Search

Begin New Search Topic Partnerships Political Geography China

21. 2023 Annual Estimate of the Strategic Security Environment

Author:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
The Annual Estimate of the Strategic Security Environment serves as a guide for academics and practitioners in the defense community on the current challenges and opportunities in the strategic environment. This year’s publication outlines key strategic issues across the four broad themes of Regional Challenges and Opportunities, Domestic Challenges, Institutional Challenges, and Domains Impacting US Strategic Advantage. These themes represent a wide range of topics affecting national security and provide a global assessment of the strategic environment to help focus the defense community on research and publication. Strategic competition with the People’s Republic of China and the implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine remain dominant challenges to US national security interests across the globe. However, the evolving security environment also presents new and unconventional threats, such as cyberattacks, terrorism, transnational crime, and the implications of rapid technological advancements in fields such as artificial intelligence. At the same time, the US faces domestic and institutional challenges in the form of recruiting and retention shortfalls in the all-volunteer force, the prospect of contested logistics in large-scale combat operations, and the health of the US Defense Industrial Base. Furthermore, rapidly evolving security landscapes in the Arctic region and the space domain pose unique potential challenges to the Army’s strategic advantage.
Topic:
Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Corruption, Migration, Science and Technology, Terrorism, Partnerships, Weapons, Xi Jinping, Strategic Competition, Logistics, People's Liberation Army (PLA), and Democratic Backsliding
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, China, Europe, Eurasia, Ukraine, Middle East, Asia, Arctic, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

22. Starr Forum: A permanent partnership? How Xi and Putin are shaping a turbulent world

Author:
Natasha Kuhrt
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
SPEAKERS: Natasha Kurt is a senior lecturer of international peace and security in the Department of War Studies at King's College London. Her research interests include Russian and Eurasian security/foreign policy especially in Asia. Elizabeth Wishnick is a professor of political science and law at Montclair State University. Her research interests include international relations in Asia and Chinese foreign policy. CHAIR: Carol Saivetz is a senior fellow in the MIT Security Studies Program. She is the author and contributing co-editor of books and articles on Soviet and now Russian foreign policy issues.
Topic:
Partnerships, Geopolitics, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Multipolarity, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia and China

23. De-risking and decarbonising: a green tech partnership to reduce reliance on China

Author:
Alicia Garcia-Herrero, Heather Grabbe, and Axel Källenius
Publication Date:
10-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Trade in renewable energy goods is a global public good; all countries gain when others cut emissions, and all suffer from climate change if decarbonisation is delayed. Yet this trade depends on China, which controls most of the world’s production of solar panels and electric vehicle batteries, and some of the global trade in wind turbines. These supply chains are vulnerable to disruption, natural disasters and weaponisation by China, which has already exercised its dominant position in some critical raw materials to put pressure on other countries. Part of the European Union and United States response to reduce reliance on China is reshoring production, but this is economically inefficient given their limited access to critical raw materials and high production costs. Moreover, Chinese firms are far ahead of the rest of the world in green tech manufacturing and innovation, and in extraction and processing. To reduce reliance on China, incentive-aligned governments and businesses should form a green tech partnership. This would produce green tech with the aim of decarbonising faster, while ensuring greater diversification of resources and improving security of supply. Each partnership economy would use its comparative advantage within a new green-tech supply chain. The aim is to supplement, not substitute, the Chinese supply chain, since both will be needed to meet rising global demand for green tech, including in China. Although such international coordination is difficult, the partnership would offers benefits to many different countries. Emerging economies that are rich in critical raw materials and/or have moderate wages would gain economic development opportunities. The US and the EU should share technology and provide financing, as they will gain from reduced dependence on China and from sourcing than is still cheaper than reshoring. China would have more room to use its clean tech to meet its own decarbonisation targets. The partnership could be organised through a combination of trade and investment agreements, together with tech transfer and financial agreements, under some form of inter-governmental oversight. The dependence of all countries on China for green tech is so great that non-market incentives might also be needed, such as subsidies or, preferably, a system of carbon pricing within the partnership.
Topic:
Partnerships, Green Technology, Risk, Renewable Energy, Supply, and Decarbonization
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and Asia

