Search

Begin New Search Topic European Union Political Geography China

201. Japan’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy: What does it mean for the European Union?

Author:
Nanae Baldauff
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
Abstract:
Not so long ago Japan seemed to be left out on the diplomatic stage, notably when it decided not to join China’s newly established Asian Investment and Infrastructure Bank (AIIB) in 2015. But while no one can deny China’s impressive global outreach under the banner of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Japan has not been sitting idly by. Quite the contrary, Japan is playing a leading role in shaping the concept of free and open Indo-Pacific region, and has positioned itself as an important political actor that upholds the rule of law under its Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy (FOIP). As China becomes more and more assertive economically and militarily, strengthening ties with Japan becomes all the more important for the European Union (EU). As a strategic partner of Japan, the EU more than ever needs to work with Japan in upholding the liberal international order.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, European Union, and Investment
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Europe, Asia, and Indo-Pacific

202. The EU and China: Modest Signs of Convergence?

Author:
Gustaaf Geeraets
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
Abstract:
Against a background in which the United States is increasingly drawing into question its commitments to free trade and the global commons, the challenge for the EU and China is to deal with a global governance system that is evolving from a multilateral system centred around the US into a more diffuse system resting on the three strong trading poles: China, the EU and the US.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Governance, European Union, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
United States, China, Europe, Asia, and North America

203. Comparative Industrial Policy and Cybersecurity: A Framework for Analysis

Author:
Vinod K Aggarwal and Andrew Reddie
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Berkeley APEC Study Center
Abstract:
This comparative project evaluates the role of firms, governments, and other key stakeholders in the rise of industrial policy in important states in the cybersecurity industry. In particular, we focus on the U.S., China, Taiwan, Japan, the EU and other key European states. Our goals are as follows: 1) to examine the motivation for government promotion of the cybersecurity industry; 2) to inventory existing measures employed by these countries; 3) to understand the driving forces of cybersecurity industrial policy in these countries; and 4) to examine the likely conflicts that will arise from the competitive pursuit of such industrial policies and how they might possibly be resolved through international cooperation. To this end, we suggest an analytical framework to serve as the comparative structure for this project, drawing on a variety of approaches to understand industrial policy.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Cybersecurity, and Industry
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Europe, Taiwan, and United States of America

204. Resourcing Green Technologies through Smart Mineral Enterprise Development

Author:
Salem Ali, Perrine Toledano, Nicolas Maennling, Nathaniel Hoffman, and Lola Aganga
Publication Date:
02-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Abstract:
Much has been written in recent years about the urgency to develop new technologies that meet ambitious targets for more efficient energy infrastructure with reduced reliance on fossil fuels. There has also been growing recognition that mineral scarcity can hamper the speed of key technologies being developed. The dominance of China as a global supplier of many technology minerals and the Chinese government’s ability to constrain supply has led to a focus on the international trade dimensions of the challenge. The United States, Japan, the European Union and South Korea have all been keenly focused on securing mineral supply for their domestic industries through a range of initiatives. These efforts have included the World Trade Organization dispute resolution mechanism; research investment in alternative and more widely available materials where possible; and considering strategic stockpiles of minerals from internal sources that harken back to Cold War era strategies for material security. In this report, we argue that a neglected area in addressing the mineral scarcity challenge is the private sector’s current trajectory for geological mineral exploration of key minerals and innovative initiatives on material efficiency and recycling where possible. We term this approach Smart Mineral Enterprise Development (SMED) which entails a partnership between public and private entities to consider pathways whereby public sector data sharing on geology can be coupled with research innovations in the private sector both upstream and downstream of mineral supply. Just as smart energy grids harness efficiencies in electricity supply and demand through a dynamic process of communication, SMED processes can do the same for key technological bottlenecks in mineral supply. We focus on cobalt to highlight the bottlenecks; identify alternative supply sources based on current exploration and recycling technologies; propose ways in which the international legal framework could be adapted to promote investments in critical minerals; and consider ways by which the public sector can assist the private sector in developing a SMED process that would bring forth more efficient and effective entrepreneurial activity to meet our green technology needs.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Science and Technology, Natural Resources, European Union, Green Technology, and Electricity
Political Geography:
United States, China, Europe, Asia, and South Korea

205. Guardians of the Belt and Road: The Internationalization of China's private security companies

Author:
Meia Nouwens and Helena Legarda
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Institute for Strategic Studies
Abstract:
Chinese private security companies are going global to protect the country's assets and citizens, in the sometimes unstable countries linked to Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative. Following the build-up of infrastructure and investment projects along China’s extensive Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), private security companies from China are also increasingly going global – to protect Chinese assets and the growing number of Chinese nationals living and working in countries along the BRI, in sometimes unstable regions. Out of the 5,000 registered Chinese private security companies, 20 provide international services, employing 3,200 security personnel in countries like Iraq, Sudan and Pakistan. The impact of this newly developing Chinese activity abroad is analyzed in this MERICS China Monitor. Chinese private security companies’ international activities pose a challenge to European interests as they are often largely unregulated and their security staff are often inexperienced in dealing with serious conflict situations and combat. EU policymakers, thus, are called upon to encourage and assist Beijing to pass laws regulating Chinese private security companies’ activities overseas.
Topic:
Security, Globalization, European Union, and Private Sector
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Beijing, and Asia

