Search

Begin New Search Topic Diplomacy Political Geography Asia

241. Still Lips and Teeth? China-North Korea Relations after Kim Jong-il`s Visit to China

Author:
Dong Ryul Lee
Publication Date:
07-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
Only nine months after the visits in May and August of 2010, Kim Jong-il yet again made an unofficial visit to China on May 20, 2011. Although it is uncommon for three visits to take place within the span of a year, there exists some precedent for this within the history of China-North Korea relations. Before and after the Korean War in 1950, Kim Il-sung visited China three times consecutively. In 1964 as the Sino-Soviet split was intensifying, it is said that five meetings took place in both Beijing and Pyongyang. Both times were strategically critical moments within China-North Korea relations. It is generally assumed that Kim Jong-il has been motivated by urgent concerns to make such consecutive visits to China that from a distance look hasty. The issues that North Korea and China currently share can be categorized into three areas: economic aid and cooperation, the leadership succession process in North Korea, and resumption of the Six-Party Talks. These issues are not so different from the agenda that was set during Kim’s previous two visits to China in 2010. In fact, economic aid and the Six-Party Talks has been a regular feature of China-North Korea meetings since the Second Nuclear Crisis broke out in 2002. The speculation that Kim Jong-il visited China three times in order to obtain the Chinese leadership’s support for the succession process is unbalanced. Neither side would want the appearance of China intervening in North Korea’s domestic affairs. For Beijing, such actions would contradict its own policy of non-intervention as well as weaken its position on Taiwan. North Korea, for its part, would not wish to appear to be publicly seeking China’s support that would question the legitimacy of its own Juche ideology that emphasizes independence from great powers. There is a need to focus on the fact that all these three different issues actually resulted in maintaining and stabilizing the North Korean regime. Compared to his previous visits to China, Kim Jong-il’s latest visit in 2011 would appear to be no different. However, during this visit there was stronger public emphasis on the “DPRK-Chinese friendship and traditional alliance.” Notably, upon his arrival in Pyongyang, Kim Jong-il held an unprecedented welcoming party and highlighted the successful results of the visit. Kim even heralded China-North Korea relations by declaring it as the “immortal long march.” Despite this rhetoric, there was a subtle difference between the two countries in the way that they emphasized the strengthening of China-North Korea relations. With the pressure of meeting its declared objective of becoming a “strong and prosperous nation” by 2012, Kim Jong-il appears to have judged that the only alternative in resolving the problem of increasing regime instability is through China. In other words, with this visit to China, North Korea sought to mutually reconfirm the reinforcement of China-North Korea relations7and at the same time, it tried to actively display this friendship. In contrast, China is taking precautions against the possibility that other countries will overestimate China-North Korea relations. For example, the Chinese government made the very unusual gesture of briefing South Korea and other related countries on the contents of the China-DPRK summit immediately following Kim’s visit to China. Furthermore, at the 2011 Shangri-La Dialogue held in Singapore, China’s Minister of National Defense General Liang Guanglie emphasized that "We have been advising North Korea, via different channels, not to take the risk." While both North Korea and China are greatly concerned about the reaction of other countries, the message the two countries are trying to send are slightly, but clearly different. Such a difference reflects the complicated and delicate nature of China-North Korea relations.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Military Intervention, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

242. China’s Strategic Shift and North Korea’s Open-Door to China Policy

Author:
Seung-Yul Oh
Publication Date:
09-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
In the first half of 2011, bilateral trade volume between China and North Korea doubled compared to the same period of the previous year. On August 2, North Korean First Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Guan concluded his week-long visit to Washington at the invitation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Furthermore, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, during his first visit to Russia since 2002, met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at a military base on the outskirts of the eastern Siberian city of Ulan-Ude to talk about bilateral economic cooperation on August 24. Seemingly, North Korea’s hectic diplomatic efforts shed light on the long-stalled Six-Party talks, and it tries to counterweigh its heavy dependency on China. Is North Korea changing its attitude toward the outside world? In order to answer the question, this paper delves into the strategic motivation of the North and China for expanding Korea-China economic relations in terms of China’s strategic shift and North Korea’s open-door to China policy. Since the global financial crisis, China’s hierarchical status in the world economic order in terms of economic volume and influence improved so fast that even China itself has been facing some difficulties in accommodating the changes in its domestic sociopolitical sphere as well as its external strategies. Premier Wen’s repeated emphasis on the imperativeness of political reform in China is, to some extent, related to the discrepancies in the speed of changes between China’s political institutions and economic power, that is, imbalances in the basis and the superstructure in terms of the political philosophy of Karl Marx. For Marx, the stubborn capitalistic superstructure was a big problem. But in today’s China, the bureaucratic and closed superstructure is in contradiction with its globalized market economy as the world’s workshop. China’s gains from its peaceful rise have not been free from the pains of growth. Such a dilemma might be understood from the example of the contradiction in China’s external political gestures: it categorically argues that it is a member of developing countries when meeting with representatives from those developing countries; nevertheless, at the same time, it deliberately releases news about its achievements in military technologies, for example, those of the J-20 stealth fighter and the super-aircraft carrier. In addition, at the news conference after the closing ceremony of the third China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Washington in May 2011, the Chinese delegation used the phrase “two leaders” frequently, designating the two giants, China and the United States.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and North Korea

