Search

Begin New Search Topic Trade Political Geography United States of America

81. A US-India Trade Agenda for the Biden Administration

Author:
Aparna Pande and Husain Haqqani
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
The US ought to counteract the influence of Chinese authoritarianism early and often. One relatively low-cost way is to encourage India to engage more deeply as a competitor with China in the global economy. A democracy since its independence in 1947, with a population about the same as that of China, India is that country’s natural rival in Asia. Beginning with India’s decision in 1990-91 to liberalize its economy, the nation has gradually opened its vast market to global trade. Fueled by fresh access to foreign capital and technology, India’s economy grew over six percent during the first decade of the 21st century. In May 2014, this progress was further advanced by the election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. For the first time in India’s history, a conservative administration had a clear parliamentary majority, making it possible to legislate foundational, market-positive reform. India has adopted a new insolvency and bankruptcy code and replaced multiple taxation regimes across its states with a federal goods and services tax, which is welcome. But India has done little to end its excessive protectionism. Its distrust of foreign corporations, a legacy of colonial rule, endures. Indian policy makers may believe that the US is so eager for Indian competition with China that Washington will grant them a pass on restrictive trade and investment policies. But there is a better choice. India is nowhere near its full economic potential, and the fix isn’t complicated. The Biden agenda for India should encourage India to lower tariffs, to remove barriers to foreign retail, to roll back unnecessarily restrictive data privacy rules, and to provide economic incentives for foreign investment.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, South Asia, India, and United States of America

82. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: How Should South Korea Manage its Relations with the United States and China?

Author:
Zhiqun Zhu
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
This paper deals with one of the most critical issues in contemporary international relations: how China’s rise challenges foreign policies of U.S. allies, with a focus on the Republic of Korea (ROK) or South Korea. South Korea has been carefully hedging between the United States and China, its traditional security patron and largest trade partner, respectively. Strategic rivalry between the two great powers has put South Korea in an awkward position as pressure grows from the two powers to pick a side. Using a modified dual-track economics-security nexus framework, this paper suggests that the United States and China each has a significant impact on South Korea’s security and economic policies, making it important but challenging for South Korea to simultaneously manage relations with the two great powers. So far, South Korea has maintained these two sets of relationships remarkably well, but it may be difficult to continue with business as usual in the years ahead. For its own national interests, South Korea must seek to preserve the status quo under which it can continue to benefit from good relations with both great powers. The paper also proposes that South Korea should form a “middle power coalition” with like-minded nations to deflect pressures and avoid the dilemma of having to choose sides.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Alliance, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

83. How the rest of the world responds to the US-China split

Author:
Hung Tran
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The election of Joe Biden as the forty-sixth US president is not expected to change the list of substantive issues dividing the United States and China, such as trade, investment, technology, geopolitical competition, national security, and human rights—except that the priority among them may change, with human rights concerns moving more to the forefront. However, the tone and modality of the unfolding of the US-China competition will change from Donald Trump’s unilateralism to Biden’s efforts to build alliances with “likeminded” countries in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere to deal with the challenges China has posed. In a way, Biden’s alliance-building approach may intensify pressure on the rest of the world to take sides. How countries respond to this challenge, unwelcome by most, depends on whether they see themselves as competitors to China, or as “price takers” in the international economic system.
Topic:
Global Markets, Regulation, Finance, Economy, Trade, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

84. Enhancing US-Japan cooperation on global supply chains

Author:
Miyeon Oh and James Hildebrand
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Mounting US-China tensions and the COVID-19 pandemic have led to growing calls in the United States and among its allies and partners, including Japan, to address the vulnerabilities in global supply chains critical to national security and economic competitiveness. Strategic uncertainty has led stakeholders to pose the following questions. What role should government play, and to what extent can, or should, governments require firms to operate more in line with national security interests? How can firms manage short-term and long-term risks to balance national security requirements and commercial interests? How should trusted partners be defined, and what is a desirable allied and multilateral approach to enhancing security and resilience of global high-tech supply chains? With new administrations in both the United States and Japan, the two countries have an opportunity to consider these questions and rethink coordination of their efforts to establish secure and resilient supply chains. This issue brief analyzes recent developments in US and Japanese supply-chain policy, explores the importance of closer coordination through case studies of the semiconductor and rare-earth minerals industries, and provides a set of recommendations for the Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Yoshihide Suga administrations to enhance US-Japan cooperation in the years ahead. These recommendations include actions to operationalize the April 2021 US-Japan Joint Leaders’ Statement by creating a bilateral interagency Supply Chain Steering Committee that includes sector-specific working groups to enhance public-private-partnerships in high-technology industries, and by expanding bilateral supply-chain cooperation into multilateral efforts through flexible and informal frameworks.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Bilateral Relations, Economy, Innovation, Trade, Defense Industry, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

