Search

Begin New Search Topic International Cooperation Political Geography Asia

41. In the Closet: Japanese Creative Industries and their Reluctance to Forge Global and Transnational Linkages in ASEAN and East Asia

Author:
Shinji Oyama
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
Abstract:
This paper addresses rarely asked questions: is Cool Japan a creative industries policy and, if so, what kind of creative industries policy is it? It addresses these questions by examining Cool Japan’s differences from the UK derived and globally very influential creative industries model. The paper will try to make sense of these differences by looking at how the Japanese creative industries comprise businesses of different sizes with a varied history and prestige, how those companies have complex and contrasting relationships with various state organisations, and how the forces of globalisation and its free-market and neo-liberal economic ideologies affect companies in various sectors differently. This will challenge the dominant narrative of Japanese Creative Industries and Cool Japan in which, it is generally believed, the former embraces globalisation and digitalisation, and the latter is responsible for broadening the appeal of Japanese popular culture abroad. This paper reveals the complexity and diversity of the creative industries from socio-cultural and politico-economic perspectives often overlooked in the Cool Japan discourse.
Topic:
Globalization, International Cooperation, transnationalism, and Industry
Political Geography:
Asia

42. 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

43. China- Pakistan Economic Corridor: Current Situation, challenges, Countermeasures and Suggestions

Author:
Lingfei Li
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pangoal Institution
Abstract:
China- Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a series of big engineering project that China and Pakistan develops to enhance the connectivity and common development of the two countries. CPEC, with Kashghar (in Chinese Xin Jiang Province) and the port of Gwadar (in Pakistani Baluchistan Province) at its northern and southern ends respectively, is a hub of Silk Road Economic Belt and Maritime Silk Road. So it is extraordinarily significant for the strategic deployment and promotion of Belt and Road initiative. At the moment (May 2017), the construction of CPEC has made a number of important developments. The governments of China and Pakistan have also conducted rounds of consultations to set up “long-range planning of CPEC”. On this occasion, this article will conclude the current situation of the construction of CPEC, summarize and evaluate the challenges and risks that exist, and offer preliminary countermeasures and suggestions.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Partnerships, Economy, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Trade, and Industry
Political Geography:
Pakistan, China, South Asia, and Asia

44. Back to the Russia-U.S.-China “Triangle”?

Author:
S. Trush
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
East View Information Services
Abstract:
FOr SeVeral MONThS, the world expert community has been actively discussing the obvious resurgence of the russia-the U.S.-China “triangle.” This happens every time when the key, or even “sacral,” prob- lem of international interaction – the problem of security – comes to the fore. The high level of confrontation inside two of the three sides of the “triangle” – the U.S. vs. russia and China vs. the U.S. – predetermined this resurgence against the background of donald Trump’s non-orthodox and unyielding foreign policy. he brought to the white house his “no-nonsense” approach to add more prominence to the traditional efforts of american pragmatists to keep russia and China apart. his obvious preference for Moscow and his clear intention to rely on it to oppose China were defused by an unprece- dented attack launched against him by the anti-Trump opposition inside the United States. due to the internal balance of power, russia was cho- sen as the potentially most promising target with the best foreign policy dividends perfectly suited to the task of either pushing the president out of the white house or at least, narrowing down his political leeway. This attack and the fairly painful Korean issue created a pause in the america-China relations obvious in the first year of the new administra- tion that ended late in 2017 by the “tough and realistic” description in the National Security Strategy of the United States of “revisionist powers of russia and China.... that challenge american power.” This launched an aggressive trade war with China; today, it has become abundantly clear that it is part of the exacerbated systemic confrontation with China over economic, technological and military leadership.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America

45. Shaping the Image of China as a Responsible Global Power

Author:
I. Zarodov
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
East View Information Services
Abstract:
a CoUnTRy’S ImaGe in the minds of those who live inside and out- side it depends on the logic and goals of its development. In the process of construction, its elements might differ by time and resources needed to create and consolidate them. The result, likewise, may be different where the length of time needed to produce the desired effect and the effect itself are concerned. an image of a country responsible for the development of mankind and its security is time- and resource-consuming to the greatest extent while inevitable contradictions between global responsibility and national interests make it idealistic and unachievable. many countries, however, claim the status of responsible – either regional or global – pow- ers depending on their scope and development goals. This image presupposes that the power demonstrates to the world, not only to certain audiences, that it does not intend to grow and develop at the expense of others but in the long-term perspective is firmly deter- mined to create a secure world of equal opportunities. at first, the Chinese expert community was apprehensive and even fearful of the idea of China as one of the responsible world powers. The West, on its side, was actively trying this role on China and even impos- ing it. This stirred up mistrust. It was repeated, among other things, that the role of globally responsible power does not fit China’s interests; that Beijing is being drawn, contrary to its will, into funding the international system on a grand scale. It should be said that Western politicians tried to persuade China to become a more active sponsor. Later, when the “responsible power” concept had been absorbed and, what is more important, adjusted to the country’s interests, skepticism was finally overcome. Between 1999 and 2009, the definition of China as a “responsible power” found its place, with certain readjustments, in the Chinese political vocabulary. Prominent foreign policy experts Wang yizhou,1 yen Shenyi,2 yu Keping3 and hu Jian4 have written a lot about the logical connection between China’s development and the development of mankind, between protection of national interests and the need to take international interests into account.
Topic:
Globalization, International Cooperation, Hegemony, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:
China and Asia

