Search

Begin New Search Political Geography China Publication Year within 3 Years

1151. Why is China Accommodating a Nuclear North Korea?

Author:
Ioan Tuleasca
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
Institution:
Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies
Abstract:
The Korean Peninsula's strategic outlook is characterized by what can be ultimately summarized as armed stability derived from a frozen conflict. As described in this paper, China (People’s Republic of China) supports its communist neighbour North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) for political, economic, strategic, social, and philosophic reasons. China’s stance can be associated with its final goal of replacing the United States (US) as the dominant power in East Asia, where the present-day strategic competition between the two economic and military powerhouses does not allow for a breakthrough in solving the Korean conundrum. The prime beneficiary of this situation is North Korea, which continues unabated its quest for military and nuclear superiority even if submitted to harsh international sanctions.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Strategic Stability, Military, and Frozen Conflict
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

1152. Overcoming American Hegemony: The Central Paradox of Chinese and Russian Revisionism

Author:
Adam P. MacDonald
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
Institution:
Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies
Abstract:
China and Russia are adopting increasingly assertive dispositions to reconstitute local geopolitical environments to their strategic advantage, requiring the erosion of American anchored hegemonic networks in their respective home regions. Despite growing material power bases, these pursuits are and will most likely continue to be unsuccessful. First, they are seen as threatening to other regional powers who are increasingly working together to counteract them. Second, these counterbalancing efforts reinforce the importance of the United States, given its still preponderant capabilities and networked centrality, in facilitating the coordination of existing and new political, economic and security arrangements which are increasingly oriented against China and Russia. A central paradox lies at the heart of these powers’ revisionist approaches: their actions inhibit desired new geopolitical realities, principally defined by alignment patterns, from emerging by reinforcing rather than displacing American hegemonic regional networks. Despite the negative strategic results being produced, it is expected both powers will double down on their current approaches to try to impose favorable regional realities before their power capacity wanes as domestic challenges grow. China and Russia are not existential challenges to but rather re-invigorate American hegemonic networks and its leading role within them. The greatest threat to American hegemony is not external but internal in terms of domestic alienation against the hegemonic project itself.
Topic:
Hegemony, Geopolitics, Rivalry, Multipolarity, and Revisionism
Political Geography:
Russia, China, and United States of America

1153. Towards a deeper NATO-Japan cooperation

Author:
Marc Ozawa
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
While NATO and Japan have a long history of cooperation dating back to the 1990s, changes in their respective regional and global security environment are creating converging interests. This, in turn, presents new areas of potential cooperation. The developments driving convergence are Russia’s war with Ukraine and possible spill over effects in the Indo-Pacific, China’s growing global assertiveness and military posturing in the South China Sea, and a deepening security partnership between Russia and China. At the same time, NATO’s view is increasingly global, and Japan has signalled both a willingness and interest to deepen cooperation with NATO, exemplified by Prime Minister Kishida’s participation in the Madrid Summit last summer. While NATO’s short-term focus will be deterring and defending the Eastern flank, the current timing is right to consider deeper cooperation in the future. This could entail expanding cooperation beyond the ‘soft’ areas of humanitarian assistance and non-proliferation into defence through interoperability, cyber, and intelligence. There are already lessons from the Russia-Ukraine war that can assist in laying the groundwork for practical steps to NATO-Japan cooperation including a focused expansion of interoperability of forces, joint exercises in the maritime domain, political support, countering disinformation, and developing contingency plans for logistics and intelligence cooperation in the event of military conflict. Of all NATO’s partners in the Indo-Pacific, Japan spends the most on defence and represents the largest economy, about three times the size of the Republic of Korea (ROK) or Australia. Japan is the only non-NATO member of the G7, and as the longest-standing NATO partner beyond Europe, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg described Japan as a “natural partner” with shared values and challenges.1 These factors alone warrant revisiting NATO-Japan relations in light of recent events.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, and Partnerships
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, and Indo-Pacific