85. Transatlantic tools: Harmonizing US and EU approaches to China

Author:
David Barkin and Agatha Kratz
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Close cooperation between the United States and the European Union is essential if advanced economies are to develop effective responses to the array of challenges presented by China. Washington and Brussels share concerns regarding competitive distortions arising through the state’s role in the Chinese economy, the use of advanced technologies to repress ethnic minorities and fuel its military, and the spread of authoritarian influence through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, there has been a lack of coordination and cooperation in recent years between the US and EU when it comes to responding to China’s policies and behaviors. Washington’s focus on risks to US economic and national security contrasts with an emphasis in Brussels on ensuring reciprocity and leveling the economic playing field. But, with the transatlantic relationship back on a better footing under the Biden administration, new structures for transatlantic dialogue being put in place, and a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific in both Washington and Brussels, this paper argues there is now an opportunity for the United States and Europe to learn from each other and harmonize some of their China-related efforts.
Topic:
Human Rights, Markets, Sanctions, European Union, Regulation, Trade, and Transatlantic Relations
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and United States of America

86. The missing anchor: Why the EU should join the CPTPP

Author:
Peter Draper and Naoise McDonagh
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Lowy Institute for International Policy
Abstract:
The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is a twenty-first century trade accord that aims to secure a level playing field and rules-based trade environment in the Indo-Pacific. Yet in the absence of the United States, it risks underachieving on this goal. The European Union (EU) is the only global actor with the trade preferences and requisite economic heft to provide a similar anchoring function for market-orientated trade as was envisioned for the United States in the CPTPP. An EU accession bid to the CPTPP would require overcoming major hurdles and reservations, not least in Brussels. The gains in surmounting them, however, would be considerable. Any EU accession process should avoid jeopardising the possibility of a return of the United States to the multilateral trade agreement. An equivalence regime for regulations where CPTPP members are not in alignment with EU standards could in principle open the possibility of the EU and the United States eventually co-habiting within the CPTPP, however remote or delayed the prospect. Australia should use its status as a founding CPTPP member to advocate for EU accession to the trade agreement. Engaging Europe on the future of the multilateral trade architecture in Asia presents a key area of potential convergence between Brussels and Canberra, following a setback in strategic ties caused by the Australian cancellation of a French-led submarine contract.
Topic:
European Union, Partnerships, Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