46. Journal of Advanced Military Studies: Great Power Competition

Author:
Christopher C. Harmon, T. J. Linzy, Jack Vahram Kalpakian, Bruce I. Gudmundsson, Ryan Burke, Jahara "Franky" Matisek, Zsofia Budai, Kevin Johnston, Blagovest Tashev, Michael Purcell, David McLaughlin, Kashish Parpiani, Daniel De Wit, and Timothy Chess
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
In this issue of MCU Journal, the authors discuss various concepts of power and great power competition. For generations, scholars have debated changes in power and how that evolution could potentially impact the United States, its allies, and those hovering on the edge of greatness in whatever form that may take. The concept of power has taken on many meanings as the character of warfare has adapted to the time—hard power, soft power, sea power, airpower, space power, great power, combat power, etc. So how do we define such an abstract concept as power? The Department of Defense (DOD) defines combat power as “the total means of destructive and/or disruptive force which a military unit/formation can apply against the opponent at a given time.” Clearly, power must be projected; and for our purposes, that means an entity has the “ability . . . to apply all or some of its elements of national power—political, economic, informational, or military—to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.”
Topic:
Security, NATO, Climate Change, International Cooperation, Migration, History, Power Politics, Armed Forces, Navy, Populism, Grand Strategy, Alliance, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Strategic Competition, Geography, Ottoman Empire, Information Technology, and Clash of Civilizations
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, China, Europe, Sudan, India, Norway, Asia, France, North America, Egypt, Arctic, United States of America, and Antarctica

47. U.S.-Nepal Relations: Leveraging Operational Efficiencies to Achieve Our Objectives

Author:
Alaina B Teplitz
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassador's Review
Abstract:
Nepal, that mythical Shangri-La nestled in the Himalayas, has long captured the hearts and imaginations of Americans. In the 70 years since the United States established formal relations with the erstwhile hermit kingdom, Nepal has seen dramatic socio-economic progress—often stemming from its partnership with the United States. But in many ways, it still remains under-developed, fragile and vulnerable. As the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu celebrated the 70th anniversary of our partnership in 2017, we pursued a dozen month-long campaigns around today’s policy objectives to highlight our historical collaboration and leverage this retrospective to draw attention to the need for further progress. Combining diplomatic engagements and public events targeted at thought leaders and policy leaders, our campaigns moved forward our shared U.S.-Nepali priorities. As the U.S. government revisits its approach to the Indo-Pacific region and new Nepali leaders form what promises to be the country’s first multi-year government in decades, we now face a unique opportunity to advance our mutual objectives of a stable, prosperous Nepal that is a robust partner of the United States. Coming at the same time as potential adjustments to foreign affairs budgets and staffing, Embassy Kathmandu is reorganizing how we do business to improve our effective­ness, find efficiencies and enhance our focus on an agenda that delivers results. Rather than organize ourselves by the agency that pays our salary, we have structured our unified U.S. government team according to what each unit is doing. Our interagency Integrated Country Strategy (ICS) Teams—co-chaired by section chiefs from separate agencies and physically co-located within the chancery—have designed common strategies for how the U.S. Embassy intends to pursue major objectives and coordinate approaches, as well as explicitly identifying those nice-to-pursue efforts that limited staffing or resources require relegating to the back burner. Through action plans, each ICS Team identifies strategic, impactful and tangible targets to achieve each year—institutionalizing best practices from our 70th anniversary campaigns to sustain meaningful progress toward our goals. As the stakes and challenges facing U.S. diplomacy continue to grow, Embassy Kathmandu is using the strategic opportunity that current U.S.-Nepal relations offer to develop a proof of concept for how a 21st century embassy can organize our people and operations to maximum effect.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
United States, China, Asia, and Nepal

48. The Strategic Importance of Antartica for China and India Under Mearsheimer's Offensive Realism

Author:
Monica Heinzaelmann and Leonardo Faria de Mattos
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:
Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:
The Antarctic Treaty was signed during the Cold War and intended to preserve the continent and transform it into a conflict free territory, prioritizing scientific cooperation. Despite having quadrupled the number of its signatories, the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) faces nowadays the uncertainties of the new international order. Starting out from John Mearsheimer’s realistic perspective, this paper aims to analyze, the strategic importance of Antarctica and the interests that China and India have on the continent, as well as speculate on how their rise on the international scenario can impact the future of the Antarctic Treaty System.
Topic:
International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Science and Technology, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
China, India, Asia, and Antartica