1154. COVID-19 and Superpower Competition: An Effective American Response

Author:
Amit Gupta
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Before COVID-19 became a global pandemic, the growing consensus among analysts was that we were entering a period of deglobalization. According to the economic analyst Mohammed el-Erian deglobalization was taking place because by the 2000s the adverse economic impact of globalization had become apparent to the Western middle class. Secondly, the U.S.-China trade war saw rising tariffs and a call for rebuilding national manufacturing capabilities. The COVID-19 pandemic was the last nail in the coffin as countries adopted highly individualistic and nationalistic policies that put national interest above any global concerns.1 Coupled with the perceived drive to deglobalization is the fact that we have re-entered an era of great power competition with the 2017 National Security Strategy clearly stating that both Russia and China are revisionist powers that challenge American primacy and that, “… want to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests. China seeks to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region, expand the reaches of its state-driven economic model, and reorder the region in its favor.”2 What this article argues is that true security in the emerging international system will require precisely those aspects of globalization that the critics decry because no single country can effectively tackle such a complex and deadly threat as the COVID-19 pandemic through strictly national measures. Further, the emerging great power competition is one not just of military and economic rivalry but, much in the same way as during the Cold War, it is a struggle between different ways to organize societies and particularly to deliver goods and services efficiently and justly. With the latter in mind, how the United States and its allies and partners lead the response to COVID-19 will have an impact on the outcome of global power relationships. If China provides better solutions on dealing with the pandemic, then it will be able to undercut the American-created liberal international order. To discuss this issue, we need to first explain what globalization is and why, in a COVID-19 world, it provides the security solutions to the challenge posed by the disease.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Globalization, Strategic Competition, COVID-19, and Superpower
Political Geography:
China, Global Focus, and United States of America

1155. China, the West, and the Future Global Order By Julian Lindley-French and Franco Algieri

Author:
Julian Lindley-French and Franco Algieri
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
The primary purpose of this article is to respectfully communicate to a Chinese audience a Western view of the future world order. China needs the West as much as the West needs China. However, the West has awakened geopolitically to the toxic power politics that Russia is imposing on Ukraine and China’s support for it. China is thus faced with a profound choice: alliance with a declining and weak Russia or cooperation with a powerful bloc of global democracies that Russia’s incompetent and illegal aggression is helping to forge. The West is steadily morphing into a new global Community of Democracies with states such as those in the G7, Quads, and Quints taking on increasing importance as centers of decisionmaking.2 All three groupings reflect an emerging implicit structure with the United States at their core, European democracies on one American geopolitical flank, with Australia, Japan, South Korea, and other democracies in the Indo-Pacific region on the other American geopolitical flank. The force that is forging such a community is China as it morphs into a superpower. Specifically, China is choosing to be an aggressive putative superpower. President Xi Jinping’s aggressive worldview is of a China defined by its opposition to the United States and, by extension, America’s democratic allies and partners. A new world is being forged from within the increasingly hot cauldron of U.S.-Chinese strategic competition. However, does that mean this new world is inevitably now set on a crash course to conflict, something akin to a re-run of the collapse of pre–World War I Europe into systemic war? Or is it not too late for both sides to forge a pragmatic peace—a peace forged from respect, rather than destructive and disrespectful confrontation? On the face of it, President Xi seems to have made his choice, but in some very important respects siding with Russia in geopolitical conflict with the community of democracies seems counterintuitive when we look at China from a Western perspective (as this article does). This perspective also implies China’s “choice” might not be as firm as some would have it—a profound but essentially simple choice between siding with Vladimir Putin and confrontation with the West or continued growth, wealth, and power through collaboration with the West? The facts speak for themselves. Using the most favorable economic statistics for the combined Chinese and Russian economies—purchasing power parity—their combined economies are worth some $27 trillion in 2022. Using the same data for G7 countries, the core of the emerging Community, the total is $39 trillion.3 Add Australia and South Korea to the aggregate and the figure is $42 trillion. If nominal gross domestic product (GPD) is compared, the contrast is even more striking with the combined GDPs of China and Russia in 2022 totaling $20.2 trillion, while the combined GDPs of the G7 countries amount to $45.2 trillion, which when Australia and South Korea are added increases to $48.8 trillion.4 Critically, China’s trade with the democracies is over 10 times greater than that with Russia,5 while in 2020, China’s merchandise trade surplus with the rest of the world totaled $535 billion, with much of that figure due to surpluses with both the United States and Europe.6
Topic:
Security, Geopolitics, Strategic Competition, International Order, and Superpower
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, and United States of America