206. China’s pursuit of advanced dual-use technologies

Author:
Helena Legarda and Meia Nouwens
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Institute for Strategic Studies
Abstract:
In its quest to become a global ‘science and tech superpower’ and to build a strong military that can fight and win wars, China has embarked on a major process to achieve civil–military integration (CMI) and develop advanced dual-use technologies. Using various methods both to promote indigenous innovation and to access foreign technology and know-how, China’s goal is to leapfrog the United States and Europe and achieve dominance in these technologies, which will have major civilian and military implications in the future. The EU does not have strong, coordinated strategies to promote the development of indigenous dual-use technologies or to protect Europe’s indigenous innovation. As a result of this patchwork regime, China is either catching up to, or surpassing, European capabilities regarding most of these technologies through a ‘whole-of-government’ regulatory framework and financial investment, as well as by accessing European innovation and technology through a variety of means. For Europe, the incentive to keep up with China’s progress in these technologies, and to protect its own innovation in this field, is one with military, but also commercial and economic, imperatives. At a time when China is increasing its commitment to this process of developing advanced, dual-use technologies, it is high time for Europe to think strategically and take action to leverage its own competitive advantages.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Regional Cooperation, Science and Technology, Military Strategy, and European Union
Political Geography:
United States, China, Europe, and Asia

207. PeSCo – Anything There for European Defence?

Author:
Sandro Knezović
Publication Date:
02-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
The European strategic landscape has changed dramatically over the course of the last decade. The post-Cold War mantra about the obsolescence of conventional threats in the wider European space proved to be short-sighted with developments at its eastern �lanks, while security dysfunctions in the MENA region and their immanent consequences for the safety of European citizens have loaded a heavy burden on compromise-building and decision-making in the �ield of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) of the EU. Furthermore, the approach of the new US administration to European security and the strategic consequences of Brexit have changed the wider framework in which security of 'the Old Continent' is to be determined, hence stimulating European leaders to rethink European security in a strive for strategic autonomy of their own. The very ambitiously phrased EU Global Strategy that came out in June 2016, served as both catalyst and umbrella document for such an endeavour. However, in order to achieve measurable progress in responding to contemporary security challenges, it was clear that the EU needs to develop a structural way for member states to do jointly what they were not capable of doing at the national level. This is so especially in the environment in which China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are championing the defence spending, right after the US, while European states are signi�icantly trailing behind. The fact that the EU collectively is the second largest military investor and yet far from being among the dominant military powers only emphasises the burning issue of ef�iciency of military spending and the level of interoperability among member states’ armies. High-level fragmentation of the European defence market and the fact that defence industries are kept in national clusters is clearly contributing to that. The reality on the ground is obviously challenging traditional methods of co-operation that operate mainly in ‘national boxes’ and calling for a paradigm change in the wider policy context of CSDP. However, it remains to be seen to which extent will this new security environment actually be able to push the European defence policy context over the strict national boundaries.
Topic:
Security, Economics, Military Strategy, and European Union
Political Geography:
United States, China, Europe, Middle East, Asia, and Saudi Arabia

208. Good Foreign Policy Makes for Good Domestic Policy//Una Buena Política Exterior Contribuye a Una Buena Política Interior

Author:
COMEXI
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI)
Abstract:
The electoral results of July 1st 2018 bring an extraordinary opportunity to rethink Mexico’s foreign strategy in order to position the country in accordance with its domestic goals and its international reality, considering the means that the country has at its disposal to increase its appeal and competitiveness on the international stage. Mexico has several comparative advantages that can be leveraged—and, at the same time, reinforced—in the international arena. These include the country’s geographic position (bridging the Atlantic and the Pacific), demographics (with an average age of 28 years), language (Spanish is the second-most spoken language in the world), energy resources, 12 trade agreements with 46 countries, economic and political stability, and a denuclearized, interstate Zone of Peace free of religious conflict. The next Mexican administration will face an unusually complex international environment that will force it to give special priority to its foreign policy. Challenges that arise in the international arena could affect national stability, undermine Mexico’s room for maneuver, and impact its development goals. Therefore, having a clear, relevant, and viable strategy that addresses the fundamental interests of the Mexican people and that also has enough clout on the international stage, is crucial. / Ante los resultados electorales del pasado primero de julio, se abre una extraordinaria oportunidad para repensar la estrategia mexicana hacia el exterior que posicione a México en un espacio congruente con sus objetivos internos y su realidad internacional. Todo ello en el contexto de las herramientas que tiene a su disposición para aumentar su atractivo y competitividad en el escenario internacional. México posee diversas ventajas comparativas que pueden ser aprovechadas —y, al mismo tiempo, dinamizadas— en el entorno internacional. Por mencionar algunas: la localización geográfica, puente entre el Atlántico y el Pacífico; la demografía, con una edad de población promedio de 28 años; el idioma, el español es el segundo idioma más hablado en el mundo; los recursos energéticos; una red de 12 tratados comerciales con 46 países; estabilidad económica y política; y una zona de paz interestatal, desnuclearizada, y sin conflictos religiosos. El próximo gobierno de México enfrentará un escenario internacional inusualmente complejo que le obligará a otorgar un grado de prioridad muy destacado a su política exterior. Los desafíos provenientes del ámbito internacional podrían afectar la estabilidad nacional, socavar sus márgenes de maniobra e incidir sobre sus metas de desarrollo, por lo que resulta crucial contar con una estrategia precisa, pertinente, y de ejecución viable, que responda a los intereses esenciales de la nación mexicana, y que alcance la contundencia necesaria en el ámbito internacional.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Development, Elections, European Union, and Domestic Policy
Political Geography:
China, Latin America, North America, Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and United States of America

