Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Political Geography Asia

841. Policy Impact Panel China and the United States: Strategic Partners or Adversaries?

Publication Date:
06-1997
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
Dr. LESLIE GELB (President, Council on Foreign Relations): Welcome to today's program on the United States and China: Strategic Partners or Adversaries? My name is Les Gelb. I'm President of the Council on Foreign Relations. And the Council, along with the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, has put together this panel because we think it's dealing with one of the most important, if not the most important, foreign policy question facing the United States. These Policy Impact Panels, as we call them, are designed to do two things. One, try to establish facts in a very complicated situation, because often we spend a lot of time wondering what the facts are or if they can be established. The second purpose is to lay out the policy alternatives, to give us a sense of what we can do about the problems or the facts.
Topic:
Security and Foreign Policy
Political Geography:
United States, China, and Asia

842. U.S. Trade Negotiations: Lessons Learned, Lessons Applied

Author:
Mickey Kantor
Publication Date:
11-1997
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
The challenges of the era of interdependence will constitute the greatest foreign policy test of the 21st century. The war over globalization and interdependence is at an end. Only the battles are yet to be fought. Those who cower behind walls of fear and fail to accept responsibility do so at their own peril, and will not turn containment into engagement, or mutual assured destruction into mutual assured prosperity. The approach of the new millennium finds us at the intersection of three epochal events: in politics, the end of the Cold War; in economics, the emergence of a global economy; and in technology, the rise of the Information Age. The intersection of economics, strategic issues, and political concerns is creating the glue which will bind together an updated U.S. foreign policy. Vast opportunities lie before us, and more than a few pitfalls. We face fewer serious military threats but an increasing number of competitors. The rise of competition, the need to create new opportunities, and the confluence of major economic and political changes create a need to intensely focus on U.S. priorities and goals. Despite this urgency, we have yet to fully articulate a foreign policy that matches the era in which we now live, especially the appropriate role of international economics. We need to direct our focus toward the lessons we have learned over the past five years. Seekers of universal truths or simple catch phrases should prepare in advance for disappointment. U.S. leadership in both the public and private sectors must accept the challenges represented by these enormous changes. Our willingness to take responsibility, clearly define our goals, and recognize our limitations but pursue U.S. leadership at every opportunity will dictate the success or failure of promoting a stronger United States and a less dangerous world. The goals and objectives are clear: U.S. leadership must pursue peace, stability, economic progress, basic human rights, and sustainable development. In order to address these goals we need to create foreign-policy tools and institutions that are pragmatic, practical, and resilient reflecting the speed with which events, opportunities, and challenges now confront us as a nation. There is no question that global economics has fundamentally changed the nature of foreign policy. Today, economics and foreign policy are no longer separable, and economic security and national security have become synonymous. We live in an interdependent, globalized world. No longer are we self-contained, nor is it in our interest to be so. We can no longer take for granted our global economic dominance and turn our back on foreign markets. It is self-defeating in the short run and impossible in the long run to ignore the problems which occur across the border or across the world, and we cannot overlook our responsibility as the world's remaining superpower. Driven by technological change, freed of Cold War conflicts and connected by economic and strategic interests, the era of interdependence demands negotiation, engagement, and leadership. Interdependence dictates that our foreign policy and economic future are increasingly connected to international trade. Interdependence dictates that terrorism, weapons proliferation, environmental concerns, the drug trade, and economic opportunity are now cross-border issues. These issues profoundly affect the everyday lives of people around the globe. Cross-border issues directly influence policies, laws, and regulations of the countries in question, raising issues such as the rule of and respect for law, regulation and deregulation, privatization, and other concerns heretofore thought to be strictly internal. This new era requires a redefinition of global leadership. Being the only remaining superpower does not simply mean that we are the strongest military power, nor does it mean only that we are the most economically competitive nation on earth. Both of those statements are true, of course. But holding the position of the world's only remaining superpower in the era of interdependence means that we have the opportunity to take advantage of the vast economic potential which is being created around the globe to the benefit of all Americans, and we have a corresponding obligation to rally other nations to pursue common long-term interests, such as strategic and political stability, economic progress, and sustainable development. There are other examples which support the notion of new multidimensional international relations. Brazil has dramatically increased its international standing and influence using its potential economic strategic position. During the Cold War and prior to the dramatic growth of economic power and industrialization, Brazil's strategic position would have been defined and dictated by its ability or inability to have an influence over strategic and political issues especially those concerning East-West relations. But today, and in the foreseeable future, not only do countries increase their influence based on economic potential and achievement, but economic considerations and relationships tend to bring entities together which in other circumstances could not or would not cooperate. The recent Middle East Economic Conferences and the participation of China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) are obvious examples.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cold War, Diplomacy, and Political Economy
Political Geography:
United States, China, America, Taiwan, Asia, Brazil, and Democratic Republic of the Congo