1156. Panda Power? Chinese Soft Power in the Era of COVID-19

Author:
Amit Gupta
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Much like competition between the United States and the former Soviet Union, the rivalry between the United States and China is not only one of military-strategic and economic challenges but also one of ideas. The West, particularly the United States, has had the advantage of presenting the more compelling image to the rest of the world in the form of what Joseph Nye, Jr., dubbed soft power. The argument goes that while China makes propaganda efforts, the United States enjoys soft power—the attractiveness of its culture, political ideas, and policies—and this gives America an international advantage. As the Australian security analyst Hugh White put it, “Everybody admires China, but no one wants to be China.”1 While this was true in the early years of the post–Cold War era, the Chinese have since used their newfound wealth to create a more friendly image for themselves. If they are able to successfully distribute their version of the COVID-19 vaccine around the world, we may see Beijing benefiting from a boost in its image—despite the abrasive “wolf warrior diplomacy” of the past few years, its military forays in the East and South China seas, and the fact that the Chinese government was initially less than forthcoming in sharing data on the pandemic.2 With a recent analysis suggesting that China’s economy will overtake that of the United States in 2028, China’s attempts to rebrand its image will not only have more resources but also find an increasingly eager international audience that seeks to engage the newly emerging number one global economy.3 Soft power, after all, means little without an economic and a military capability to back it up, and China has both. To discuss the Chinese challenge, this article makes its argument in three parts: first, it argues that Nye’s definition of soft power has limitations, and in fact, the Chinese can influence global public opinion with a mixture of propaganda and soft power. Second, it describes China’s attempts to influence global public opinion and the extent to which it may succeed. Finally, it examines the possible future of the Chinese soft power challenge and what the United States can do to counter it.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Media, Soft Power, Strategic Competition, COVID-19, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
China and Global Focus

1157. The 21st Century's Great Military Rivalry

Author:
Graham Allison and Jonah Glick-Unterman
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
A quarter-century ago, China conducted what it called “missile tests” bracketing the island of Taiwan to deter it from a move toward independence by demonstrating that China could cut Taiwan’s ocean lifelines. In response, in a show of superiority that forced China to back down, the United States deployed two aircraft carriers to Taiwan’s adjacent waters. If China were to repeat the same missile tests today, it is highly unlikely that the United States would respond as it did in 1996. If U.S. carriers moved that close to the Chinese mainland now, they could be sunk by the DF-21 and DF-26 missiles that China has since developed and deployed. This article presents three major theses concerning the military rivalry between China and the United States in this century. First, the era of U.S. military primacy is over: dead, buried, and gone—except in the minds of some political leaders and policy analysts who have not examined the hard facts.1 As former Secretary of Defense James Mattis put it starkly in his 2018 National Defense Strategy, “For decades the United States has enjoyed uncontested or dominant superiority in every operating domain. We could generally deploy our forces when we wanted, assemble them where we wanted, and operate how we wanted.”2 But that was then. “Today,” Mattis warned, “every domain is contested—air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace.”3 As a result, in the past two decades, the United States has been forced to retreat from a strategy based on primacy and dominance to one of deterrence. As President Joe Biden’s National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and his National Security Council colleague Kurt Campbell acknowledged in 2019, “The United States must accept that military primacy will be difficult to restore, given the reach of China’s weapons, and instead focus on deterring China from interfering with its freedom of maneuver and from physically coercing U.S. allies and partners.”4 One of the architects of the Trump administration’s 2018 National Defense Strategy put it less diplomatically and more succinctly: “The era of untrammeled U.S. military superiority is over.”5
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Deterrence, Strategic Competition, Rivalry, and Military
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, and United States of America

