This study aimed to examine the impact of Asian countries’ memory politics on the development of regional conflicts. A comparative analysis was conducted alongside a discursive analysis of official memory narratives and a content analysis of political documents and commemorative practices. The research explored key concepts and classifications of memory politics. Case analysis demonstrated that official interpretations of historical events and commemorative practices not only generate contradictions but also directly influence contemporary diplomatic relations. In the case of the partition of British India, divergent historical narratives in India and Pakistan continue to fuel tensions, manifesting in border clashes in Kashmir, diplomatic blockades, and confrontations on international platforms, including the United Nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Japan’s aggression in Asia during the twentieth century remains a source of disputes between Japan, Korea, and China, reflected in mutual economic sanctions, ongoing controversies over historical events, and periodic diplomatic démarches. Military conflicts between Cambodia and Vietnam illustrate the enduring impact of the colonial past: memories of military actions and occupation are reflected in border tensions, restrictions on trade relations, and political rivalry for influence within Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Importantly, memory politics not only affect domestic political processes but also play a key role in international politics and the foreign policy identity of states. Analysis of current trends indicated that the use of historical memory as a tool for political legitimisation or the mobilisation of nationalist sentiments contributes not only to the escalation of conflicts but also to the creation of long-term barriers to regional integration and international cooperation. The findings of the study may be applied to the development of strategies for managing historical memory, with the aim of reducing interstate tensions, promoting dialogue and reconciliation, and shaping policies that prevent the manipulation of historical narratives in both foreign and domestic policy
Oksana Sidletska (Sat,) studied this question.