Search

Begin New Search Topic Bilateral Relations Political Geography Asia

71. A Study of China-Italy Cooperation in BRI

Author:
Hua Jing and Anurag Ram Chandran
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pangoal Institution
Abstract:
In ancient times, Europe and Asia were connected together by the Silk Road, with Rome and China respectively serving as the two major terminals. The Silk Road was viewed as the main line of trade and business across borders at that time--an early version of economic globalization. In fact, the grand history of the Silk Road and the connection and exchanges between the two countries are well documented by Marco Polo in his Travelogue. Upholding the concept of globalization, China proposed the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)in which Italy matters a lot. Relatively speaking, among all the countries in the Western Europe, the government and business community in Italy holds a positive stand towards BRI. Even though, it is still undeniable that there is still skepticism and doubt in carrying out relevant projects. Whether we can succeed in exploring more areas and spaces for cooperation and making full advantage of the complementarities between China and Italy, will affect not only the future development of the two countries but also the implementation of the BRI all across Europe.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and Italy

72. “Turkey Dream” and the China-Turkish Cooperation under “One Belt and One Road” Initiative

Author:
Tao Zan
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pangoal Institution
Abstract:
In recent years, along with the “Chinese dream” and the “Belt and Road Initiative” proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping, relevant countries have paid attention to the Chinese people who have become subject in their fields of research. In the past decade of the 21st century, the development of Turkey is remarkable. The country proposed the ambitious “Tükiye hayal” (Turkey dream) at 3 levels : the vision for the 100th anniversary of Republic of Turkey in 2023 (referred to as the “centennial political vision of 2023”), the outlook for the 600th anniversary in 2053 of the Ottoman Empire’s conquest of Istanbul (referred to as the “sex centenary outlook of 2053”), the goals for the 1000th anniversary in 2071 of the victory in Battle of Manzikert, in which Seljuk Turks defeated the Byzantine Empire and started the campaign to conquest Anatolia (referred to as the “millenarian objective of 2071”). Via specific analysis and explanation over the process that Turkey proposes these development plans, goals and vision, this article will explore the context of these proposals, and analyze the conditions to achieve the Dream. At a second part, the article will focus on the fundamentals of Turkey from the perspective of China-Turkis relations, and discuss the foundations and prospects of China-Turkis cooperation under the “Bel and Road Initiative”.
Topic:
International Relations, Bilateral Relations, and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
Political Geography:
China, Turkey, and Asia

73. Current Status and Prospect of Sino-Indonesian Cooperation under the Background of the “Belt and Road”

Author:
Kun Zhai
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pangoal Institution
Abstract:
During his visit to Indonesia in 2013, President Xi Jinping proposed the initiative to co-build “21st Century Maritime Silk Road”. Located at the intersection between Pacific and the Indian Ocean as well as between Asian and Oceania, Indonesia is a critical pivot and strategic fulcrum of “Maritime Silk Road”. Indonesia’s maritime power strategy, which is centered on the vision of “Global Maritime Axis”, is consistent with the “Maritime Silk Road” initiative. For three years, China and Indonesia have been actively communicating their “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” initiative and “Global Maritime Axis” strategy and deepening practical cooperation and friendly exchanges. A lot of major cooperative projects, such as Jakarta-Bandung High-speed Railway Project, have been finalized. Cooperation of mutual benefit in fields such as infrastructure construction, trade, investment, finance, e-business, etc, is making constant progress. According to 2015 Report on Five Connectivity Indexes of Countries along the Belt and Road compiled by the research team of Peking University on Five Connectivity Indexes of countries along the Belt and Road, Indonesia ranks the fifth among all 63 countries along the Belt and Road. This shows that the cooperation between China and Indonesia in fields of the Belt and Road Initiative is on a relatively high level. However, with the broadening and deepening of cooperation between the two countries, a series of problems have begun to surface. If the two parties do not pay enough attention to those problems or take measures to solve them, they will have negative influence on the implementation of the two countries on the Belt and Road Initiative. The present report will summarize the achievements of China and Indonesia in implementing the Belt and Road Initiative, analyze the underlying problems and the real altitudes of Indonesia, and propose some recommendations.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, Politics, Bilateral Relations, and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
Political Geography:
China, Indonesia, Asia, and Southeast Asia

