Search

Begin New Search Topic International Order Political Geography United States of America

1. Enhancing the Cooperation between the US and Its Allies in the Mekong Subregion

Author:
Sach Nguyen
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
The Mekong subregion is experiencing heightened geopolitical competition between the US and China, representing a clash between the international rules-based order and a China-led order. While the US and its allies advocate for the rules-based order, China’s intentions for its own order in the region are debated. China’s increased presence and influence in the Mekong subregion, particularly through upstream control of the Mekong water, reflect its pursuit of this order. In response, the US and its allies, such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia, have strengthened cooperation with one another to promote a rules-based system. Despite existing coordination, there is potential for further collaboration to enhance their role in mainland Southeast Asia. Stability and prosperity in the Mekong subregion are being challenged. Weakening international norms in governing transboundary waters threaten downstream countries’ security and livelihoods, exacerbated by climate change-induced droughts. China’s growing engagement in the region aims to establish its sphere of influence, primarily through economic development projects like dams and railways, raising concerns over environmental impacts and expanding Chinese influence. Additionally, non-traditional security threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic, cyber security, and human trafficking further complicate the region’s situation. The engagement of the US and its allies in the Mekong subregion is multifaceted, driven by various interests but united in countering China’s growing influence. The US, through initiatives like the Lower Mekong Initiative (LMI) and later the Mekong-US Partnership, seeks to maintain its relevance and preeminence in the region. Japan, South Korea, and Australia also engage with the subregion, for economic interests and to counterbalance China. Japan, for instance, aims to establish production bases and balance China’s influence through high-standard infrastructure projects. South Korea focuses on economic development and diversification of trade amid US-China tensions, while Australia prioritizes promoting a rules-based order and addressing non-traditional security threats. Despite differences in approach, the US and its allies collaborate through platforms like the Friends of the Mekong and initiatives such as the Trilateral Partnership for Infrastructure Investment in the Indo-Pacific, aimed at countering China’s Belt and Road Initiative. However, challenges remain in realizing these initiatives, particularly in engaging the private sector and ensuring concrete outcomes amidst competing interests and complex negotiations. Recommendations for enhancing cooperation between the US and its allies in the Mekong subregion include strengthening international norms and rules, expanding economic infrastructure projects, focusing on non-traditional security issues, and fostering track 1.5 and track 2 diplomacy to promote mutual understanding and collaboration among all stakeholders, including governments, academia, businesses, and civil society organizations. These efforts, facilitated by the US and its allies, can contribute to a more stable and prosperous Mekong subregion.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, Geopolitics, International Order, and Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, United States of America, and Mekong River

2. Ukraine, Gaza, and the International Order

Author:
Faisal Devji
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
The ongoing crises in Ukraine and Gaza show the urgent need for a new internationalism that comes to grips with the increasing independence of middle and smaller powers around the world. Such a vision must reject the effort to re-impose a failed framework of unilateral U.S. primacy, or an effort to shoehorn multiplying regionally specific conflicts into an obsolete model of “great power competition” that recalls the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. In both Ukraine and the Middle East, the United States has been unable to impose its will either militarily or diplomatically. Smaller nations have successfully defied American–backed military force. Even more concerning, a significant share of the global community has failed to follow the U.S. diplomatic lead and support the U.S. interpretation of international norms. But opposition to the United States has not been supported by a superpower peer competitor to the United States, along the lines of a Cold War model. The current emerging world order is instead characterized by “regionalization,” a situation where middle and even small powers around the world feel free to circumvent or even defy U.S. interpretations of global norms based on more local interests and regional security concerns. The stage was set for the current situation by the U.S. attempt to assert unilateral power during the War on Terror in ways that appeared to give the United States alone a de facto exemption from global norms and institutions. These actions reduced the legitimacy of the post–World War Two international order that the United States had helped to create, and led many in the international community to seek alternatives to a system that seemed to grant the United States almost arbitrary power to define the rules. The U.S. foreign policy establishment must come to grips with the newly deglobalized and regionalized world order. A failure to do so poses a grave threat to U.S. power and influence, as relationships with key emerging powers such as India, or even traditional U.S. allies in Europe and Asia are not immune from the kind of de–globalizing and regionalizing forces seen in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Topic:
Cold War, International Law, National Security, Hegemony, Grand Strategy, Armed Conflict, International Order, Russia-Ukraine War, and 2023 Gaza War
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Eastern Europe, Palestine, Gaza, and United States of America

