Search

Begin New Search Topic Sovereignty Political Geography China

21. Tibet Leadership in Exile and the Indo-Pacific Strategy

Author:
Ellen Bork
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
In this publication, Ellen Bork, Visiting Fellow at the Project 2049 Institute, examines the historical basis for Washington’s Tibet policy to demonstrate that America’s position on Tibet originates from misguided strategic assumptions about the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its ambitions in Tibet, the Indo-Pacific region, and the liberal world order. The author asserts that the time has come for Washington to revise the United States’ policy toward Tibet and its democratic government-in-exile, as a critical component of America’s free and open Indo-Pacific strategy. Leading the way, Bork provides a roadmap of recommendations for Washington, including the adoption of democratic legitimacy as the basis of Tibet policy, the enlistment of supportive democracies in establishing a unified position, prioritizing the issue at international organizations, and engaging Tibetan leadership, among others.
Topic:
Sovereignty, Diaspora, Territorial Disputes, Democracy, Leadership, and Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
Political Geography:
China, Nepal, Tibet, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

22. Europe’s digital sovereignty: From rulemaker to superpower in the age of US-China rivalry

Author:
Carla Hobbs
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
Covid-19 has revealed the critical importance of technology for economic and health resilience, making Europe’s digital transformation and sovereignty a question of existential importance. Rising US-China tensions are an additional incentive for Europe to develop its own digital capabilities; it risks becoming a battleground in their struggle for tech and industrial supremacy. Democratic governments – keen to preserve an open market in digital services while protecting the interests of citizens – find the European model an increasingly attractive alternative to the US and Chinese approaches. The EU cannot continue to rely on its regulatory power but must become a tech superpower in its own right. Referees do not win the game. Europe missed the first wave of technology but must take advantage of the next, in which it has competitive advantages such as in edge computing. EU member states lack a common position on tech issues or even a shared understanding of the strategic importance of digital technologies, such as on broadband rollout or application of AI.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Sovereignty, Power Politics, European Union, Artificial Intelligence, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and United States of America

23. Eurasia, the Hegemon, and the Three Sovereigns

Author:
Pepe Escobar
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
I t is my contention that there are essentially four truly sovereign states in the world today, at least amongst the major powers: the United States, the Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. These four sovereigns—I call them the Hegemon and the Three Sovereigns—stand at the vanguard of the ultra-postmodern world, characterized by the supremacy of data algorithms and techno-financialization ruling over politics.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Sovereignty, Power Politics, Geopolitics, Emerging Powers, and Regional Power
Political Geography:
United States, China, Iran, Global Focus, and Russian Federation

24. Could a Bridge between the EU and Latin America Boost Innovation “Sovereignty” in a Multipolar World?

Author:
Nicola Bilotta and Alissa Siara
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
The economic ramifications of COVID-19 will accentuate the technological innovation gap between Latin America and the rest of the world. In a region already suffering from chronic underinvestment in research and development, the strain placed on government budgets by the pandemic-induced economic crisis will push innovation further back down the agenda. The region has compensated for a lack of domestic resources with foreign capital and technology imports from China and the United States. As the US–China relationship becomes more adversarial in the face of COVID, however, Latin America will emerge as a geopolitical battleground whose countries may be forced to choose sides and potentially lose out on capital inflows or technology imports. Navigating this potential storm will involve the region in a search for other options. Public–private partnerships with European Union firms represent one valuable possibility, but Europe and Latin America should first align their innovation agendas.
Topic:
International Relations, Science and Technology, Sovereignty, Foreign Direct Investment, European Union, Institutions, Coronavirus, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
China, South America, Latin America, North America, and United States of America

25. Chinese Coercion in the South China Sea: Resolve and Costs

Author:
Ketian Zhang
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
China’s coercive behavior in the post–Cold War period suggests three patterns. First, China uses coercion when it wants to establish a reputation for resolve. Second, China has been a cautious bully, resorting to coercion only infrequently. Third, when China perceives the “geopolitical backlash cost” of military coercion to be high, it chooses instead to use sanctions and grayzone coercion. (“Geopolitical backlash cost” refers here to the possibility that the target state will seek to balance against China, with the potential for U.S. military involvement.) When China perceives the geopolitical backlash cost to be low, it is more likely to use military coercion.
Topic:
Sovereignty, Power Politics, Geopolitics, and Economy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and South China Sea

26. Taiwan's 2020 Election and Its Implications for the New Southbound Policy

Author:
H. H. Michael Hsiao and Alan H. Yang
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
The elections in January 2020 marked a new era for Taiwan, clearly demonstrating citizens’ resistance to China. The results showed that incumbent President Tsai Ing-wen, leader of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), was re-elected with a landslide victory of 8.17 million votes (57.1%) which is higher than the previous record high of 7.65 million votes obtained by the Kuomintang (KMT) President Ma Ying Jeou in 2008. Michael Hsiao and Alan Yang, Chairman and Executive Director, respectively, of the Taiwan‐Asia Exchange Foundation in Taiwan, explain that “The Taiwanese people firmly defended Taiwan’s sovereignty and cherished democracy through free and open elections.”
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Politics, Sovereignty, Elections, and Democracy
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, and Asia

