Number of results to display per page
Search Results
82. The Embrace Between a Russian Bear and the Panda Bear. An Emerging Sino-Russian Axis
- Author:
- Jens Bastian
- Publication Date:
- 06-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
- Abstract:
- During a three-day official visit to Moscow in June 2019 the Chinese President Xi Jinping described Russia’s Vladimir Putin as his “best friend”. While China-US relations are deteriorating over bitter trade disputes, the imposition of tit-for-tat tariffs and intellectual property rights, the Sino-Russian partnership is evolving and deepening in areas such as security and defense, bilateral energy cooperation as well as the Kremlin’s expanding participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Both Beijing and Moscow are building an alliance shaped by shared grievances and based on mutual strategic convenience. Against this background the following report argues that the strategic realignment underway between the Kremlin and Beijing is not one of equal partners. Status matters between the leadership of both countries. Moscow cannot compete with China’s sweeping investment efforts and infrastructure projects in the context of the BRI. What is increasingly emerging in this relationship is a junior role for Moscow and senior status for Beijing. The trade balance is heavily tilted in China’s favor. Chinese banks are key lenders to Russia. The energy cooperation is defined by China being able to command prices from Russia below market rates. Most importantly, China’s BRI is a multi-decade vision, spacing continents and backed up by sheer unlimited financial resources which Russia cannot even contemplate to match. With Russia and China strengthening their cooperation across policy fields, individual countries and sub-regions in continental Europe are faced with new and challenging strategic choices. As Moscow consolidates its economic footprint in Serbia and Montenegro, Beijing expands its presence across Central and Eastern Europe in the context of the 17+1 network. Policy makers are thus faced with daunting options. Some see Beijing as the more promising alternative, while others are tempted to seeking accommodation with both Russia and China.
- Topic:
- Security, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Trade, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, and United States of America
83. Russia and China in the Middle East: Playing their best cards
- Author:
- Marco Siddi and Marcin Kaczmarski
- Publication Date:
- 11-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
- Abstract:
- Russia and China share a number of interests in the Middle East: limiting US power and maintaining good relations with all players in the region while remaining aloof from the key conflicts, especially between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and Iran and Israel. Russia’s position has been based on political support for particular states, arms sales and the provision of civilian nuclear energy technology. Moscow has boosted its role by intervening militarily in the Syrian civil war. China has been strengthening its political position in the region for the last decade and its presence is more substantial from a financial-economic perspective. The current Chinese and Russian regional posture further marginalises the influence of the EU in MENA. In the Middle East, the EU is already a weaker economic actor than China and a weaker military player than Russia. However, the EU can cooperate with Russia and China on upholding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear programme.
- Topic:
- Energy Policy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Power, Military Intervention, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Europe, Middle East, and Asia
84. China’s 2020 Economic Agenda: Maintaining Stability Amid Flux
- Author:
- Yun Jiang and Adam Ni
- Publication Date:
- 12-2019
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- China Brief
- Institution:
- The Jamestown Foundation
- Abstract:
- China’s top annual economic policy gathering, the Central Economic Work Conference (中央经济工作会议, Zhongyang jingji gongzuo huiyi), or CEWC, was held between December 10 and 12 in Beijing. This year’s CEWC focused on the theme of “achieving developmental progress on the basis of first ensuring stability” (稳字当头, 稳中求进 / wen zi dangtou, wen zhong qiu jin) (Xinhua, December 12)—thereby continuing a theme stressed during the meeting of the National People’s Congress in March of this year (China Brief, March 22). Given increasing economic risks and political challenges, both domestic and international, the party-state’s focus on the supremacy of stability is unsurprising. Importantly, the CEWC reiterates that the goal of achieving a “moderately prosperous society” (小康社会, xiaokang shehui) by the end of 2020 is “a priority among priorities” (重中之重, zhong zhong zhi zhong). This article examines the key outcomes of the 2019 CEWC, which set the overall direction of China’s economic policy agenda for 2020. In doing so, we highlight a central underlying tension: on the one hand, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) wants to keep a steady ship at a time of economic and strategic flux; on the other, maintaining strong economic growth requires ambitious developmental goals and economic reform imperatives, which have added pressure for bold policy actions. How well Chinese policymakers can navigate this tension in 2020 has important ramifications for both China’s national development and the CCP’s political legitimacy.
