Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:30:40.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Regionalism in Southeast Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Amry Vandenbosch
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access

Extract

The term “Southeast Asia” is coming steadily into greater use. The termis a convenient geographic expression, but is it anything more? Do the countries of this region have very much in common? Do they have enough in common to suggest the possibility of fruitful cooperation? These questions take on added significance because of the present political upheavals and unrest in nearly all of the countries of this region.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1946

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 Furnivall, J. S., Progress and welfare in Southeast Asia (New York: Institute of Pacific Relations, 1941), p. 6Google Scholar.

2 Quoted by Felipe Mabilangan in the Philippine papers prepared for the Institute of Pacific Relations by the Philippine Council (1939), p. 30.

3 Chinese investments in this region are stated to be over 4 billion Straits Settlements dollars by the Overseas Board of the Central Executive Committee of the Kuomintang.

4 Felipe Mabilangan, op. cit., p. 31.

5 Richard Winstedt, “Malaya,” Annals of the American academy of political and social science (March 1943), 99.

6 P. D. Phillips in comment on the paper by W. D. Forsyth on “Stability i n the Pacific: the position o f Australia.” Institute of Pacific Relations Conference Paper, 1942, Australia and the Pacific.

7 The Philippines (New York: Macmillan, 1942), p. 453Google ScholarPubMed.

8 Ibid., pp. 803–804.

9 Supplement, August, 1942.

10 Article 73, United Nations Charter.