Foreign Policy Convergence in Pacific Asia: The Evidence from Voting in the UN General Assembly. (16th April 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ferdinand, Peter
• Is Part Of: British journal of politics and international relations. Volume 16:Number 4(2014:Nov.)
• Page Start: 662
• Page End: 679
• Publication Date: 2013-04-16
• Subjects: Great Britain -- Politics and government -- 1997-2007 -- Periodicals; Great Britain -- Politics and government -- Periodicals; Great Britain -- Foreign relations -- 1945- -- Periodicals; 320.094105
• DOI: 10.1111/1467-856X.12019
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1369-1481

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>Research Highlights and Abstract</title> <p>Research Highlights<list id="bjpi12019-list-0001" list-type="bullet"><list-item><p>Comparative assessment of three indexes of voting cohesion</p></list-item><list-item><p>Demonstrates the strong shared orientation towards global affairs among states in the Pacific Asian region, especially ASEAN and China, which is greater than that of the EU</p></list-item><list-item><p>Shows the widespread reluctance of most Pacific Asian states publicly to criticize human rights abuses</p></list-item><list-item><p>Shows the estrangement of the US from the foreign policy orientations of Pacific Asian states, even Japan and South Korea</p></list-item></list></p> <p>This article aims to do three things: (i) compare three different indexes for assessing the voting cohesion of regional groups of states in the UN General Assembly; (ii) use these indexes to assess the foreign policy convergence of states in Pacific Asia on global issues between 1974 and 2008; (iii) compare the extent of that convergence with the European Union (EU). All three indexes show a high degree of convergence in the voting records of states in Pacific Asia, but particularly in ASEAN, which is higher than in the EU. The most frequent cause of divergence since the end of the Cold War has been the reluctance of most states in the region, apart from Japan and South Korea, publicly to criticize the human rights records of other states. Although there are variations, the results also reveal the divergence in voting between states throughout the region and the US.</p> </abstract>