3. El final de la Pax americana. La evolución del sistema internacional. Los nuevos equilibrios

Author:
Adela M. Alija
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:
En este artículo, partimos de la idea de que no estamos todavía ante una redefinición de del orden mundial creado tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial y la Guerra Fría. Ahora bien, nos encontramos ante un cuestionamiento profundo del sistema y ante desplazamientos en los equilibrios de poder que parecen mostrarnos el final de una era. El orden (o desorden) mundial del siglo XXI en el que nos encontramos está marcado por elementos que introducen incertidumbre e inseguridad. Recesión económica, pandemia, guerra, crisis diversas, desaceleración de la globalización (o quizá desglobalización) … hacen un mundo complejo y desordenado. Sobre todos estos elementos mencionados, la guerra en Ucrania representa un momento decisivo para la construcción de un nuevo orden mundial. El concepto de Pax Americana es discutible y ha sido discutido ampliamente, como analizaremos en nuestro artículo. Si consideramos el término desde la perspectiva de la supremacía de Estados Unidos en el sistema internacional, no cabe duda de que el orden mundial del siglo XX ha estado marcado por el poder estadounidense. El final de la pax americana daría lugar a un nuevo orden mundial, el orden liberal internacional habría finalizado y un nuevo orden “postoccidental” se estaría construyendo. Pero, ¿qué clase de orden? La sustitución de la pax americana y, por lo tanto, del orden liberal occidental, es todavía imprecisa. En conclusión, los objetivos de nuestro artículo son: analizar la evolución del concepto de Pax americana, entendido como símbolo de la hegemonía de Estados Unidos y Occidente en el mundo, analizar el contexto de crisis de dicha hegemonía y, por último, analizar las distintas vías de cambio del sistema internacional, partiendo de la base de que está en una fase de transición y transformación todavía incierta.
Topic:
Geopolitics, International Order, Pax Americana, and Post-Cold War
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

4. The Practice, Promise and Peril of EU Lawfare

Author:
Steven Blockmans
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
Power generates law and its interpretation, irrespective of whether it serves the cause of international justice. Despite its many shortcomings, the rules-based international order (RBIO) tries to advance that cause. But as a concept, the RBIO is now being rejected by China, Russia and parts of the so-called “Global South” for what they claim is the Western hegemonism and liberal values that underpin it. The fact that these countries have voluntarily signed up to the international covenants that enshrine the legal doctrines to strengthen the sovereign rights of weaker countries, especially in the context of economic relations, makes it hard to sympathise with the argument that the RBIO should be replaced by another concept, especially one that is advanced by autocracies. The RBIO has been partially shaped by the European Union (EU), a community of law that encodes the aspiration of “good global governance” in its constitutional DNA. With the waning “Brussels effect”—the soft power of EU law in shaping international rules and standards, the EU should consider how to instrumentalise the law to protect and promote its foreign policy interests, first and foremost the protection and promotion of the RBIO. This report unpacks the notion of “lawfare” and conducts a comparative analysis of such practices by the US, China, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and others to assess the promise and peril of the EU using the power of the law to its strategic advantage.
Topic:
International Law, Sanctions, European Union, International Order, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Turkey, Ukraine, and United States of America

5. International Order Strategies: Past and Present

Author:
Aaron McKeil
Publication Date:
11-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
At an important time in foreign policy planning, a new era of “strategic competition” widely noted by policymakers in Washington and allied capitals has produced a new wave of strategic thinking and evolving strategic practices aiming to maintain or modify “international order”. This collected research report aims to clarify how strategies for international order are being understood and formulated today, and how this strategic thinking and planning differs from past eras of strategic competition, toward an assessment of its policy implications today. Dr. Aaron McKeil convenes the International Orders Research Unit at LSE IDEAS. He is Academic Director of the LSE Executive MSc International Strategy and Diplomacy Programme at LSE IDEAS. He holds a PhD International Relations from the LSE. His forthcoming book with the University of Michigan Press explores the collapse of cosmopolitan globalism and rise of strategic competition.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Strategic Competition, and International Order
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

6. China, The United States And Japan In A Changing International Order: Historical Foundations Challenged By The Rise Of China