243. Russia’s “Return” to Asia: How Should South Korea Respond?

Author:
Beom-Shik Shin
Publication Date:
12-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
On August 24, 2011, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il held a joint summit in Eastern Siberia, the first such meeting between the two countries since 2002. After the summit, many speculated upon the impact this meeting would have upon the current stalemate on the Korean Peninsula over North Korea’s nuclear program. Although some experts viewed Kim Jong-il’s visit to Russia as merely a form of begging bowl diplomacy, such analysis underestimates recent efforts by Russia to engage Northeast Asia. Moreover, the strategic significance of the summit is reflected in the agreement reached between the two leaders which would imply that the summit could be a watershed moment in bringing about new dynamics on the Korean Peninsula and among neighboring countries. Particularly, the proposed Trans-Korea Gas Pipeline Project would have a strong impact on the political geography of Northeast Asia. In November 2011, South Korea and Russia held their own summit in St Petersburg where the Trans-Korea Gas Pipeline project was reconfirmed. Moscow even expressed its willingness to build the pipeline, passing through North Korea, at its own expense. Such a very active participation from Russia though could provoke certain competition with China in the region. The future course of this project is expected to be decided during the negotiation process between Russia’s Gazprom and South Korea’s KOGAS. Yet in South Korea, domestically, this issue of building a gas pipeline could be controversial in many ways. There are concerns regarding security matters related to North Korea as well as a lack of trust in Russia. At the same time, the responses from the United States and China must be taken into account. As 2012 is the year of leadership change for many countries in the region, it is also possible that the project will become unnecessarily politicized and eventually jeopardized. Therefore, South Korea should carefully prepare an action plan for realizing this project in order to take advantage of this opportunity amid changing dynamics in the region. In recent years there has been much talk of the United States “returning” to Asia, but Russia is also making its own return. This gas pipeline project shows how Russia intends to use its vast energy resources to facilitate its ambition to play a new role in Northeast Asia. This Issue Briefing addresses the impact of Russia’s reengagement and how South Korea should respond by considering both the positive and negative effects.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Energy Policy, Regional Cooperation, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Asia, and South Korea

244. Indonesia: The Deepening Impasse in Papua

Publication Date:
08-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
The two sentiments that define the political impasse in Papua are frustration on the part of many Papuans that “special autonomy” has meant so little, and exasperation on the part of many Indonesian government officials that Papuans are not satisfied with what they have been given. The gulf between the two might be reduced by dialogue, but any prospect of serious talks is hampered by an un-willingness of Jakarta to treat the problem as essentially a political, rather than an economic one. To move forward, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono needs personally to take the lead in recognising that autonomy means more than increased budgetary allocations or accelerated economic development. He needs to explore directly with credible Papuan leaders how political autonomy can be expanded; affirmative action policies strengthened in all sectors; and Papuan fears about in-migration addressed. Unless these three issues are tackled head on in face-to-face meetings, the impasse is unlikely to be broken and increased radicalisation is likely.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Economics, Treaties and Agreements, and Territorial Disputes
Political Geography:
Indonesia and Asia

245. China-Japan Security Relations

Publication Date:
10-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Brookings Institution
Abstract:
The recent clash between a Chinese fishing vessel and the Japanese coast guard in the East China Sea demonstrates continuing potential for conflict between China and Japan over territory and maritime resources, one that could affect the United States. China's stronger navy and air force in and over the waters east and south of the country's coast is one dimension of that country's growing power. But the deployment of these assets encroaches on the traditional area of operations of Japan's navy and air force - and a clash between Chinese and Japanese ships and planes cannot be ruled out.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, and Asia

246. New Foreign Policy Actors in China

Author:
Linda Jakobson and Dean Knox
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Abstract:
In contemporary China a cacophony of voices urges decision makers to pursue a variety of foreign policies. The continuing pluralization of Chinese society and China's growing interdependence with the international order have made decision-making processes more complex. These changes, taking place at a time when China's cooperation is increasingly vital to the resolution of key global issues, present a challenge to foreign policy makers. Effective engagement of China in the international arena requires an understanding of the interplay within and between not only the Communist Party of China (CPC), the Chinese Government and the People's Liberation Army (PLA) but also new foreign policy actors on the margins of the traditional power structure. These new actors include resource companies, financial institutions, local governments, research organizations, the media and netizens.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, and International Trade and Finance
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Australia/Pacific

