in Laos: The Origins of Engagement’, in Murfett (ed.), Cold War, pp. 168–70.

41 Telegram from the Embassy in Thailand to the Department of State (29 March 1963), in Keefer, Edward C. (ed.), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, vol. XXIII (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1994), pp. 990–3Google Scholar.

42 Winichakul, Thongchai, Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

43 Albert Lau, ‘Decolonization and the Cold War in Singapore, 1955–9’, in Lau (ed.), Southeast Asia, p. 46; Joseph M. Fernando, ‘The Cold War, Malayan Decolonization and the Making of the Federation of Malaysia’, in Lau (ed.), Southeast Asia, pp. 70–1, 78.

44 Jones, Matthew, Conflict and Confrontation in South East Asia, 1961–1965: Britain, the United States, Indonesia and the Creation of Malaysia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 62–75, 102Google Scholar.

45 Ooi, ‘Cold War’, pp. 102–1.

46 Jones, Conflict and Confrontation, p. 116.

47 Roosa, John, Pretext for Mass Murder: The September 30th Movement and Suharto's Coup d'État in Indonesia (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

48 Ibid., p. 12.

49 This eliminated the main rationale for merger with Malaysia, resulting in Singapore's independence in 1965.

50 Memorandum from the Director of Central Intelligence Helms to President Nixon (23 October 1970), in Lawler, Daniel J. (ed.), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, vol. XX (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2006), p. 195Google Scholar.

51 Ang, Vietnam War, p. 68.

52 Memorandum from Vice-President Humphrey to President Johnson (19 October 1966), in Keefer, Edward C. (ed.), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, vol. XXVI (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 636Google Scholar.

53 ASEAN, ‘ASEAN Declaration’, Bangkok (8 August 1967), available at {http://www.aseansec.org/1212.htm} accessed 27 March 2007.

54 Yew, Lee Kuan, From Third World to First – The Singapore Story: 1965–2000 (Singapore: Singapore Press Holdings, 2000), pp. 369–70Google Scholar.

55 ASEAN, ‘ASEAN Declaration’.

56 Ang, Vietnam War, pp. 12–13.

57 S. Rajaratnam, ‘What is ASEAN About?’, in Kwa (ed.), Rajaratnam, p. 93.

58 Heaton, William R., ‘China and Southeast Asian Communist Movements: The Decline of Dual Track Diplomacy’, Asian Survey, 22:8 (1982), p. 798CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Memorandum of Conversation (29 October 1975), in Coleman, Bradley L., Goldman, David, and Nickles, David (eds), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, vol. E-12 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 2011), p. 6Google Scholar.

60 Berger, Mark T., The Battle for Asia: From Decolonization to Globalization (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Stubbs, Richard, Rethinking Asia's Economic Miracle: The Political Economy of War, Prosperity, and Crisis (London: Palgrave, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Kislenko, Arne, ‘A Not So Silent Partner: Thailand's Role in Covert Operations, Counter-Insurgency, and the Wars in Indochina’, Journal of Conflict Studies, 24:1 (2004), p. 1Google Scholar.

63 INFID, ‘Profile of Indonesia's Foreign Debt’, Working Paper (August 2007), available at: {http://www.jubileeaustralia.org/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=22291} accessed 9 September 2009, p. 21.

64 Ang, Vietnam War, p. 17.

65 Memorandum of Conversation (26 May 1970), in Lawler (ed.), FRUS, 1969–76, vol. XX, pp. 640–1.

66 Ang, Vietnam War, pp. 42, 49, 97.

67 Chanda, Nayan, Brother Enemy: The War After the War (New York: Macmillan, 1986), p. 380Google Scholar; Chandler, David P., A History of Cambodia (3rd edn, Boulder: Westview, 2000), p. 192Google Scholar.

68 Sutayut, ‘Thailand and the Secret War’, pp. 165–94.

69 Ang, Vietnam War, p. 51.

70 Fernando, ‘Cold War’, p. 79.

71 Ang, Vietnam War, pp. 28–9.

72 Ibid., p. 66.

73 Leifer, Michael, Indonesia's Foreign Policy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1983), p. 132Google Scholar.

74 See documents in Keefer (ed.), FRUS, 1964–68, vol. XXVI, pp. 617, 619, 622, 634–5, 640–1; Lawler (ed.), FRUS, 1969–76, vol. XX, pp. 587, 640, 663–9, 673–4.

75 See documents in Lawler (ed.), FRUS, 1969–76, vol. XX, pp. 39, 66, 114, 122–3, 132–9, 141–2, 183, 197, 376–7, 382–3.

76 Memorandum of Conversation (26 May 1970), in ibid., p. 634.

77 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) 15/2082/11, Letter from P.J.E. Male to Mr Wilford (16 April 1975).

78 Ang, Vietnam War, p. 63.

79 Telegram 14945 from the Embassy in Indonesia to the Department of State (6 December 1975), in Coleman, Goldman, and Nickles (eds), FRUS 1969–1976, vol. E-12, doc. 141.

80 ‘President Suharto Cautions Against Communist Threat’, Antara (20 July 1975).

81 Huxley, Tim, Indochina and Insurgency in the ASEAN States, 1975–1981 (Canberra: ANU, 1983), p. 26Google Scholar.

82 FCO 15/2558/48, ‘Call on the Deputy Prime Minister of Thailand (Mr Sunthorn Hongladarom) by the Permanent Under-Secretary at Claridges on Friday 2 February 1979’.

83 FCO 15/2473/20b, Telegram from J.W.D. Margaretson, British Embassy, Hanoi, to David Owen, British Foreign Secretary (9 February 1979).

84 FCO 15/2474/38, Telegram from British High Commission, Singapore, to Mr Cortazzi, FCO (30 October 1979).

85 The following draws on Jones, ASEAN, pp. 75–91.

86 Chanda, Brother Enemy, p. 381.

87 Sutayut, ‘Thailand’, p. 194.

88 Berger, Battle for Asia, p. 249.

89 Heaton, ‘China’, pp. 785–98.

90 Jones, ASEAN, pp. 89–90.

91 Ibid., p. 89.