Search

Begin New Search Topic Bilateral Relations Political Geography China

281. China’s Role in Inter-Korean Relations

Author:
Gordon G. Chang
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
China has great power over both Koreas, but its influence looks to be at its peak. There are many reasons for this, but the most important is that the two Koreas are moving closer together and in the process shutting out outsiders. Moreover, the U.S., as it seeks to disarm North Korea, is pursuing policies undercutting Beijing’s role on the peninsula. And to make matters worse, China is beginning to limit its own effectiveness.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, and United States of America

282. Chinese Investment and Its Implications for Nigeria’s Economic Security

Author:
Shiitu Adewole Raji and Adenike Ogunrinu
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brazilian Journal of African Studies
Institution:
Brazilian Journal of African Studies
Abstract:
The international system consists of different nations which pursue their national interests within the global arena having put into consideration the benefits they stand to gain from such relationships (Ampiah and Sanusha 2015, 8). The explosive growth of China’s economic interests in Africa, which is part of the sustained global interactions discussed above, is an important trend in the continent’s foreign relations arena. China’s rapidly expanding ties with Africa has superseded the United States’ since 2010 as Africa’s top trading partner because of its massive investments in the continent , which is largely aided by China Investible Export loan assistance of $150 billion to its multinational corporations (Brautigam 2009, 22). Between 2001 and 2011, Chinese exports to Africa were raised from $4.4 billion to $56.3 billion. Though China is still regarded as a third world country, the country is the second biggest economy in the world. [..] Although there is a vast body of literature on the bilateral relations between Nigeria and China, little is known about the implications of China’s increasing FDI for the economic security of Nigeria, a gap this paper intends to fill. The study is anchored on descriptive research methodology, consisting of qualitative data, which relied primarily on the existing literature.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Investment, Trade, and Economic Security
Political Geography:
Africa, China, and Nigeria

283. India-China Relations: Conflict and Cooperation in Indo-Pacific Region

Author:
Balwinder Singh
Publication Date:
07-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Political Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
From the last three decades, the Indo-Pacific has been a central theme in the global geopolitical scenario. India, China, and several other rising powers have shifted the balance of power. Thus, Indo-Pacific region marks instability and uncertainty especially caused by consistent crises of the world economy. In the present globalized era, both India and China are paramount drivers of the global economy. They are simultaneously reacting to this shifted balance of power in Indo-Pacific region. The actions of China and India towards each other and especially in Indo-Pacific region have significantly changed in last decades. At present, the Indian government has started to focus on Indo-Pacific region. The Trump Administration has focused India to contain China in Indo-Pacific region. At that moment, the Indo-Pacific region has thus become more important region than ever before. The geo-strategic significance of the Indo-Pacific region has attracted the main global-powers to preserve their strategic interests in this region. So, the Indo-Pacific has got enormous significance in the present context. From the last few years, the region has got international acknowledgment. The US`s Asia-pivot policy and China’s ‘String of Pearl’ policy have been focusing on India. The geopolitical importance of the Indo-Pacific region has dragged the western powers to counterweight growing Chinese power. That’s why; Indo-Pacific has shaped the new subject of divergence between China and India. Yet, there is no need to undermine the enlarging economic relations between the two big nations of Asia. This study also examines that how US and Pakistan are affecting the bilateral India-China relations. The study observes that how India and China satisfying their strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific region. Thus, the study tries to find out the new issues of cooperation and conflict between the two nations. Thus, the study tries to find out the new issues of cooperation and conflict between the two nations.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Conflict
Political Geography:
China, India, and Asia

284. The U.S.-Japan Alliance: Significance and Role

Author:
Seth Cropsey and Jun Isomura
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
The alliance between the United States and Japan, born at the end of the Second World War, continues to play a vital role in the defense of the Japanese Islands and in U.S. regional Indo-Pacific strategy. The People’s Republic of China is challenging the U.S.-Japan alliance in the Indo-Pacific Region. China has greatly increased its defense budget, expanded and modernized its navy, and increased operations that challenge the region’s status quo—including in the East China Sea, where the PRC regularly violates Japan’s territorial waters, in the vicinity of the contested Senkaku Islands. China’s belligerent behavior poses a strategic threat to Japan’s domestic security and will continue to encroach on Japanese and U.S. interests in the region. The PRC’s threatening behavior and an aggressive nuclear-armed North Korea are testing the U.S.-Japan bilateral alliance as it has not been tested since the Cold War. The United States continues to serve as a guarantor of Japan’s national security. The U.S. military has stationed naval, air force, army, and amphibious forces in Japan as a strategic deterrent against would be aggressors. With U.S. forces in Japan as a deterrent, Japan has developed a pacifist strategy based on non-aggression and security limited to self-defense. The Japanese constitution’s Article 9 enshrined this principle into law. Japan’s regional strategy has paid dividends through political, diplomatic, and economic engagement with Indo-Pacific countries. This includes Japan’s increasing defensive security cooperation in the region. The Japanese Self-Defense Forces have participated alongside the United States and such neighboring states as South Korea in bilateral and multilateral exercises that build both capabilities and security relationships. Beyond diplomatic and soft power engagement, Japan has in recent years increased its defensive capabilities. To counter Chinese and North Korean missile threats, Japan has worked with the United States to build an advanced ballistic missile defense. In addition, the Japanese Self-Defense Forces have acquired medium-range cruise missiles for its air forces to deter potential adversaries from launching attacks. Tokyo has expanded its defense to counter challenges below the threshold of war against Japan’s outlying islands. Improved intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and the establishment of amphibious forces contribute to this defense.
Topic:
International Relations, Defense Policy, National Security, Bilateral Relations, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

285. Israel and China Take a Leap Forward—but to Where?

Author:
Arthur Herman
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
There is certainly no denying that, in terms of trade and investment alone, the burgeoning economic partnership between Israel and China has at least the potential of transforming not only Israel itself but also Israel’s position vis-à-vis the rest of the Middle East—and most notably vis-à-vis Iran, which happens to be Beijing’s other key partner in the region. Inevitably, it could also have an impact on Israel’s relations with the United States. But is this a marriage made in heaven? Or is it something else? Weighing the answer to that question involves probing beneath the two countries’ currently successful dynamic of trade and commercial transactions to their respective geopolitical agendas. When it comes to Israel, the acknowledged junior partner, it also requires examining whether and how the relationship with China could become a dependency. Such a change might please Beijing, but it would impose on Israeli national security a new kind of vulnerability, one very different from the challenges it has faced successfully in the past.
Topic:
Diplomacy, National Security, Bilateral Relations, Partnerships, Geopolitics, and Economy
Political Geography:
China, Middle East, Israel, and Asia

286. Canada’s Progressive Trade Agenda and a Free Trade Agreement with China: Are They Incompatible?

Author:
Hugh Stephens
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
The “non-market” clause in the just-concluded update of NAFTA, now known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) would appear to limit Canada’s options in terms of negotiating a free trade agreement with China at the present time (given the de facto U.S. veto over a Canada-China agreement that it provides), yet Prime Minister Trudeau has already reaffirmed Canada’s intention to pursue closer economic ties with China despite this apparent limitation. If negotiations proceed, negotiating a free trade agreement (FTA) with China will be very different from negotiating one with a country that shares Canada’s Western values. However, a trade agreement with China makes good economic sense, and while there are some unique obstacles to reaching such an agreement owing to differing views of progressive trade, these are not insurmountable. In fact, Canada can use the same models in negotiating with China that it has used with Western countries. Such an approach combines trade goals with respecting Chinese cultural and political differences, particularly those that fall into the category of progressivism. This category includes labour rights, Indigenous and gender issues, and governance. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has been focused on progressive elements in trade deals, while China has made it clear it is not interested in including them in any such pact. Concluding an agreement would mean that China and Canada must both recognize the political requirements and dynamics on the opposite side of the negotiating table, while seeking common ground diplomatically. Side agreements such as those that exist in the original NAFTA and in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) are one way to work with the two countries’ differences. Many of the provisions in a side agreement are not binding and thus not subject to the agreement’s dispute settlement mechanism or trade sanctions. Instead, they are more aspirational and sometimes lay out a process for civil society groups to raise issues and help the thinking on those issues evolve, rather than simply holding the parties accountable for breaches. Canada is rightly concerned about Chinese stances on human rights, labour, environmental and gender issues. However, instead of including these issues in the main document on trade, they can be dealt with as shared interests between the two countries. Establishing separate but parallel mechanisms to deal with these issues would be a practical way to make progress. Focusing on micro, small and medium-sized businesses as one Chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) did, could be another successful approach. Women own many of these businesses in developing countries, so such a focus would make a substantial contribution to their welfare. None of this means Canada should kowtow to China or look the other way on important values and issues. Side agreements and special focuses have formed parts of agreements with other countries that already share Canada’s Western values. This type of give-and-take is present even when Canada negotiates with countries that are not polar opposites. No country’s interests are exactly the same as those of any other and it’s unrealistic to expect unanimity on every issue. Language and firm commitments on progressive issues are still evolving in many of Canada’s free trade agreements, including the USMCA. It would be unreasonable to hope that everything can be achieved in an agreement with China on the first go-around. Rather, viewing a trade agreement with China as a work-in-progress means controversial elements can be brought into the negotiations and language used that reflects the understanding that these issues are evolving. It will require creative thinking, flexibility and joint commitment to find a solution, but—assuming that the USMCA does not rule out Canada-China negotiations toward a trade agreement— it should be possible to find sufficient common ground without having to resort to obfuscation and “creative ambiguity”.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Sanctions, NAFTA, Free Trade, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Canada, Asia, and North America