Author:
Cem Yılmaz
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Novus Orbis: Journal of Politics & International Relations
Institution:
Department of International Relations, Karadeniz Technical University
Abstract:
This study analyses bilateral relations among People’s Republic of China (China), the United States (US), and Japan by comparing the impacts of historical foundations on the one hand and a prominent contemporary factor, which is the rise of China. The study aims to compare basic historical data and the resilience of these data in the face of a rising China. The relationships among the three actors demonstrate that the historical legacy continues to hold prominence in Chinese perspectives of Japan, while the rise of the actor is prominent in American perspectives of China. Both historical legacy and a rising China factor are dominant in Japanese perceptions of China. The Japanese foreign policy towards China is characterised by a mutual reinforcement of both dimensions, resulting in an overall enhancement of their strength. The study, in this instance, demonstrated that historical parameters become less relevant when a contemporary parameter has the potential to have a major effect on history. The rise of China, which has resulted in a fundamental shift in the international order, and the decline in the importance of the historical dimension in the relationships between the actors under examination are viewed as two phenomena that reinforce one another.
Topic:
History, Geopolitics, and International Order
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

7. Disorderly Conduct: How U.S.-China Competition Upended the International Economic Order & What the U.S. Can Do to Fix It

Author:
Emily Kilcrease and Adam Tong
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
To gauge the health of the U.S.-China economic relationship, one can turn to the words of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who remarked in March 2024 that U.S. “tactics to suppress China . . . [were] reaching a bewildering level of unfathomable absurdity.”1 Rhetorical flourishes may be the one bright spot in the relationship. As tensions rise over economic restrictions and policies on both sides, economic relations have become a worrisome source of instability in the overall geopolitical relationship. The economic relationship has become increasingly dominated by security concerns, and integration is seen as not an opportunity but a risk to U.S. interests and values. The United States must develop a strong, pragmatic strategy for advancing its economic and security interests within the U.S.-China economic relationship, accounting for the fact that the security competition is now playing out across the economic landscape. To inform the development of an effective U.S. strategy for the economic relationship with China in the context of rising securitization, the United States must learn from its past attempts to advance its economic and security interests in the relationship. The first section of this report, “Where have we been?” examines past U.S. approaches, along with the challenges of pursuing similar policies in today’s geopolitical context. The second section, “Where are we going?” distills lessons from these past approaches and defines a new strategy for the United States, offering recommendations to implement it. Broadly speaking, prior U.S. strategies can be divided into two camps. First, the United States sought to bring the People’s Republic of China (PRC) into the rules-based order and incentivize it to be a responsible stakeholder.* When that failed, U.S. strategy pivoted to one of imposing costs on the PRC and taking actions to constrain behaviors that threatened U.S. economic security interests. Within those broad strategies, U.S. policymakers have pursued four main approaches, in differing combinations and intensity, all of which involve associated challenges. They are: Play by the rules: The intention of bringing the PRC into the rules-based international system was to create external pressure that would align PRC actions with U.S. economic and security interests. Key efforts under this approach included the U.S. support for the PRC’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the later U.S. attempts to negotiate a bilateral investment treaty. Challenges for the approach include the fact that rules have a weak ability to constrain state behavior in a geopolitically contested environment where national security risks arise from economic integration. We need to talk: In light of increasing complexity in the bilateral relationship, U.S.-PRC dialogues were intended to identify and advance mutual interests while providing a regular forum to attempt to resolve disputes. This is seen in the Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) in the Bush administration and the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) in the Obama administration. In other contexts, such as ongoing talks under the Biden administration, dialogues have served primarily to communicate the rationale for U.S. policy actions in an attempt to put a floor under the bilateral relationship.2 Challenges to this approach include that commitments made in a dialogue process may not be enforceable, the meeting can become the deliverable, and the dialogue process cannot alter underlying geopolitical shifts. Defense is the best offense: Defensive approaches relied on domestic U.S. authorities to counter specific harms created by PRC practices and policies. The United States has a wide range of economic tools (e.g., tariffs and trade remedies) as well as national security–based tools (export controls and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States [CFIUS] process for conducting national security reviews of foreign investments), all of which have been used with greater frequency over the past decade. Challenges when using these tools include the disruptive and potentially escalatory nature of defensive approaches, and the lack of clear frameworks to assess the effectiveness of defensive policies. Additionally, relying on unilateral approaches can create friction within potential economic alliances. In the United States, defensive approaches have often suffered from a blending of economic, national security, and values concerns, eroding the legitimacy of the national security argument. Have more friends: These strategies centered on efforts to shape the PRC’s external environment through the negotiation of ambitious trade and investment agreements with major trading partners, with the goal of increasing economic integration with close partners, creating indirect pressure on the PRC to level up to higher standards, and developing common approaches to address concerns with nonmarket economies. Such an approach is challenging because traditional ways of shaping the external environment have not directly addressed securitization of the U.S.-China economic relationship. U.S. domestic political realities impose a considerable constraint on the use of trade policy as a strategic tool.
Topic:
Economics, Bilateral Relations, Trade, Strategic Competition, and International Order
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