24. Regional Overview: Building Partnerships Amidst Major Power Competition

Author:
Ralph A. Cossa and Brad Glosserman
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Comparative Connections
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
Major power competition was the primary topic du jure at virtually all of this trimester’s major multilateral gatherings, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continuing to serve as a litmus test—a test many participants struggled to avoid taking. It was clear which side of the fence the G7 leaders stood on; Putin’s invasion was soundly condemned and Sino-centric warning bells were again gently sounded. At the BRICS Summit and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (sans the US), those alarms were clearly muted, as they were at the ASEAN Regional Forum, at which foreign ministers from all three were present. Headlines from the IISS Shangri-la Dialogue focused on the meeting that did not occur, as China’s defense minister pointedly refused to meet with his US counterpart. At the ASEAN-ISIS’ Asia-Pacific Roundtable, participants lamented the impact of major power tensions on ASEAN unity, even though ASEAN’s main challenges are internal ones that predate the downturn in China-US relations. Meanwhile, Beijing and Washington both expended considerable effort at these and other events throughout the reporting period fortifying and expanding their partnerships, even as many neighbors struggled not to choose sides or to keep a foot in both camps.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Partnerships, Strategic Competition, ASEAN, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:
Russia, China, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

25. Visible Limits of the Sino-Russian Unlimited Partnership: Are Spheres of Influence Changing in Central Asia?

Author:
Eka Javakhishvili
Publication Date:
10-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Russia’s protracted war in Ukraine is not only causing enormous militarypolitical and economic damage to the Kremlin, but it is also gradually eroding Moscow’s traditional spheres of influence. While the Kremlin has directed all its resources to wage the war in Ukraine, Russia’s “ally” China is not wasting time, and is seeking to increase its economic and political involvement with the countries of Central Asia. China’s recent moves reveal a crack in Beijing and Moscow’s “unlimited” friendship, as the leaders of China and Russia called the partnership between the two countries back in February 2022. A visible manifestation of China’s growing influence in the Central Asian region was the China-Central Asia Summit held in May, where the host of the event, Chinese leader Xi Jinping, presented the “Grand Development Plan” for Central Asia. Russia was not invited to attend the summit; therefore, the future cooperation plans between the regional countries were discussed without a Russian representative. The great development plan proposed by China covers the main aspects of cooperation - infrastructural development, strengthening of economic ties, and security challenges in the region. By proposing the mentioned plan, Xi Jinping expressed his willingness to give a new impetus to China’s cooperation with Central Asian countries, but without the official involvement of Moscow. Holding such a high-level summit in China indicates that Beijing is trying to conduct regional policy on its own, without its “ally” Russia, and, in certain areas, without even taking into account Russia’s interests. Due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin’s influence on Central Asia and its role in the region is declining, and China has an ideal moment to fill the vacuum in the absence of Moscow. In addition, Beijing needs to develop its energy and transport land corridors to transport Chinese goods to Europe, for which China is ready to invest billions in Central Asia, and at the same time, to take the regional security initiative on itself. One of the main priorities of China’s foreign policy is to bring the resource-rich countries of Central Asia under its sphere of influence, which obviously means tightening Russia’s interests. It can be assumed that China is aiming to become the dominant political/ economic/military power in the region. Russia’s current military-economic difficulties caused by the war with Ukraine allow Beijing to offer regional countries more prosperity and security guarantees than Moscow can. So the following question arises - is the historically established influence of Russia in Central Asia weakening, while China is gradually strengthening its positioning in the region?
Topic:
International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, Partnerships, and Regional Power
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe

26. Here are Four Things the West gets Wrong about Africa

Author:
Nina Wilén
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
Abstract:
External powers are intensifying their efforts to woo African states and their leaders in a context of Great Power Competition. Russian, Chinese and Western leaders are upping their game with new visits, initiatives, investments and strategies aimed at increasing their influence on the continent. Yet, while Western states spend comparatively large financial and human resources in Africa, these investments do not always seem to translate into the intended effects. This brief looks at four things that the West gets wrong about Africa and argues that to create long-term and credible partnerships with African partners there is a need to go beyond the Great Power Competition lens, lower the ambitions, and dial down on the normative language. This, while realising that presence does not equal influence, but absence almost certainly excludes it.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Partnerships, Geopolitics, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, China, and Europe

27. "Best and Bosom Friends" Putin, Xi and the Challenge to the West

Author:
Michael Cox
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
In this latest Strategic Update, LSE IDEAS co-founder Professor Michael Cox highlights China as a significant player in the current tragedy occurring within Ukraine. Prof Cox traces the relationship between the People’s Republic and the USSR, through to the latter’s collapse into the Russian Federation, their formation of a strategic partnership against a unipolar post-Cold War order, and the rise in power of Xi Jinping alongside two international crises caused by Russian aggression in Ukraine. This Update finds that, whilst there are limits to their shared interests, China is politically committed to its Russian partner, and this status-quo leaves us in a more dangerous world.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Partnerships, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, China, and Asia

