Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Political Geography Asia

551. U.S.-Indonesia and U.S.-Malaysia Relations in the Trump Era

Author:
Brian Harding and Trevor Sutton
Publication Date:
06-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Since President Donald Trump took office, East Asia has rapidly emerged as one of both his and his foreign policy advisers’ key geographic focuses. To date, most of Trump’s attention has been on Northeast Asia—particularly China and North Korea. By contrast, the White House has offered little in the way of a policy vision for Southeast Asia, where engagement so far has largely focused on gaining Southeast Asian support for policy regarding North Korea’s nuclear program. Yet even with Washington on autopilot with the region, U.S. ties with some Southeast Asian states are already changing. Specifically, the Islamophobic rhetoric and policies of Trump’s campaign and the early days of his administration have already caused significant damage to perceptions of the United States and its government among the region’s more than 230 million Muslims, the vast majority of whom live in its two Muslim-majority nations—Indonesia and Malaysia.1 In April, the authors visited Jakarta, Indonesia, and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and met with leading political analysts, public opinion experts, businesspeople, and government officials to get on-the-ground insight into how the general public and elites in Indonesia and Malaysia view the Trump administration and what those views might mean for U.S. bilateral relations. While it is too early for substantial polling data to be available, it is clear that opinions of the United States are declining among the general public in both countries.2 However, based on the authors’ conversations with officials and leading nongovernment analysts, it also appears that U.S.-Indonesian and U.S.-Malaysian government to government relations are unlikely to deteriorate significantly in the immediate future. But the reasons why bilateral relations are likely to remain stable may also damage U.S. interests in the long run.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Leadership, and Peace
Political Geography:
Indonesia, Malaysia, Asia, North America, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

552. A U.S. Perspective on the Impact of Sanctions

Author:
James Walsh
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
Despite a crowded news agenda, North Korea has managed to draw the attention of both political leaders and the public at large. Missile tests, an assassination employing VX nerve agent, and preparations for a nuclear test have drawn strong reaction from Washington to Kuala Lumpur. Each new controversy sends policymakers scrambling for a response and, more often than not, that response has been a call for new and tougher sanctions. And not surprisingly, each new call for sanctions resurrects the old question: do sanctions on North Korea have any impact?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Sanctions
Political Geography:
Asia, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

553. A Chinese Perspective on the Impact of Sanctions

Author:
Cheng Xiaohe
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
Since the Korean War, North Korea (the DPRK) has endured sanctions imposed by the United States and other western countries, but the sanctions began to acquire a dramatic impact only in 2006 when North Korean ballistic missile blasts invited a punitive reaction from the UN Security Council. In addition to sanctions imposed by individual countries, for the first time, international organizations, notably the Security Council, passed punitive resolutions in an effort to rein in North Korea’s missile and nuclear development. In order to supervise implementation of the sanctions, the Security Council set up a committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 in 2006 (the sanctions committee), which now comprises all 15 members and makes its decisions by consensus. To North Korea’s dismay, as it continues to fight against western countries’ economic sanctions and military embargo, it now has to bear the brunt of sanctions from its traditional allies, China and Russia. Even so, it has been defying international pressure and pressing ahead with its missile and nuclear weapons programs. Despite tougher sanctions, North Korea is poised to possess missiles with nuclear warheads that could hit South Korea, Japan, and the United States. This paper explores the effectiveness of the sanctions, asking whether the North’s steady progress on nuclear and missile weapons demonstrates their failure.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Sanctions, and Economy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North Korea, and United States of America

554. The Impact of Chinese National Identity on Sino-South Korean Relations

Author:
See-Won Byun
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
How do Chinese national identity narratives affect Sino-South Korean relations? The Koguryo history war more than a decade ago was a turning point in bilateral relations since diplomatic normalization in 1992, generating enduring competition over representations of history.1 In 2010, China’s commemoration of its entry into the Korean War raised early warnings in South Korea over Beijing’s hostile foreign policy orientation under Xi Jinping. Contrary to such expectations, however, the earliest summit agreements between presidents Xi Jinping and Park Geun-hye after both took office in 2013 were on history cooperation as common victims of Japanese colonialism. Most notably in 2015, Park’s participation in Beijing’s 70th anniversary celebrations of the end of World War II consolidated joint claims of what was called the best period in bilateral relations.2 This chapter assesses the impact of Chinese national identity on China-Republic of Korea (ROK) relations under the Xi and Park administrations since 2013. It examines Chinese constructions of national identity and their implications for the security, economic, and cultural dimensions of the Sino-South Korean relationship. Rather than promoting partnership, competing identities across these dimensions reinforce enduring differences over the region’s political, economic, and cultural order. These differences surfaced most saliently in 2016, following an initial period of engagement that corresponds with the downward trend in China-Japan relations since 2012. Managing them requires the very trust-building that both Beijing and Seoul have prioritized since 2013.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and Identity
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and North Korea