27. Sovereignty Over Supply? The EU’s ability to manage critical dependences while engaging with the world

Author:
Daniel Fiott and Vassilis Theodosopoulos
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Union Institute for Security Studies
Abstract:
Fears about the EU’s trade, resource and technology dependences have only grown since the outbreak of the pandemic, even though US-China trade disputes and the rolling out of 5G have played a significant role, too. Some analysts have pointed to the beginning of a ‘decoupling’ of certain supply chains away from China, and, while evidence suggests that some ‘reshoring’ has taken place since at least 2011, there are debates about whether the production of certain technologies should be relocated back to Europe after decades of de-industrialisation. Decoupling and/or reshoring are a reaction to geopolitically risky dependences, with the fear being that certain products, technologies or raw materials will be unavailable during times of crisis or that a reliance on third-party supplies will limit political freedom. In the digital age – where data dominates – there are also concerns that dependences may lead among other things to espionage or a curtailment of personal rights and freedoms. Despite the fact that decoupling is unfeasible, save perhaps for in very specific critical technology domains, the threat perception surrounding critical supplies has given rise to a different vocabulary and EU communiques and strategies are today replete with references to ‘technological sovereignty’, ‘open strategic autonomy’ and ‘digital sovereignty’. Yet, in conjunction with this rhetoric has come a raft of new policy initiatives. In February 2020, the European Commission released a bundle of strategies on data, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the digital future, which stressed the importance of reducing technological dependences in strategic areas. This is why the Commission is to invest €8 billion in supercomputing and help leverage €20 billion per year for AI. In March, a new ‘Industrial Strategy for Europe’ was published that stated that critical raw materials are ‘crucial for markets such as e-mobility, batteries, renewable energies, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, defence and digital applications’. It will be much harder for the EU to develop supercomputers and batteries without secure supplies of raw materials. To this end, on 3 September a ‘Commission Action Plan on Critical Raw Materials’ was released along with an updated List of Critical Raw Materials and a foresight study looking at strategic technologies and dependent sectors over the 2030-2050 horizon. This bundle of initiatives has made the case for the EU to diversify resource supplies, especially in an era of digitalisation that demands increasing amounts of strategic resources found outside of the Union’s territory.
Topic:
Climate Change, Science and Technology, Sovereignty, European Union, Geopolitics, Supply, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and United States of America

28. GovTech, The New Frontier in Digital Sovereignty

Author:
Clément Tonon
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
The COVID-19 crisis has been a catalyst for a surge in the GovTech market, while triggering debate around the use of new technologies in the public health response to the pandemic. More broadly, the health crisis has shed a new light on the strategic importance of some domains relevant to GovTech such as HealthTech, smart cities and EdTech. The French State has developed a comprehensive policy of government digitization but still suffers from a lack of investment in the GovTech sector: so far, it has been unable to nurture a GovTech ecosystem comparable to the French defense technological and industrial base. At the European level, the rise of GovTech solutions could deepen existing divides between member states, as shown by the uncoordinated development of tracing apps by European countries during the crisis. In the long run, the lack of European industrial and political strategy focusing on GovTech could turn Europe into a battleground for Chinese and American actors, which benefit from governmental support at home and abroad. The rise of GovTech companies challenges deeply rooted ideas on the meaning of the public sector and the role of the State. It underlines how technology can affect the values and core principles of democratic societies. In that sense, the growing technological competition between the US, China and Europe means much more than economic rivalry: it is a real threat to European democracy and strategic autonomy.
Topic:
Government, Science and Technology, Sovereignty, COVID-19, Digital Policy, and Health Crisis
Political Geography:
China, United Kingdom, France, Estonia, Singapore, and United States of America

29. “Mainlandization” of Hong Kong, A Model of Influence, Resistance and Adjustment

Author:
Lukasz Zamecki
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista UNISCI/UNISCI Journal
Institution:
Unidad de investigación sobre seguridad y cooperación (UNISCI)
Abstract:
The aim of this article, based on the author’s field research in Hong Kong and critical analysis of publications, is to conceptualize the process of “mainlandization” of the Hong Kong SAR. “Mainlandization” is understood here as the process of transfer and institutionalization of political visions, policy paradigms, procedures, and norms which originate from the PRC. The model is inspired by various theoretical perspectives (e.g. diffusion of regimes, dependence, political convergence, and processes of “Europeanization”). The article differentiates the “top-down” transfer of values and/or policy standards and the “bottom-up” adjustment. All institutions engaged in intermediation (such as the “one country, two systems” principle) are mentioned, as well as the processes connected to the reaction to PRC activity in Hong Kong and their variations (e.g. accommodation, resistance, resignation). Moreover, the concept of “sinoscepticism” is introduced.
Topic:
Politics, Sovereignty, Bilateral Relations, Institutions, Autonomy, and Asymmetric Relations
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Hong Kong

30. China’s Territorial Claim at South China Sea: A Strategic Competition with USA and its Implications

Author:
Kanwal Hayat and Rehana Saeed Hashmi
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
South Asian Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
China claims South China Sea as its sovereign domain where it possesses the right to intervene militarily and economically. However, USA considers South China Sea as a common global passage where rule of law and freedom of navigation should prevail.These diverging viewpoints coexist in a wobbly peace environment where both US and China want their own version of international law to be applied and have occasionally resorted to minor armed conflicts over this issue. Every state claiming authority over South China Sea is willing to use coercion in order to get what they want, however, the extent of how far they are willing to go is not clear. This is resulting in a show of gunboat diplomacy involving maritime force of influential states that strives to manipulate the policy makers of the relevant nations (Costlow, 2012). The paper will focus on the situation in the South China Sea. South China Sea is not only claimed by China but various other Asian nations. Does this territorial strife possess the power to turn the region into a war zone? Being one of the most active trade routes in the world having complicated geography and the diverging regional and international interests makes it very sensitive area. China being the emerging economic giant gives competition to the USA in many spheres. Although America has no territorial claim in the South China Sea, it has strategic and economic interests. Where China wants a complete hegemonic control of the area, USA wants to find a way where free unchecked trade could be the future for all.Accompanied with numerous other South Asian nations claiming various portions of the region, a constant tension exists in the region.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Economics, International Trade and Finance, Sovereignty, Territorial Disputes, Hegemony, and Conflict
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, United States of America, and Oceans