8. Is the World Trade Organization Still Relevant?

Author:
Alan Wm. Wolff
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
There has been a profound shift in American foreign economic policy. The United States has abandoned promotion of a rules-based open international trading system and no longer supports the World Trade Organization (WTO). The United States and its allies created the current world trading system as an essential part of the liberal world order, a series of rules-based international organizations and agreements to help rebuild the global economy and foster peaceful cooperation after World War II. Today, rising populism, heightened geopolitical tensions, and persistent inequality are threatening this order. Wolff emphasizes that the WTO is still relevant to the liberal international order, and it is in the core interest of the United States and other countries to continue to support that order. But he cautions that the WTO needs major reforms if it is to survive as an effective force governing world trade. WTO members must engage in serious negotiations to find acceptable solutions to shared problems. The resulting agreements can be political commitments or adoption of binding rules. Regressing to a lack of accountability for one’s trade policy measures, however, would be unacceptably damaging.
Topic:
Economic Policy, Trade, WTO, and International Order
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

9. Russia’s Stance on the North Korean Narrative of a New Cold War

Author:
Seho Jang
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
Seho Jang, a research fellow in the Institute for National Security Strategy, states that North Korea is promoting strategic solidarity with China and Russia to achieve its goal of dismantling US hegemony. While Russia also shares the perception that the US-centered unipolar order is not conducive to attaining its national interests, it rarely uses the term “new Cold War” in official foreign policy discourse, reflecting its apprehension about the concept and its potential implications. He evaluates that this caution possibly originated from Russia’s historical trauma as a loser of the Cold War, making it highly likely to be opposed to the emergence of the new Cold War order led by Washington and Beijing. Dr. Chang suggests that this subtle difference could become an important inflection point as Washington’s clout in international politics decreases in the future.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Multipolarity, International Order, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, North Korea, and United States of America

10. Common Good Diplomacy: A Framework for Stable U.S.–China Relations

Author:
Jake Werner
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
One curious feature of the emerging U.S.–China conflict is that each side claims to be defending the existing international order against the threat the other poses to it. Hidden beneath this seemingly irreconcilable dispute is a crucial truth: both the United States and China are status quo powers, sharing a deep interest in a stable global security environment and an open global economy. At the same time, both countries are pursuing urgently needed reforms to a global system increasingly defined by zero–sum pressures. Yet both are prone to exclusionary impulses that threaten to ruin the possibility of a shared reform agenda and instead throw the world into conflict. Working with China to revitalize the international order would not only prevent such a conflict, it would also establish the conditions for healthy forms of both competition and cooperation in the U.S.–China relationship. But how can U.S. leaders pursue such a project without simply giving a pass to China’s sometimes undesirable behavior? The focus should be diplomacy to frame an inclusive global system, focusing on actions that would reduce zero–sum constraints. In the three key realms of global authority and security, the global economy, and climate change, China is currently engaged in counterproductive moves that exacerbate existing tensions but is also pursuing promising reforms that could expand the scope for positive–sum outcomes. Rather than seeking to counter every Chinese initiative, U.S. leaders should carefully distinguish between beneficial and damaging outcomes, affirming and building on China’s constructive proposals and managing differences through negotiation rather than polemics and confrontation. Some potentially fruitful areas for cooperation include joint action to limit climate change, development in the Global South, revising the global guidelines for economic statecraft, and reforming international institutions to create a more open and inclusive world order. Pursuing cooperative efforts in such areas would both create direct benefits and improve U.S. credibility as a responsible leader of the world order rather than simply a rival of China. It would also open space to pursue competition within a rules–based order rather than risk a slide into destructive zero–sum conflict.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Political stability, and International Order
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America