Search

Begin New Search Topic Diplomacy

991. Post G20 Seoul Summit Meeting and East Asia

Author:
Yves Tiberghien
Publication Date:
08-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
Since the 2008 financial crisis, the global economic system has entered a period of intense turbulence, higher systemic risk, and structural change. Many observers and policy-makers recognize the current period as a critical juncture , during which the system of global governance must be successfully upgraded to cope with increasingly globalized and volatile markets. In addition, the global system is undergoing a historic rebalancing in the distribution of power, a process marked by the rise of large emerging countries, primarily China, India, and Brazil. As a consequence, the share of OECD countries in the global GDP has shrunk from 60% to 50% between 2000 and 2011 (PPP basis). This new reality has empowered the new rising emerging economies to demand a larger say in global governance, as witnessed during the debates over the choice of a new IMF Managing Director in June 2011. By chance and also owing to its relatively careful initial design, the G20 Leaders Summit has emerged as the prime forum for the negotiation of changes in the global economic governance. In particular, the G20 represents a relatively stable equilibrium, due to its near equal balancing between developed OECD countries and emerging economies (nearly 10 to 10, depending how one codes Mexico and Korea). The G20 suffers somewhat from its large size, but at least enjoys support from most of its members due to its numerous opportunities for coalition-building and issue-specific balancing. It is true that the G20 in still in the process of proving itself and has to deal with many skeptics. Many analysts in Canada and the U.S. are quick to discount the G20 process as meaningless summitry among too many countries focused on widely divergent domestic agendas. Ian Bremmer and Nouriel Roubini both call this a G-zero situation. Likewise, many leaders in Japan, especially in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, are very skeptical about the G20’s potential and Japan has broadly not yet accepted the G20 as the central game of global governance, preferring to it the well-established G8. Yet, the G0 or G8 or G193 are not functional options. They represent default realities without the ability to solve any of our global problems. Only the G20 is able to deliver the necessary political leadership to initiate the upgrading of global governance. For this reason, the majority of key countries (including Europe, China, Korea, and many in the U.S.) see the G20 as the core game of global governance and the best option for the enhancement of global cooperation and the restructuring of global institutions. After an interim summit in Toronto, the Seoul summit came at a critical moment when the future of the G20 was in the balance. By managing to deliver visible results and institutional milestones, the Seoul Summit played a key role in the gradual institutionalization of the G20. The Seoul summit provided significant momentum to the G20 and significant legacies. It can be seen as a second high point after the London summit.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, G20, Economic Cooperation, and Summit
Political Geography:
Global Focus

992. China’s Strategic Shift and North Korea’s Open-Door to China Policy

Author:
Seung-Yul Oh
Publication Date:
09-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
In the first half of 2011, bilateral trade volume between China and North Korea doubled compared to the same period of the previous year. On August 2, North Korean First Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Guan concluded his week-long visit to Washington at the invitation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Furthermore, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, during his first visit to Russia since 2002, met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at a military base on the outskirts of the eastern Siberian city of Ulan-Ude to talk about bilateral economic cooperation on August 24. Seemingly, North Korea’s hectic diplomatic efforts shed light on the long-stalled Six-Party talks, and it tries to counterweigh its heavy dependency on China. Is North Korea changing its attitude toward the outside world? In order to answer the question, this paper delves into the strategic motivation of the North and China for expanding Korea-China economic relations in terms of China’s strategic shift and North Korea’s open-door to China policy. Since the global financial crisis, China’s hierarchical status in the world economic order in terms of economic volume and influence improved so fast that even China itself has been facing some difficulties in accommodating the changes in its domestic sociopolitical sphere as well as its external strategies. Premier Wen’s repeated emphasis on the imperativeness of political reform in China is, to some extent, related to the discrepancies in the speed of changes between China’s political institutions and economic power, that is, imbalances in the basis and the superstructure in terms of the political philosophy of Karl Marx. For Marx, the stubborn capitalistic superstructure was a big problem. But in today’s China, the bureaucratic and closed superstructure is in contradiction with its globalized market economy as the world’s workshop. China’s gains from its peaceful rise have not been free from the pains of growth. Such a dilemma might be understood from the example of the contradiction in China’s external political gestures: it categorically argues that it is a member of developing countries when meeting with representatives from those developing countries; nevertheless, at the same time, it deliberately releases news about its achievements in military technologies, for example, those of the J-20 stealth fighter and the super-aircraft carrier. In addition, at the news conference after the closing ceremony of the third China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Washington in May 2011, the Chinese delegation used the phrase “two leaders” frequently, designating the two giants, China and the United States.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and North Korea