- Topic:
- Security, Development, Economics, Legitimacy, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- China and Asia
85. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in the Context of the Chinese Grand Strategy
- Author:
- Tommaso Rossotti
- Publication Date:
- 07-2018
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Rest: Journal of Politics and Development
- Institution:
- Centre for Strategic Research and Analysis (CESRAN)
- Abstract:
- Being the most populous country and the second biggest economy in the world, the People’s Republic of China is under every aspect one of the most important players in today’s international system. As every great power, China acts rationally in its foreign relations, and, doing so, it follows what has been labelled as a “Grand Strategy”. The aim of this paper is to analyse Chinese Grand Strategy in a practical perspective; in particular, it will be discussed how the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) fits in Beijing foreign policy and in its Grand Strategy. The paper moves from a working definition of Grand Strategy, to suddenly analyse how and if the different aims and goals of the SCO are aligned with China’s interests and long-term objectives.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Hegemony, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- China and Asia
86. Common Ground for the United States, Japan, and China in Southeast Asia
- Author:
- Brian Harding
- Publication Date:
- 03-2017
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- Over the past decade, Southeast Asia’s economic and geopolitical profile in the world has risen dramatically. Its $2.5 trillion economy is a rare bright spot for global growth.1 Plus, the increasingly integrated Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, is a rare example of a regional political structure writing its own destiny—in this case, the agenda for the emerging regional security architecture of the Asia-Pacific.2 The region has also emerged, however, as a nexus for a range of transnational threats, ranging from trafficking in illicit goods to extreme weather events that are a result of climate change.3 Yet the region’s vital sea lanes have only grown more important, with more than half of the world’s merchant tonnage and one-third of global maritime traffic transiting the region every day on their journey from the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean to the economic powerhouses of Northeast Asia.4 The world has taken note of the opportunities presented by increased involvement in Southeast Asian affairs, as well as the challenges the region faces. Governments and multinational companies across the world are ramping up engagement with the region bilaterally with individual countries and multilaterally with ASEAN. Southeast Asian countries wholeheartedly welcome this global interest for both economic and strategic reasons. Economically, despite the region’s promise, all but Singapore and Brunei are developing countries in desperate need of foreign investment to continue their upward trajectories. Most critically, the region faces a multitrillion-dollar infrastructure gap that constrains economic growth and perpetuates inequality.5 With indigenous capital and even the commitments of international development banks unable to meet demand on this scale, investment by major powers is essential for the region to achieve its potential. Strategically, Southeast Asian countries welcome engagement by a wide range of outside powers to ensure that the region’s partnerships are highly diversified. As a grouping of small countries with modest military and economic power, robust partnerships with a range of actors ensure that no single outside power can dominate regional affairs. In essence, the region prefers a balance of power—or in Indonesian parlance, dynamic equilibrium. While welcoming and encouraging international involvement in regional affairs, Southeast Asian nations also naturally seek to do so on their own terms. For countries making national decisions regarding foreign investment or security cooperation with an outside power, these smaller countries can often find themselves in a position of weakness relative to the outside power. However, collectively, ASEAN provides a platform that allows each country to punch above its weight, providing a venue to make certain issues ASEAN issues rather than national issues for the purpose of creating greater leverage with outside powers. Quite remarkably, despite its flaws, the bloc has managed to maintain its position in the region as the driver of Asia-Pacific regionalism, while outside powers routinely reiterate the importance of “ASEAN centrality.”6 This report outlines findings from a recent trilateral dialogue, organized by the Center for American Progress, of Southeast Asia experts from the United States, Japan, and China. It describes the current state of U.S., Japanese, and Chinese engagement in Southeast Asia and presents four areas for potential U.S.-Japan-China collaboration with Southeast Asian partners on shared challenges.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Partnerships, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Japan, China, Asia, North America, Southeast Asia, and United States of America
87. A Sharper Choice on North Korea: Engaging China for a Stable Northeast Asia
- Author:
- Mike Mullen, Sam Nunn, and Adam Mount
- Publication Date:
- 09-2016