74. Indian Stand on Belt and Road Initiative and Policy Proposals

Author:
Youfa Liu
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pangoal Institution
Abstract:
It has been more than three years since President Xi Jinping put forward the Belt and Road Initiative, which has been actively promoted by the Chinese government. China and India are both emerging countries and are the inseparable neighbors to each other, which constitutes one of the preconditions for the smooth promotion of the BRI. As the scheduled Summit is around the corner, it has become a paramount subject to test the strategic wisdom of the leaders of the two countries and governments on how to create conditions for India to fully engage in the joint construction, how to effectively resolve the issue of “misalignment of strategic thinking”, how to promote common development via bilateral and regional cooperation, how to manage mutual strategic suspicion via win-win cooperation, how to construct the real strategic partner relations as well as on how to jointly explore the new modality of joint development between major developing countries.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Government, Regional Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
Political Geography:
China, India, and Asia

75. Time for China to Forge a New Strategy towards the US

Author:
An Gang
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Pangoal Institution
Abstract:
This summer thus far has greatly frustrated those in support of friendlier China-US relations. China-US trade talks recently took a turn for the worse. The Trump administration, after accusing Beijing of reneging on past trade commitments, has sought to raise tariffs to 25% on US $200 billion worth of imported Chinese goods. The Office of the US Trade Representative has proposed slapping tariffs on nearly all remaining imports from China, which are valued at approximately $300 billion. It is now soliciting public comment on the proposed list, which is expected to be issued as early as late June, following a congressional hearing.
Topic:
Civil Society, Bilateral Relations, Trade Wars, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

76. Trump, Kim and the North Korean Nuclear Missile Melodrama

Author:
Euan Graham
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Lowy Institute for International Policy
Abstract:
The Trump–Kim summit is a distinct new phase in the dramatic cycle that defines the North Korea nuclear issue and the peninsula’s highly theatrical brand of geopolitics. Now that North Korea has finally reached the threshold of a nuclear missile capability to directly threaten the US mainland, its scripted brand of hyperbole and brinksmanship is encountering a different sort of melodrama: the political theatre of Donald Trump. The North Korean nuclear issue cannot be understood without an appreciation of the fundamental tension within inter-Korean relations. There is no precedent for a minor, revisionist power developing an asymmetrical nuclear deterrence relationship with the United States. The result is unlikely to be stable.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Bilateral Relations, Weapons, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Asia, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

77. Tensions in U.S.-Korea Economic Relations

Author:
Troy Stangarone
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
Following a relatively successful period for U.S.-South Korea economic relations under the Bush and Obama administrations, Washington and Seoul have entered a new period of economic tension in the Trump administration. Unlike prior U.S. presidents, who placed a priority on negotiating fair rules in the United States’ economic relationships, President Trump has prioritized outcomes. As a result, one of his administration’s earliest moves was to renegotiate the KORUS Free Trade Agreement. While the results of the renegotiation were modest, they may help to expand the sale of American automobiles in the Republic of Korea in the long-run. The largest outcome of the negotiations may be to protect the Ford Motor Company from South Korean competition in the U.S. market as the company transitions to sales focused on light trucks. While the renegotiation has eased tensions for the moment, the prospect of economic engagement with North Korea, the Trump administration’s continued use of national security to erect trade barriers, and the emergence of new technologies such as artificial intelligence and autonomous vehicles could result in growing tensions in the relationship.
Topic:
Economics, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Negotiation, Free Trade, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

78. 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

79. Doubling Down on the U.S.-South Korea Alliance: Olympics Diplomacy Did Not Breach Trust, but TrumpMoon Confidence Is in Jeopardy