49. The conventional military balance on the Korean Peninsula

Author:
James Hackett
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Institute for Strategic Studies
Abstract:
As US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un meet in Singapore on 12 June, it is useful to keep in mind what is at stake. The long-standing tinderbox of the Korean Peninsula, if ignited through another provocation or miscalculation, could spark a full-scale war that could well go nuclear. The prize of diplomacy – sustainable peace on the peninsula – is all the more valuable when one considers the range of military capabilities potentially in play. This information is of use in assessing both the goals of diplomacy and the risks should the current efforts fail. Weapons based on the Korean Peninsula have become faster, more precise and more powerful. North Korea has tested a thermonuclear weapon, an intercontinental ballistic missile and more accurate shorter-range missiles, all designed to offset the relative qualitative weakness of its broader conventional forces. It has also pursued advanced cyber capabilities. South Korea, meanwhile, has focused on developing military systems allowing for more rapid and precise strikes. US forces on the peninsula have introduced yet more advanced capabilities. For these reasons the IISS provides this independent, measured and detailed analysis of military dynamics on the peninsula. The report focuses on the defence policies and military capabilities of the two Koreas, and the US military forces stationed in South Korea which can be brought to bear in a crisis. While it does not ignore unconventional systems, it principally focuses on conventional capabilities. Due to its poverty and isolation, North Korea’s conventional forces have become relatively weaker, compared with those of South Korea and its US ally. Aware of this qualitative inferiority, Pyongyang has invested in asymmetric capabilities, particularly the pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to deliver them. Nonetheless, Pyongyang’s armed forces remain equipped with a wide range of conventional military systems, including large numbers of artillery pieces and multiple-launch rocket systems. Its armed forces, at around 1.2 million, are the fourth-largest in the world. Its conventional military power remains significant, not least because of these numbers (for instance, 4,000 main battle tanks and 8,500 self-propelled- and towed-artillery systems) and the weight of fire they could rapidly bring to bear if employed. Seoul, for instance, is within range of many of North Korea’s artillery systems. North Korea has also developed increasingly advanced cyber capabilities as another aspect of its asymmetric power. The North will continue to improve these, if only to slow the decline in military parity between it and the South. US and South Korean defence authorities assume that the North will, in the event of major conflict, use cyber attacks against South Korean critical infrastructure and command-and-control networks. However, recent events like the Wannacry ransomware attacks have shown that North Korea is now using its cyber power for another purpose: raising revenue to support the regime. Meanwhile, South Korea’s defence policy and military posture is dominated by the security challenge from the North. This has led Seoul to pursue military capabilities, and strategies, designed to defeat North Korean provocations. These range from developments in air-defence, intended to tackle North Korea’s air force and missile capabilities, to strategies designed to pre-empt a potential North Korean provocation. To enable these strategies, South Korea has developed and procured increasingly advanced military systems, ranging from its own Hyeonmu ballistic- and cruise-missiles, to advanced air-to-ground air-launched weapons and, in the next few years, squadrons of F-35A combat aircraft. Working closely with the South Korean armed forces, the US maintains a military presence some 28,500-strong in South Korea, augmented by advanced military systems on the peninsula like the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) ballistic-missile-defence system, and the military power deployed by the US in the broader Indo-Pacific. This publication builds on the contributions of expert analysts of military power on the Korean Peninsula, and the extensive information holdings available in the IISS Military Balance+ database. It was prepared with the support of the Korea Foundation.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

50. Reducing the Risk of Iran Developing an ICBM

Author:
Michael Elleman
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Institute for Strategic Studies
Abstract:
With the Iran nuclear accord currently on life support, it is not too late to pursue diplomatic measures that address the growing challenge posed by Iran’s ballistic missiles, argues Michael Elleman in a new report. The lack of curbs on Iran’s missile programme was cited by President Donald Trump in May 2018 as one of the principal reasons for withdrawing from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). With the nuclear accord consequently on life support, it is not too late to pursue diplomatic measures that address the growing challenge posed by Iran’s ballistic missiles. The most promising would be to lock in, through negotiations, the 2,000 kilometre-range limit that Iran has previously stated is its maximum requirement. While this would not reduce the threat perceived by Iran’s regional neighbours, it would forestall development of systems that could target Western Europe or North America. Tehran is not likely to commit to verification measures for such negotiated range limits, however, without receiving something in return. One bargain that could be considered would be to allow Iran to continue its satellite-launch programme, under certain conditions, while capping the maximum range of its ballistic missiles. Such a trade-off may also be relevant to the North Korean case.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea