Search

Begin New Search Topic Olympics Political Geography Asia

1. China: New Hegemonic Power after the War in Ukraine?

Author:
Zeno Leoni and Veronica Strina
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on International Security Studies (RESI)
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
The War in Ukraine has had international order implications, deepening previously existing fault lines between West and East (Leoni & Tzinieris, 2024). As China’s grand strategy does also have an impact on the international order, the conflict in Eastern Europe provides an opportunity to pause and reflect on what this means from a perspective of China’s engagement with the world. While the literature on Chinese grand strategy has been prolific in recent years, lessons from Ukraine have yet to be captured in a systematic manner. Hence, this article examines China’s behaviour in relation to the war in Ukraine to evaluate whether this case study offers valuable insights into China’s grand strategy and foreign policy. The contribution concludes that the war in Ukraine has confirmed that China is not yet willing or capable of taking a role of leadership over international controversies, and thus is not directly challenging US hegemony. However, it is actively seeking to build a sphere of interests that involves non-Western countries and the developing world, as highlighted by our discourse analysis of the communications on the “Ukraine issue” from the Foreign Ministry through its spokespersons. To assess whether there is evidence that the war in Ukraine has provided China with an opportunity to pursue a hegemonic project and whether it has been successful at it so far, the article adopts a critical IR approach and delves into the study of communications by the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokespeople on the “Ukraine issue” as key to building a hegemonic discourse. Articles published from the 24th of February 2022 until the 24th of February 2024 have been extracted from the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China and imported into software for qualitative and mixed methods data analysis to examine keywords’ frequency and correlations.
Topic:
Hegemony, Grand Strategy, Olympics, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
China, Ukraine, and Asia

2. 2022, Xi Jinping’s Annus Horribilis: Or is it?

Author:
Christopher K Johnson
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Asia Society
Abstract:
The year 2022 is proving to be a difficult one for China and for President Xi Jinping. Choices like Xi’s embrace of Russia and the zero-COVID policy have prompted sporadic outbursts from the Chinese public and a backlash abroad. Unsurprisingly, this has spawned speculation that Xi is facing political difficulties at home that could hamstring or even disrupt his plan to remain China’s top leader after the 20th Party Congress later this year. Despite the real challenges Xi and the party have faced in 2022, however, this paper will argue that such narratives rest on a series of faulty assumptions about the impetus for Xi’s consolidation of power, the presence of powerful opposition voices within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) system, and the judgment that Xi’s policy approach amounts to a series of blunders that may help his critics as they try to diminish him at the party congress.
Topic:
Economy, Domestic Politics, Olympics, Xi Jinping, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Russia, China, and Asia

3. The Beijing Olympics in Retrospect: An Anti-Human Rights Politics Machine

Author:
Christelle Genoud
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
As the U.S. and other Western nations announced diplomatic boycotts of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) frequently exhorted the international community to keep politics out of the games (People’s Daily, December 8, 2021). Spokespersons of the Beijing Organizing Committee also objected to the “politicization” of the Olympic Games, and claimed that the closed loop Olympic bubble was solely a COVID-19 containment measure necessitated by growing concerns over the spread of the Omicron variant in China (Global Times, January 5). Although, the creation of a closed loop bubble was ostensibly undertaken for epidemic prevention purposes, it also had the impact of isolating athletes and journalists, and forestalling unwanted international focus on poor human rights conditions in China.
Topic:
Human Rights, Politics, Sports, and Olympics
Political Geography:
China and Asia

4. Beijing Winter Olympics 2022: Sports, Law, and Policies

Author:
Tim Harcourt, Deborah Healey, Keiji Kawai, and Yang Pei
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
China Studies Centre, The University of Sydney
Abstract:
The 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics were hosted amid the Covid-19 pandemic and surrounded by concerns and controversies. This Understanding China Brief results from a roundtable discussion organized by the China Studies Centre and the Centre for Asia and Pacific Law of Sydney University on 3 February 2022 to examine four aspects of the Beijing Olympics: boycotts, COVID- 19 control, law reform, and the economics of the Olympics.
Topic:
Economics, Reform, Sports, Conflict, Olympics, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
China and Asia

5. What might have been: Globalization on the medal stand at the Tokyo Olympics

Author:
Soyoung Han and Marcus Noland
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
The Summer Olympic Games are the most globalized sporting event on earth. Until now, the Summer Games had been postponed only three times—in 1916, 1940, and 1944—all because of world wars. So, the announcement that in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 Tokyo Games would be postponed by a year is significant, implicit testimony to the destructiveness of the pandemic. The Tokyo Games were expected to continue the evolution of the Games away from the aristocratic European milieu where the modern Olympic movement began. As poverty has declined and incomes across the global economy have converged, participation in the Games has broadened and the pattern of medaling has become more pluralistic, particularly in sports with low barriers to entry in terms of facilities and equipment. This Policy Brief presents forecasts of medal counts at the 2020 Tokyo Summer Games had they had gone on as scheduled, setting aside possible complications arising from the coronavirus pandemic. The forecasts are not just a depiction of what might have been. They establish a benchmark that can be used when the Games are eventually held, to examine the impact of the uneven incidence of the pandemic globally.
Topic:
Economics, Globalization, Sports, and Olympics
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, and Global Focus

6. The Contents of Power: Narrative and Soft Power in the Olympic Games Opening Ceremonies

Author:
David Leheny
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
Abstract:
This paper examines debates about soft power and popular culture, with particular attention to the framing and reception of the opening ceremonies at the Olympics. It examines how national narratives, particularly in the oft-noted Beijing 2008 Games and the London 2012 Games, have been analysed, turning then to a discussion of clues regarding the likely framing of the 2020 opening ceremony in Tokyo.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Sports, Olympics, and popular culture
Political Geography:
Japan, China, United Kingdom, Europe, and Asia

7. 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

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

Author:
Leif-Eric Easley
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
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:
Diplomacy, Elections, Alliance, and Olympics
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America