Author:
Leif-Eric Easley
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
The U.S.-ROK alliance faced a quickening pace of North Korean provocations in 2016-17, with Pyongyang violating UN Security Council resolutions dozens of times. Those violations included a fourth nuclear test in January 2016, fifth in September 2016, and sixth in September 2017, as well as numerous missile tests of various trajectories from different platforms. North Korea tested intermediate-range missiles overflying Japan and missiles of intercontinental range on lofted trajectories, while developing road-mobile and submarinelaunched ballistic missiles. As policymakers in Seoul and Washington coordinated responses to those provocations, changes in national leadership and domestic political preferences brought into question the bilateral trust the alliance needs to deter conflict, reassure publics, and promote regional cooperation. Elections have consequences, even before votes are cast. Enduring international security alliances are based on shared national interests and a track record of diplomatic commitments and military cooperation. For allies with highly integrated defense policies, such as the United States and South Korea, it is natural for policymakers and citizens to keenly observe the national elections of the other country. Will the next government be a reliable partner, or will it fail to honor existing agreements? Will the incoming leadership improve relations, or will it downgrade cooperation? These questions were being asked before Donald Trump and Moon Jae-in were elected. The search for answers inevitably involves speculation, feeding expectations that are often overly optimistic or pessimistic. Ahead of Trump’s election, his campaign rhetoric questioned the terms and intrinsic value of the alliance to an extent not seen since Jimmy Carter’s 1976 campaign promise to withdraw U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula. President Moon came to power on the heels of conservative president Park Geun-hye’s impeachment and removal for corruption. Moon’s politics are notably more progressive than Park’s or Trump’s, including a record of pro-engagement policies toward North Korea. Against this backdrop, Kim Jong-un delivered his 2018 New Year’s Day address claiming that North Korea has the ability to hit any U.S. city with a nuclear-armed missile, but that Pyongyang is ready to re-engage Seoul via participation in the Winter Olympics.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Elections, Alliance, Olympics, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North America, Korea, and United States of America

80. Full Book | Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies 2018

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
At the Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI), we foster connections to advance United States-Republic of Korea ties. Through bringing together people with an interest in topics of importance to this relationship, KEI works to further mutual understanding between our two countries. With a whirlwind of new developments in the region, sharing ideas now is of even greater importance. Our 2018 Academic Symposium, through which we endeavor to bridge the academic and policy communities, contributes to understanding crucial questions in the Asia-Pacific. KEI held parts of our Academic Symposium at two conferences this year for the first time. We were pleased to return to the International Studies Association (ISA) annual conference for two panels in San Francisco, California. The conference featured over 6,000 international affairs scholars from around the world with a wide range of research interests and regional specializations to present papers and hold discussions on contemporary issues. We were also pleased to contribute a panel presentation to the Association of Asian Studies (AAS) conference in Washington D.C., which included nearly 4,000 researchers from various disciplines focusing on Asia throughout history. And, for the third year as part of our Academic Symposium, KEI hosted a fourth panel in our own conference room. Marking seven years of collaboration, KEI again turned to the skills and insights of Dr. Gilbert Rozman, the emeritus Musgrave Professor of Sociology at Princeton University, to serve as the Editor-in-Chief for this Joint U.S. - Korea Academic Studies volume and as an advisor to KEI’s programs at the ISA and AAS conferences. This partnership has once more brought together an excellent group of scholars and practitioners. The experts in this volume have thoughtfully addressed themes that are pervasive throughout Asia and are timely for the U.S.-Korea alliance. South Korean President Moon Jae-in took office in May 2017 with ambitious plans for diplomatic initiatives, but faced challenges from both home and abroad in implementing them. How President Moon has pursued his foreign policy options so far is explored in the first section. As China looks ahead to playing a larger role in region, the second section reminds us of how Beijing’s past relationships on the Korean Peninsula play a pivotal role in its outlook towards Seoul and Pyongyang. The penultimate section examines how key regional stakeholders are seeking to advance their trade interests in the wake of U.S. President Donald Trump’s break with international economic policy norms. In the final section, the authors attempt to make sense of North Korea’s outreach in 2018 by each analyzing its possible strategies. Whether our connection with you is new or continuing, we hope you enjoy the 29th edition of the Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies volume.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Diplomacy, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North Korea, and Korea