28. A Restraint Recipe for America’s Asian Alliances and Security Partnerships

Author:
Michael D. Swaine and Sarang Shidore
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
As Sino–American relations deteriorate, risks of conflict between Washington and Beijing are growing. A major war would be terrible for both the United States and the region while setting back critical goals, like the fight to stop climate change. Avoiding a war while safeguarding vital U.S. interests ought to be a priority. But while many in the United States want to strengthen alliance structures as a means of deterring China and to make Taiwan a de facto security ally, those who espouse a strategy of Restraint believe this approach endangers Americans and undermines their prosperity. A policy of Restraint is predicated on the view that alliances are not ends in themselves, but a means of bolstering U.S. security. This brief analyzes the utility of America’s Asian alliances and security partnerships from a Restraint perspective under two scenarios. The first and preferred scenario is that of the United States and China walking back from their current march toward confrontation to achieve a stable, if still significantly competitive, relationship. The second and more likely scenario is a much sharper and sustained rivalry with China becoming a regionally strong, possibly in many ways dominant, power.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Partnerships, and Alliance
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, East Asia, Asia, and United States of America

29. Partnerships for Policy Transfer: How Brazil and China Engage in Triangular Cooperation with the United Nations

Author:
Laura Trajber Waisbich and Sebastian Haug
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
This paper offers a comparative analysis of Brazilian and Chinese partnerships with the United Nations (UN) as a mechanism and channel for policy transfer. In international policy travel flows, China and Brazil currently hold privileged places as hubs from which development-related policies travel and through which they circulate. Both countries have invested in systematising their development experience and transferring development policies within their regions and beyond – often through triangular cooperation, i.e. South–South cooperation supported by third actors such as UN entities. So far, however, this variegated engagement has remained under the radar of scholarly attention. To address this gap, we examine 35 policy transfer partnerships – 17 for Brazil and 18 for China – forged with different parts of the UN system over the last two decades. In order to offer a first systematic account of partnership trajectories, we provide an overview of partnership types (namely projects, programmes and policy centres) and transfer dimensions (including the policies themselves, transfer agents and governance arrangements). Our comparative mapping presents an evolving landscape: while Brazil was first in institutionalising robust policy transfer partnerships with numerous UN entities and then slowed down, China started more cautiously but has significantly expanded its collaboration with the UN system since 2015. The partnerships analysed cover a substantial range of sectors, with a particular focus – for both Brazil and China – on agricultural policies. While Brazilian partnerships with the UN primarily engage with linkages between agriculture and social protection, however, China–UN partnerships focus more on productivity and market linkages. As the first comprehensive mapping and comparative analysis of Brazilian and Chinese policy transfer partnerships with the UN, this paper contributes to a better understanding of (triangular) cooperation schemes between international organisations and their member states, as well as debates about how policies deemed as successful travel around the globe.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, United Nations, and Partnerships
Political Geography:
China, Asia, Brazil, and South America

30. Russia’s National Security Narrative: All Quiet on the Eastern Front

Author:
Eugene Rumer and Richard Sokolsky
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The two defining features of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy have been an increasingly adversarial relationship with the West and an increasingly close partnership with China. These drivers have been the salient feature of official Russian national security documents for the past three decades. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. national security community has viewed Russian strategic thinking as misguided because it failed to see China as the real threat to Russia. This view ignores the Kremlin’s preoccupation with Europe as the most important strategic theater where its interests are at stake, and where they are threatened by the West’s superior capabilities and ambitions. This view also ignores how unimportant—relative to Europe—the Asia-Pacific is for Russia. Russia’s partnership with China is secured, however, by a set of coherent and complementary strategic rationales, which supersede frequent concerns in the Russian strategic community at large about China and its growing capabilities and intentions vis-à-vis Russia. Those concerns appear to have little impact on Russian policy. Notwithstanding those concerns in Russia’s unofficial national security discourse, China’s footprint on its foundational national security and foreign policy documents is invisible—and China, as a source of military threat to Russia, does not appear to be part of the Kremlin’s calculus. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has long been the pacing challenge of Russian military modernization, and the main contingency for which it has been preparing has been future conflict in the European theater. For the Putin regime, there is no alternative to Russia’s “no limits” partnership with China. Moreover, even if Putin were no longer on the scene, a successor regime would have powerful economic, geopolitical, demographic, and military-strategic incentives to maintain this partnership. An adversarial relationship with China would pit Russia against two superior powers in two widely separated geographic theaters. The war in Ukraine has cemented the Russian-Chinese partnership for the foreseeable future.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, National Security, Bilateral Relations, Partnerships, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eurasia, and Ukraine