993. Russia’s “Return” to Asia: How Should South Korea Respond?

Author:
Beom-Shik Shin
Publication Date:
12-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
On August 24, 2011, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il held a joint summit in Eastern Siberia, the first such meeting between the two countries since 2002. After the summit, many speculated upon the impact this meeting would have upon the current stalemate on the Korean Peninsula over North Korea’s nuclear program. Although some experts viewed Kim Jong-il’s visit to Russia as merely a form of begging bowl diplomacy, such analysis underestimates recent efforts by Russia to engage Northeast Asia. Moreover, the strategic significance of the summit is reflected in the agreement reached between the two leaders which would imply that the summit could be a watershed moment in bringing about new dynamics on the Korean Peninsula and among neighboring countries. Particularly, the proposed Trans-Korea Gas Pipeline Project would have a strong impact on the political geography of Northeast Asia. In November 2011, South Korea and Russia held their own summit in St Petersburg where the Trans-Korea Gas Pipeline project was reconfirmed. Moscow even expressed its willingness to build the pipeline, passing through North Korea, at its own expense. Such a very active participation from Russia though could provoke certain competition with China in the region. The future course of this project is expected to be decided during the negotiation process between Russia’s Gazprom and South Korea’s KOGAS. Yet in South Korea, domestically, this issue of building a gas pipeline could be controversial in many ways. There are concerns regarding security matters related to North Korea as well as a lack of trust in Russia. At the same time, the responses from the United States and China must be taken into account. As 2012 is the year of leadership change for many countries in the region, it is also possible that the project will become unnecessarily politicized and eventually jeopardized. Therefore, South Korea should carefully prepare an action plan for realizing this project in order to take advantage of this opportunity amid changing dynamics in the region. In recent years there has been much talk of the United States “returning” to Asia, but Russia is also making its own return. This gas pipeline project shows how Russia intends to use its vast energy resources to facilitate its ambition to play a new role in Northeast Asia. This Issue Briefing addresses the impact of Russia’s reengagement and how South Korea should respond by considering both the positive and negative effects.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Energy Policy, Regional Cooperation, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Asia, and South Korea

994. State of the Union Address, 2010

Author:
Barack Obama
Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
THE PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans: Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They've done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they've done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Government, War, Labor Issues, and Financial Crisis
Political Geography:
United States

995. (Re)Engaging Russia in an Era of Uncertainty

Author:
Dmitri V. Trenin and Samuel A. Greene
Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The rising costs of economic and political uncertainty in Russia are bringing a new, if tentative, willingness in Moscow to engage in real policy analysis. As it reels from a series of shocks, Russia risks falling further behind a world that is rethinking trade, security, nuclear nonproliferation, climate change, and other priorities. Western capitals seeking real engagement with Russia would do best to place relations with Moscow on an institutional, rather than a personal, footing. As the Kremlin struggles to formulate clear positions on emerging issues, Western policy makers must work with Russia's independent voices to ensure that the country's interests are duly represented at global policy tables.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
Russia and Moscow

996. The Obama Administration and Multilateralism: Europe Relegated

Author:
Richard Gowan
Publication Date:
02-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation
Abstract:
Barack Obama's critics argue that he is a naïve believer in global governance. This is mistaken. When it comes to multilateral diplomacy, the President has proved to be a pragmatist and – suitably for a man with a reputation as a 'calculating' poker player, according to a 2008 article in The New Yorker – ready to gamble. In the last year, he has taken a bet that the US can lead a radical reorientation of international cooperation. This is based on three assumptions.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and International Organization
Political Geography:
United States, China, and Europe

997. Negotiations and Strategy: Understanding Sanctions Effectiveness

Author:
Michael Chaitkin
Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation
Abstract:
Despite extensive and ongoing debate about economic sanctions, policy makers disagree about their effectiveness. This is to some extent surprising given the frequency and ceremony with which states sanction each other to achieve their policy goals. Analytically, this confusion is understandable; the multitude of factors that influence the outcome of a conflict involving sanctions confounds the task of evaluating the impact of sanctions.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Human Rights, and Sanctions

998. The Italian Foreign Ministry on the way of reform

Author:
Raffaello Matarazzo
Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
The Italian government recently approved a reform of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) which should take effect by the summer of this year . By bringing the structure of the MFA into line with those of Italy's principal European partners, the reform envisages: A reduction from 13 to 8 in the number of Directorates General (DGs). These will no longer be divided by geographical region but by main subject area; The creation of a stable, structured relationship between the MFA and the Ministry for Economic and Financial Affairs (MEF); The creation of “ambassador-managers” who will be called to manage the budgets of Italy's missions abroad in an increasingly autonomous and entrepreneurial manner.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Regional Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe and Italy

999. The New Turkish Foreign Policy And The Future Of Turkey-Eu Relations

Author:
Emiliano Alessandri
Publication Date:
02-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
The article refutes the often-heard argument that Ankara's recent 'activism' in the Middle East indicates that Turkey is 'drifting away from the West'. Turkey's improving relations with its neighbors (not only in the Middle East), are mainly a result of the end of the Cold War and of domestic developments which have 'unlocked' Turkey, transforming it into a more open and democratic country with an even greater stake in EU membership. At the same time, the many international and domestic changes that have occurred since Turkey was granted candidate status call for a 're-foundation' of the Turkey-EU relationship. Lacking the latter, the future of Turkey-EU relations will indeed remain uncertain.
Topic:
Foreign Policy and Diplomacy
Political Geography:
Turkey and Middle East

1000. Indonesia: The Deepening Impasse in Papua

Publication Date:
08-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
The two sentiments that define the political impasse in Papua are frustration on the part of many Papuans that “special autonomy” has meant so little, and exasperation on the part of many Indonesian government officials that Papuans are not satisfied with what they have been given. The gulf between the two might be reduced by dialogue, but any prospect of serious talks is hampered by an un-willingness of Jakarta to treat the problem as essentially a political, rather than an economic one. To move forward, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono needs personally to take the lead in recognising that autonomy means more than increased budgetary allocations or accelerated economic development. He needs to explore directly with credible Papuan leaders how political autonomy can be expanded; affirmative action policies strengthened in all sectors; and Papuan fears about in-migration addressed. Unless these three issues are tackled head on in face-to-face meetings, the impasse is unlikely to be broken and increased radicalisation is likely.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Economics, Treaties and Agreements, and Territorial Disputes
Political Geography:
Indonesia and Asia