209. No longer a new kid on the block – China in the Middle East

Author:
James Moran
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
Abstract:
Given China’s growing role in the complex security dynamics in the Middle East and North Africa, the EU should intensify its dialogue and, where interests coincide, joint action with Beijing. Last month’s Chinese Communist Party Congress, with its stress on President Xi Jinping’s strong leadership at home and abroad, has sparked much discussion on how the rest of the world, not least the EU, should deal with a new political behemoth in their backyards. There is nothing new, of course, about China’s economic prowess. For some time now, it has been a major, if not indeed the, prime investor and trader in numerous countries around the world. But with power vacuums appearing in the wake of the Trump administration’s neo-isolationism, and following China’s military-led expansion in the South China Sea, could it be that Beijing is about to become more of a global rule-maker, rather than a rule-taker in international security? The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is an interesting, and for Europeans, sensitive case in point. And there is some evidence that China is moving beyond its traditional interest in the stability of Gulf oil and gas supplies, and raising its profile in the region.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, European Union, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
China, Middle East, and Asia

210. Europe Today and What's Next

Author:
Hannes Androsch
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University
Abstract:
In many places it is forgotten that Europe, especially the EU, is a veritable success story, as this continent has never before experienced a period such as the past seven decades of democracy, peace and prosperity. Faced with the current challenges, especially the refugee crisis, there has been an increasing tendency among European governments to take unilateral action. This approach cannot be successful, however, as European governments attempt to implement policy prescriptions of the past to solve problems of the present. In fact, we need not less but more Europe—but also a reformed Europe: a European Union with one voice for external policy (common foreign, security and defense policy and asylum and migration policy) and the capacity to overcome its internal turmoil (common economic, budget, and tax policies, and a minimum of a transfer union). We also need a European Union that makes the benefits of globalization available to all people. The European Union is currently experiencing one of its worst crises in its history. Old fault lines that have run through the continent for centuries, once considered overcome, have become prominent once again; new challenges have arisen, especially in the wake of globalization, climate change and new technological developments (the Digital Revolution). The world has seemingly become ungovernable. The proclaimed 1989 “end of history” (Fukuyama) is certainly over, and history has a firm grip on Europe. This, at least since the outbreak of the financial and economic crisis in 2007/08, no longer deniable fact is reflected in the still unresolved crisis in Greece (“Grexit”), the associated Euro Crisis, the British referendum on exit from the EU (“Brexit”), and in the renaissance of geopolitics. The annexation of Crimea by Russia undertaken in violation of international law, the war in eastern Ukraine, as well as state disintegration in Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Syria have made it clear that, from the Caucasus to the Balkans and from Pakistan/Afghanistan via the Middle East to North Africa, extends a “Ring of Fire,”—a term used by former Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew to describe the geopolitical challenges of Europe more than twenty years ago. These long concealed —or ignored—distortions are now breaking out again in the form of “wars of succession,” leaving behind territories plagued by unrest, civil wars, and failed states, and resulting in terrorism and refugee waves now reaching the center of Europe. The resulting “crisis mode,” within which the European Union has been operating for several years now, reached its climax with the result of the referendum conducted in June, determining Britain’s exit from the European Union (Brexit). Aside from the medium and long-term economic implications for the country, Brexit was an earthquake with unforeseeable consequences especially on the political level. Scotland is once again discussing its potential separation from the United Kingdom, the fragile peace funded by the EU in Northern Ireland is threatened by collapse, and in a considerable number of other EU countries—mainly France and the Netherlands—populist and nationalist parties are interpreting Brexit as a signal to seek their salvation in national initiatives.
Topic:
Security, Global Recession, European Union, Refugee Crisis, Brexit, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Russia, China, United Kingdom, Europe, Turkey, Middle East, Asia, and Syria