87. Global Supply Chains: Compete, Don’t Retreat

Author:
Committee for Economic Development of the Conference Board
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Conference Board
Abstract:
For decades, global supply chains have become increasingly integral to the US economy and have been embraced by business and successive US Administrations because they increase efficiency and US competitiveness. But over the past several years, criticism has grown beyond the argument that US jobs are being exported to include concern about a more hostile and competitive global landscape.1 Then the COVID-19 pandemic struck, and lockdowns were imposed. Production in general was disrupted, shutting down suppliers and interrupting transportation channels; foreign governments closed their borders or hoarded crucial supplies for their own peoples.2 Prominently, lifesaving supplies—including personal protective equipment (PPE) and pharmaceutical production commodities, often sourced from abroad—were in short supply, putting frontline health care workers at even greater risk and complicating vaccine distribution.3 And then, as the pandemic began to ease and demand for goods increased, the enormous container ship Ever Given was grounded in the Suez Canal for six days, bringing much of goods transport around the world to a grinding halt and raising fears of even greater supply chain bottlenecks and commercial chaos.4 This truly unprecedented turn of events has exposed challenges to US reliance on global supply chains. Critics of the “offshoring” of jobs have assigned much of the economic and even the human pain of the pandemic to unwise and excessive dependence on global supply chains that include countries with “command” economies rather than free-market ones, or hostile nations that are unreliable sources of essential goods. The pandemic has also raised national security concerns about the reliability and resiliency of global supply chains, and businesses have been forced into workarounds of their own practices. Given the size of China’s economy, its extensive role in global supply chains, its growing military strength, and the growing tensions in its bilateral US relationship, China is at the nexus of these major concerns about supply chain resilience. The new administration has responded to this turmoil with a series of policy directives,5 studies on the subject,6 and legislative proposals under active consideration in Congress covering both short-term and medium-term responses, including a twenty-first century industrial strategy—which would be a major change of US policy direction. Global trade in materials, tools, components, and services deserves an immediate assessment of both security and economic needs for the long term.7 Security with prosperity must be the goal, and the nation must fully comprehend the bigger picture to achieve that outcome. This brief will put the role of global supply chains in the US and the world economy in perspective. It will offer recommendations to manage the economic and security challenges of global supply chains in the postpandemic economy to ensure that the US remains an innovative and competitive global leader.
Topic:
Economy, Trade, Strategic Competition, COVID-19, Commerce, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

88. The United States and Japan Should Cooperate to Include India in Indo‐Pacific Economic Governance

Author:
Kensuke Yanagida
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Both the United States and Japan consider India as an important strategic partner in their respective Indo-Pacific concepts. However, India still faces many domestic challenges as a developing country. India also has traditionally been reluctant when it comes to trade liberalization. U.S. bilateral trade negotiations with India, and Japan`s effort in promoting an East Asia regional trade agreement that includes India share objectives and interests and hence can be coordinated. On November 15, 2020, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was signed by 15 countries with the glaring exception of India. RCEP is a regional free trade agreement (FTA) whose negotiations were initiated by ASEAN and six partner countries, namely Japan, China, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and India in 2012. The signing of RCEP finally came after eight years of negotiations, but India decided to pull out from the pact at the final stage of negotiations. The Japanese and U.S. Indo-Pacific concepts aim to achieve regional peace, stability, and prosperity through ensuring a rules-based international order, and to enhance cooperation among like-minded countries in both economic and security spheres. RCEP can be positioned as an important economic partnership initiative that embodies the Indo-Pacific concepts of rules-based, free and fair trade and investment governance, and contributing to the economic prosperity of the region.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, and Trade
Political Geography:
Japan, India, Asia, North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

89. The Prospects of Thailand-U.S. Economic Cooperation

Author:
Kaewkamol Karen Pitakdumrongkit
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Kaewkamol Pitakdumrongkit, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) of Nanyang Technological University, Singapore., explains that “data runs contrary to the perception that Bangkok is leaning towards Beijing… Thailand embraces American economic clout while dreading its Chinese counterpart.”
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Trade, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:
China, North America, Thailand, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

90. Greek-American relations: what next?

Author:
George Tzogopoulos
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
With President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis scheduled to meet early this January, Dr. George Tzogopoulos, Research Fellow at ELIAMEP, outlines the course of Greek-American relations from 2015 onwards. Dr. Tzogopoulos argues that Athens and Washington DC have entered a period of strong cooperation that can be further consolidated in 2020. Defense, energy and trade are the main focal points. The agenda includes the need to create a new security environment in the Mediterranean – with Greece playing a key role. The excellent status of Greek-American relations creates new opportunities for closer bilateral cooperation on defense, energy and trade. The region of Northern Greece becomes of gradually higher significance for the US. US foreign policy towards Greece reflects its interest in restraining Russian influence. While anti-Americanism in Greece is declining, there is widespread concern in the domestic public sphere on whether the US will support Greece in the case of a crisis with Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean. US support to the trilateral cooperation of Greece-Israel-Cyprus will be reinforced through the Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act. The US-Greece Strategic Dialogue and NATO Mediterranean Dialogue are useful instruments for strengthening Greece’s role in the South, contributing towards a new security landscape.
Topic:
Security, Energy Policy, Bilateral Relations, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe, Greece, North America, and United States of America