287. Enhancing EU–India Connectivity: Towards New Spice Routes

Author:
Patryk Kugiel
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The approaches of the EU and India to the connectivity between Asia and Europe largely converge. Both the Union and the country emphasize the importance of maintaining the highest international standards in infrastructure projects, share similar concerns regarding China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and implement their own ambitious transregional transport projects in their respective neighbourhood. Comprehensive cooperation on connectivity may become a key element of their strategic partnership, help promote regulatory standards, and boost economic cooperation. Better connectivity between Europe and India is also in Poland’s interest.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Trade, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:
China, Europe, South Asia, India, Poland, and European Union

288. The Chinese Perception of the U.S.-China-ROK Triangle

Author:
Yun Sun
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
Since being applied to U.S.-Soviet-China trilateral relations after the Sino-American rapprochement in the early 1970s, the notion/theory of “strategic triangles” has been widely used to examine many trilateral relations. The model of “U.S.-China plus one” is popular among students of U.S.-China relations and, consequently, the policy community has witnessed an increasing amount of scholarship on triangles among U.S.-China-India, U.S.-China-Japan, U.S.-China-Russia, and even U.S.-China-Taiwan. Unsurprisingly, this begs the question whether a strategic triangle could be construed and constructed among the United States, China, and South Korea. Generally speaking, despite the trilateral nature of U.S.-China-ROK relations, the Chinese policy community rarely subscribes to the existence of a strategic triangle among the U.S., China, and South Korea. This is not necessarily because South Korea does not carry the same strategic weight as the two great powers, but more importantly is because China does not see South Korea as possessing the strategic autonomy to act as an independent player in the trilateral relations. Although arguably such autonomy might exist in economic and trade relations, on key political and security issues, the Chinese see South Korea as invariably constrained by the U.S.-ROK military alliance and unable to form its own independent national security policy. In writing about the post-Cold War period with an emphasis on geopolitics, Chinese authors do not often treat South Korean policy or Sino-ROK relations as autonomous. Given the great weight given to the U.S. role, it is important, therefore, to take a triangular approach in assessing these writings centered on South Korea. I do so first explaining in more detail why the “strategic triangle” framework does not apply, then examining views on how this triangle has evolved in a period of rising Chinese power relative to U.S. power and fluctuating U.S.-ROK relations as the leadership in Seoul changed hands, and finally returning to the triangular theme to grasp how this shapes China’s understanding of Seoul’s policies with emphasis on the ongoing Moon Jae-in era.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

289. U.S.-Taiwan Relations in a Sea of Change

Author:
Ian Easton, Richard L. Armitage, and Mark Stokes
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
Concerned about a potential drift in the relationship, The Project 2049 Institute conducted a series of working-level dialogues, resulting in the production of a study addressing the medium to long-term challenges that appear likely in Taiwan and across the Taiwan Strait. The objective of this report is to make detailed policy recommendations for Washington as it endeavors to strengthen relations with Taiwan, while at the same time mitigating tensions that are emerging in relations across the Strait.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, and United States of America

290. The Development of U.S.-China Trade and the Result of Conflict

Author:
Ma Tao
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The very success of globalization has flourished since World War II. The benefits of economic globalization are not evenly distributed among countries, especially among different groups within a country. Before the financial crisis in 2008, as the major promotors of globalization, developed countries intensified their internal contradictions. So populism, protectionism and isolationism are rising in many developed countries, which are the main features of anti-globalization. Brexit happened against the polls in 2016, in large part, because of the migrant crisis tipping the British towards protection of its borders. In the beginning of his presidency, Donald Trump declared to withdraw from TPP, build Mexican border wall, renegotiate NAFTA and so on. Trump’s protectionism policies may be gradually implemented in 2017. Going on like these, the tide of anti-globalization may be further strengthened in the future.
Topic:
Globalization, Bilateral Relations, Foreign Direct Investment, Trade Wars, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America