247. Indonesia and Australia: time for a step change

Author:
Fergus Hanson
Publication Date:
03-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Lowy Institute for International Policy
Abstract:
The relationship with Indonesia is one of Australia's most important but it is still not on a firm footing. Government-to-government ties have been strengthening but relations are focused around a mostly negative set of security-related issues. Business-to-business links are underdone and mutual public perceptions are poor. Without significant incentives to drive closer ties, one of Australia's most important relationships will continue to stagnate.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Trade and Finance, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
Asia, Australia/Pacific, and Southeast Asia

248. Prospects for Implementing the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement

Author:
Jeffrey J. Schott
Publication Date:
10-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
The Korea-US Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) was signed on June 30, 2007. Since then, the Korean National Assembly has vetted the agreement and the pact cleared a major legislative hurdle when the Foreign Affairs and Trade Committee approved it in April 2009; the full assembly has deferred final passage pending comparable action by the US Congress. In the United States, the ratification process has not yet begun; neither President George W. Bush nor President Barack Obama has submitted implementing legislation to Congress.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Trade and Finance, Bilateral Relations, and Law
Political Geography:
United States, Israel, Asia, and Korea

249. Peacebuilding in Asia: refutation or cautious engagement?

Author:
Amaia Sánchez Cacicedo
Publication Date:
11-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Union Institute for Security Studies
Abstract:
This Occasional Paper explores the features and implications of an 'Asian' approach to peacebuilding and seeks to define what is distinctive about this approach. In attempting to answer this question, the author aims to establish what characterises peacebuilding activities undertaken by Asian countries and how their attitudes to peacebuilding differ from Western-dominated mainstream views of peacebuilding. It is argued here that in an Asian context peacebuilding is conditioned by a Westphalian vision of the world as opposed to the post-Westphalian views of liberal interventionists. Thus, for Asian countries peacebuilding does not imply conflict resolution activities along the lines of peacemaking. Instead, peacebuilding practice in Asia is exercised through peacekeeping and economic assistance flows. Official involvement in a country's internal political affairs, including humanitarian interventions that involve the use of force, or in domestic peace processes is commonly avoided. Yet, as in Western contexts, there is a growing niche for civil society in Asian peacebuilding activities as well as in the domain of non-traditional security issues. This development is explored in this paper. As a way of structuring the analysis, a distinction is made between peacebuilding within and beyond the Asian region, a key factor in influencing different actors' approach. In the context of peacebuilding activities undertaken within Asia, the emphasis is on the nurturing of bilateral relationships and on 'limited' multilateral peacebuilding. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is examined as a case study in order to explore this last aspect further. When looking into Asian actors' peacebuilding activities beyond the region, the cases of China, India and Japan are addressed. With the exception of Japan, the other countries under scrutiny in this paper have focused the bulk of their peacebuilding activities outside the region to contributing troops to UN Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKO), hence the emphasis on the latter. In the conclusion, the existence of common features that distinguish a cautious Asian engagement in mainstream peacebuilding activities is confirmed; however, caution is different from complete refutation. Indeed, the Westphalian nature of Asian actors' approach to peacebuilding pervades both the regional and the global spheres, although the challenges are inevitably bigger at a global level. This further explains differences in motivation as well as in attitudes to the purpose of peacebuilding among Asian actors at different levels of analysis as addressed in this paper.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Peace Studies, United Nations, and Peacekeeping
Political Geography:
Israel and Asia

250. The "new" Turkish foreign policy and its implications for Norwegian peacebuilding

Author:
Jean-Paul Marthoz
Publication Date:
12-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Norwegian Centre for Conflict Resolution
Abstract:
This paper is based on interviews with diplomats, experts and political analysts and provides an overview of Turkey's foreign policy, particularly in relation to peacebuilding. In the past year, Turkey has moved to the centre stage on the international scene. After making the headlines with its joint mediation initiative with Brazil on Iran's nuclear issue, in May Ankara clashed with Israel over the storming of the Gaza-bound “humanitarian flotilla”. Suddenly all eyes were on a country situated in this most turbulent and strategic region of the world – a country that had appeared at least until recently to be a reliable and predictable ally of the West, and of Israel. However, the country's actions and reactions should not have come as a surprise. Over the past ten years Turkey has been busy developing a very active foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East and Central Asia. It has reached out to countries traditionally considered as adversaries, such as Russia, Iran and Syria. Ankara has also not been afraid to express its differences and diverge from the West on certain issues, from Cyprus to Armenia to Palestine.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Humanitarian Aid
Political Geography:
Turkey, Middle East, Israel, Asia, Palestine, Armenia, Syria, and Cyprus