843. A United States Policy for the Changing Realities of East Asia

Author:
Donald Emmerson, Henry Rowen, Michel Oksenberg, Daniel Okimoto, James Raphael, Thomas Rohlen, and Michael H. Armacost
Publication Date:
01-1996
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
Since the end of the Cold War, the power and prestige of the United States in East Asia have suffered a worrisome degree of erosion. The erosion is, in part, the by-product of long-run secular trends, such as structural shifts in the balance of power caused by the pacesetting growth of East Asian economies. But the decline has been aggravated by shortcomings in U.S. policy toward East Asia, particularly the lack of a coherent strategy and a clear-cut set of policy priorities for the post-Cold War environment. If these shortcomings are not corrected, the United States runs the risk of being marginalized in East Asia--precisely at a time when our stakes in the region are as essential as those in any area of the world. What is needed, above all, is a sound, consistent, and publicly articulated strategy, one which holds forth the prospect of serving as the basis for a sustainable, nonpartisan domestic consensus. The elements of an emerging national consensus can be identified as follows:
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, and Economics
Political Geography:
United States, China, Israel, East Asia, and Asia

844. Bridges with Asia: Asian Americans in the United States

Author:
Vishakha N. Desai, Chang-lin Tien, Sanford J. Ungar, Robert T. Matsui, and Shirley Young
Publication Date:
05-1996
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Asia Society
Abstract:
From its inception, more than two years ago, “Bridges with Asia: Asian Americans in the United States” has sought to explore the implications of the bicultural identity—felt or perceived—of the Asian American in a global community in which the Asia-Pacific region has become increasingly predominant. The purpose was to examine the possible relationship between two significant factors in America's national and international experience: the unprecedented growth of the Asian American population in the last three decades and the rise of the Asia-Pacific region as one of the world's most dynamic areas as well as the one most crucial to the future of the United States. With an active advisory committee composed of scholars, community leaders, and representatives of other cultural organizations (see the end of this report), we attempted to address a number of key issues ranging from economic relations between different regions of Asia and the United States to generational attitudes toward Asian Americans' countries of origin. The following questions provided the framework for discussion: What roles do Asian Americans play in the increased interaction between U.S. companies and Asian countries? How are they affecting the domestic economies of their countries of origin? How are Asian Americans perceived by local American political leaders and what is their impact upon American domestic politics? What role, if any, do they play in U.S. foreign policy toward particular Asian countries? How is the notion of “home” used by writers and artists of Asian origin? How are conceptions of loyalty or nationalism made manifest for diverse groups of Asian Americans who often have very little in common except for a census category, or how they are perceived by others?
Topic:
Foreign Policy and International Cooperation
Political Geography:
United States, America, and Asia

845. Post-Communist Security Thinking in Russia: Changing Paradigms

Author:
Alexander A. Sergounin
Publication Date:
07-1996
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies
Abstract:
The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the USSR and its Marxist ideology, and the re-emergence of the Russian Federation as a separate, independent entity have compelled Russia to redefine its national interests and make major adjustments in the spheres of both foreign policy and international relations theory (IRT). These enormous tasks, together with an attendant polarisation of opinion on how to deal with them, have pitted Russia's policy makers and experts against one another in a fierce battle of world views. This debate is far from at an end. Neither a new security identity nor a coherent foreign policy strategy have yet been found.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Environment, Government, Politics, and Religion
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Asia

846. Realism and Regionalism: American Power and German and Japanese Institutional Strategies During and After the Cold War

Author:
Joseph M. Grieco
Publication Date:
04-1990
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute of European Studies (IES), UC Berkeley
Abstract:
Germany's foreign economic policy places enormous weight on formal European institutions. In contrast, Japan has not had an institutionalist orientation in regard to its East Asian neighbors. This paper addresses the question of why Germany and Japan differ so greatly on this issue of regional economi. institutions. It suggests that the differences observed in German and Japanese interests in regard to such arrangements constitute a puzzle if they are examined from the perspective of liberal ideas about the functional bases of international collaboration, or from the viewpoint of realist propositions about hegemony and cooperation and about the impact of polarity on state preferences. The paper also puts forward a realist-inspired analysis (focusing on American power in the post-Cold War era as well as American national strategy in the early years of that conflict) that might help account for the strong German bias in favor of regional economic institutions and the equally pronounced Japanese aversion to date for such arrangements.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cold War, and International Organization
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, America, Europe, Israel, East Asia, Asia, and Germany