555. The Impact of Chinese National Identity on Sino-Japanese Relations

Author:
Yinan He
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
Sino-Japanese relations have been in another volatility cycle since the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands disputes flared up again in summer 2012. The downward trend seems to have bottomed out in November 2014 when the two leaders Xi Jinping and Abe Shinzo finally held their first meeting since entering office. However, the anticipated recovery has proved tenuous; the momentum toward further improvement has halted since early 2016 when confrontation escalated in both the South China Sea and East China Sea. While acknowledging the role of realist power shift and geostrategic rivalry in causing Sino-Japanese tension, this paper argues that a widening gap between their national identities is also highly relevant. The current Xi government has promoted a national reinvigoration campaign emphasizing Chinese history and culture, the socialist model, and defense of core interests, which runs counter to that of Abe’s Japan, a democratic and historically revisionist country. This national identity conflict has exacerbated mutual distrust, denied chances of reassurance, and generated domestic popular objections to diplomatic compromise between the two countries.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and Identity
Political Geography:
Japan, China, and Asia

556. Intro | The Impact of Chinese National Identity on Bilateral Relations

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
The construct “Chinese national identity” refers to narratives from China’s leadership, media, and academic spokespersons about what makes their country distinctive and how those ideas matter in relations with other nations. This is a relational concept that serves to distinguish the “self” and “other,” whose interpretation is shaped by interactions with other states. Seen from the vertical dimension of identity, these interactions are filtered through rhetoric aimed at promoting unity at home. Demonizing other nations while conveying an image of enemies or states seeking to contain China is a means to boost solidarity behind Communist Party control over a society with little means to dissent. The horizontal dimension of identity depicts bilateral relations as the result not of different national interests, but of clashing and often irreconcilable identities. Examining the way national identity on the Chinese side impacts five external relationships is the objective of this set of articles, which concentrate on Chinese rhetoric during the period of Xi Jinping.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and Identity
Political Geography:
China and Asia

557. A View from the United States on Sino-U.S. Relations

Author:
Joel Wuthnow
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, the candidates reached a bipartisan consensus on one issue: how to deal with North Korea. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both called for China to do more to convince Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear program once and for all. Candidate Trump said that China has “absolute control” over North Korea and promised to do whatever it takes to convince Beijing to use that leverage, including imposing penalties on Chinese firms. As president, however, Trump will have to navigate the reality of China’s extreme hesitance to use the only type of pressure likely to divert North Korea’s nuclear ambitions—the threat of regime-endangering punishment. If and how China should continue to fit into U.S. strategy for dealing with North Korea will thus be a key issue facing Trump and his advisors.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Bilateral Relations, Elections, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

558. A View from South Korea on Sino-ROK Relations

Author:
Kim Heung-kyu
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
Although we are only into the first months of the Trump administration, many Koreans recognize that the U.S.-led, market-oriented, liberal international order has been severely shaken. In the background, the rapid rise of China and rather successful economic reforms under Xi Jinping have dramatically reduced its vulnerability and sensitivity to the United States. As one power’s grip is shaken and another’s is energized, two different orders are emerging in East Asia. We accordingly witness a “Clash of Titans,” the fallout from which could be fatal to the security and economy of the Republic of Korea.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Economy, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and South Korea

559. Intro | Establishing Triangular Talks Among Washington, Beijing, and Seoul

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
Of five alternative approaches to addressing the North Korean threat to stability in East Asia and beyond, this section is concerned with the possibility of just one—a diplomatic approach via Three-Way Talks among China, South Korea, and the United States. We single out this approach as the golden mean for reconciling the conflicting interests among the parties best positioned to reshape the calculus of Pyongyang. It represents the path to compromise. Among the alternatives, there is the Chinese appeal for a dual-track approach through Six-Party Talks, aimed at a peace treaty on terms attractive to North Korea and greatly transformative to the security architecture in Northeast Asia. This could hardly be called a compromise, since Seoul and Washington regard this as a win for Pyongyang and evidence that Beijing actually has been siding with Pyongyang. Another alternative is Strategic Patience, which is a misnomer for the policy of the Obama administration, but, in any case, refers mainly to reliance on increased deterrence as pressure is ratcheted up. In fact, Obama was seeking a pathway to three-way talks, giving China time to shift in that direction bolstered by new sanctions, while in 2016 also moving closer to a fourth approach: Unilateral Sanctions targeted at the Chinese firms assisting North Korea. A fifth option is Alliance Triangularity to force change in Pyongyang.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Sanctions, Instability, and Regional Security
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

560. No longer a new kid on the block – China in the Middle East

Author:
James Moran
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
Abstract:
Given China’s growing role in the complex security dynamics in the Middle East and North Africa, the EU should intensify its dialogue and, where interests coincide, joint action with Beijing. Last month’s Chinese Communist Party Congress, with its stress on President Xi Jinping’s strong leadership at home and abroad, has sparked much discussion on how the rest of the world, not least the EU, should deal with a new political behemoth in their backyards. There is nothing new, of course, about China’s economic prowess. For some time now, it has been a major, if not indeed the, prime investor and trader in numerous countries around the world. But with power vacuums appearing in the wake of the Trump administration’s neo-isolationism, and following China’s military-led expansion in the South China Sea, could it be that Beijing is about to become more of a global rule-maker, rather than a rule-taker in international security? The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is an interesting, and for Europeans, sensitive case in point. And there is some evidence that China is moving beyond its traditional interest in the stability of Gulf oil and gas supplies, and raising its profile in the region.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, European Union, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
China, Middle East, and Asia