1158. The BRI and Its Rivals: The Building and Rebuilding of Eurasia in the 21st Century

Author:
Anoushiravan Ehteshami
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
China’s re-emergence as a global power after 400 years raises profound questions about not only China’s place in the truly new world order in which no superpower can reign supreme but also the international system itself, as well as the ways in which China’s policies may be reorientating Eurasia’s regions in the direction of China. For much of the post–World War II period, China was a minor actor on the world stage, and from the 1960s onward it was Japan’s meteoric rise as a major emerging economic power that posed a geopolitical challenge to the Euro-American domination of the world economy. With an unprecedented economic growth rate of around 10 percent from 1953 to when the oil crisis hit in 1973, Japan created an industrial miracle. Racist terminology invoking the rise of the “yellow peril” notwithstanding, Japan’s position as Asia’s leading economy was recognized by its addition to the G-4 club of the most advanced economies of the world in 1973 and its firm place in the successor G-7 group of such economies in 1976. Japan’s industrial might, technological prowess, and innovative management techniques took the world by storm, virtually rewriting the rules of capitalist development. Its success was such that even at the height of an oil price shock, which took oil prices to over $100 per barrel in the early 1980s, the country’s trade balance grew from $2.1 billion in 1980 to nearly $90 billion in 1986.1
Topic:
Infrastructure, Economy, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and Superpower
Political Geography:
China and Asia

1159. Learning From Each Other: The Belt and Road Initiative and the Infrastructure Policy in Africa

Author:
Mamoudou Gazibo
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brazilian Journal of African Studies
Institution:
Brazilian Journal of African Studies
Abstract:
My hypotheses here are that in many respects, especially regarding infrastructure, the BRI and Africa's continental initiatives on infrastructure are the product of a co-constructed learning process between Africa and China throughout their interactions since the early 2000s. Furthermore, as a projection of China's initiatives in Africa on a global scale, the BRI is consistent with Africa's continental development policies and even probably inspired by them given the anteriority of the latter. In contrast to what most authors think (Gaye 2006; Taylor 2006), this argument stresses Africa's agency, which changes China as much as China changes Africa (Kuo 2018; Ayers 2013). To defend this argument, the paper examines the congruence between the BRI and Africa's infrastructure policies by cross-tracing the ideational pro- cess in the two contexts. This is carried out by looking for cross-references in Africa's main documents (namely the NEPAD, the FOCAC, and the Agenda 2063), on the one hand, and the BRI, on the other. The paper then illustrates this by briefly examining some of the BRI and AU bilateral projects.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Infrastructure, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and African Union
Political Geography:
Africa and China

1160. China-Africa in the Context of BRI-B3W

Author:
Li Anshan
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brazilian Journal of African Studies
Institution:
Brazilian Journal of African Studies
Abstract:
In 1992, Professor Lester Thurow, a famous American economist of MIT, published a book entitled Head to Head: The coming economic bat- tle among Japan, Europe, and America, to analyze the coming competition between economic powers in the 21st century (Thurow 1992). It seems that the author was quite confident in economic giants Japan, Europe and the US in the future and believed that the rich club accepted only one country – Japan in the 20th century –, and it would not be surprising if no country would enter the club in the 21st century. Once published, the book aroused great reper- cussions in Japan, Europe and the US and became one of the non-literary bestsellers. No matter how brilliant Lester Thurow's academic achievements are, his prediction was not fulfilled this time. He never thought that Europe and the US would experience a financial crisis in the new century and China would become the second world economy in 2010. Nor did he expect that Gallup's survey report on Rating World Leaders (2018) found that people in 134 countries and regions around the world recognized China's leadership by 34%, higher than 31% for the US. This is the second time since 2008 that China's global recognition of leadership has surpassed that of the US, setting a record for China in 10 years (Ray 2019).
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Infrastructure, Leadership, and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
Political Geography:
Africa and China