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- A new Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Independent Task Force report, A Sharper Choice on North Korea: Engaging China for a Stable Northeast Asia, finds that the United States’ policy of “strategic patience” with North Korea will neither halt that country’s recurring and dangerous cycle of provocation nor ensure the stability of Northeast Asia in the future. To the contrary, the Task Force warns, “If allowed to continue, current trends will predictably, progressively, and gravely threaten U.S. national security interests and those of its allies.” Asserting that “China’s policy toward the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] will critically affect the fate of the region,” the Task Force urges U.S. officials to encourage China to work with the United States, Japan and South Korea to establish a nonnuclear and unified Korean Peninsula. “Encouraging a transformation of China’s policy toward North Korea should be the next administration’s top priority in its relations with China,” says the report. “If China, the United States, and U.S. allies can work together to pressure North Korea to abandon its nuclear program and mitigate its threatening military posture,” the Task Force contends, “a stable, prosperous Northeast Asia led by China and U.S. allies can emerge.” To the extent that China declines to cooperate and North Korea continues to refuse to negotiate, however, the report finds that United States will have no choice but to work with Japan and Korea to “consider more assertive military and political actions, including those that directly threaten the existence of the [North Korean] regime and its nuclear and missile capabilities.” The Task Force proposes that the United States take steps to sharpen the consequences for North Korea, by imposing escalating costs on continued defiance and offering incentives for cooperation.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, Peace, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North Korea, North America, and United States of America
88. Summits Galore, But (Mostly) Business as Usual
- Author:
- Brad Glosserman and Ralph A. Cossa
- Publication Date:
- 01-2016
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Comparative Connections
- Institution:
- Pacific Forum
- Abstract:
- While events in Paris and San Bernardino refocused the international community’s attention on terrorism, it was largely business as usual in Asia, with the normal round of multilateral meetings – the Association of East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit, US-ASEAN Summit, East Asia Summit (EAS), and ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting Plus (ADMM+) in Kuala Lumpur, plus the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders Meeting in Manila – going largely unnoticed. A few other summits did attract attention, including the first “Plus Three” (Japan-Korea-China) Summit in three years (which included the first direct one-on-one summit between ROK President Park and Japan Prime Minister Abe) in Seoul and the “non-summit” between Mr. Xi Jinping and Mr. Ma Ying-Jeou who just happen to be the presidents, respectively, of the People’s Republic of China and Republic of China, in Singapore. Chinese actions (and US reactions) in the South China Sea continued to dominate the news, while hopes that Kim Jong-Un was on the brink of behaving were quickly dashed as the new year began. All eyes remain on the Chinese economy and the impact the continuing slowdown there may have on global growth, even as the US pushes forward on the finally completed (but not yet Congressionally-approved) Trans-Pacific Partnership.
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Territorial Disputes, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, and South China Sea
89. Limited Moderation amid Pressure and Complaints
- Author:
- Chin-Hao Huang and Robert G. Sutter
- Publication Date:
- 01-2016
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Comparative Connections
- Institution:
- Pacific Forum
- Abstract:
- President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Li Keqiang led Chinese government officials in responding in measured and moderate ways to regional challenges and criticisms as Beijing defended South China Sea claims and advanced its regional influence. Moderation after a period of strong assertiveness replicates similar shifts in 2013 and 2014. Those shifts turned out to be tactical, lasting a few months each; possibly timed to avoid negative consequences for Chinese leaders facing public acrimony during the APEC, ASEAN and East Asian Summit meetings that occur each fall. Developments in 2015 suggest a more lasting period of moderation, though there is no sign of change in the Chinese positions on various disputes.
- Topic:
- Security, Territorial Disputes, Governance, Leadership, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- China and Asia
90. A Complex China-ROK Partnership
- Author:
- Scott Snyder and See-Won Byun
- Publication Date:
- 01-2016
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Comparative Connections
- Institution:
- Pacific Forum
- Abstract:
- The September China-ROK summit in Beijing catalyzed the resumption of trilateral talks with Japan in October and the launch of the China-ROK Free Trade Agreement in December. Beijing’s Korean engagement also included a visit to North Korea in October by Politburo Standing Committee member Liu Yunshan for 70th anniversary celebrations of the founding of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK). The visit was credited with preventing a rocket launch by Pyongyang that had reportedly been planned to mark the anniversary. Meanwhile, Pyongyang’s reached out to Beijing with a “friendship tour” to China led by Choe Hwi. Despite new initiatives to expand economic cooperation, Pyongyang’s apparent defiance of Chinese diplomatic efforts on denuclearization suggests further difficulties in Sino-DPRK relations.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, and North Korea