Number of results to display per page
Search Results
82. China’s Global Vision Vacuum: An Opportunity and Challenge for Europe
- Author:
- Tim Rühlig
- Publication Date:
- 08-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
- Abstract:
- China seems to strive to redefine the global order around sovereignty and a strong state. Yet is China engaging in a constitutive process shaped by the global economy; or is it an imperial power pursuing national sovereignty at any cost? In the West, there are very different answers to this question. This ambiguity is not by design but rather indicates that China lacks a coherent vision for the world. If the EU is to exploit this, it needs to understand why.
- Topic:
- Sovereignty, Economy, and International Order
- Political Geography:
- China, Europe, and Asia
83. The Coronavirus Pandemic and the Transformation of International Order: A Short Overview
- Author:
- Amer Ababakr
- Publication Date:
- 06-2022
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
- Institution:
- Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
- Abstract:
- The Covid-19 pandemic has affected most of the world, adding health security as a new challenge. Instead of facing these challenges, some states move towards a system of competition and intolerance, which forms new patterns in the international order. This questions the impact of the pandemic on the strategic dynamics of the international order. This article argues that the global pandemic transforms the political system and the way of governing liberal democracy more than any other factor. It took the form of a variable, driver, and accelerator, and the established world order transformed into a new form of order. Using the descriptive-analytical method and the theories of international relations, the current study examined the impact of the pandemic on the strategic dynamics of the international order.
- Topic:
- International Cooperation, Pandemic, COVID-19, Political Crisis, and International Order
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
84. Inclusion and Exclusion in International Ordering: An Interview with Glenda Sluga
- Author:
- Glenda Sluga and Daniel R. Quiroga-Villamarín
- Publication Date:
- 09-2022
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- The Toynbee Prize Foundation
- Abstract:
- The image of two men, sitting awkwardly across each other in a solemn conference table, suddenly sprouted everywhere in my Twitter feed last winter. As a terrifying war erupted over competing visions of eastern Europe’s place in the international order, this somewhat surreal picture of the rulers of France and Russia conferencing offered little respite. It was precisely at this time that I had the pleasure to converse with the incoming Toynbee Prize Foundation President Glenda Sluga about her most recent monographThe Invention of International Order: Remaking Europe after Napoleon (Princeton University Press). As the so-called international order comes under increasing pressure in Ukraine and beyond, Sluga’s timely book invites us to engage with the “two centuries of multilateral principles, practices, and expectations” to understand the promises and limits of our contemporary arrangements (p. xi). It places the recent meeting between Macron and Putin in the context of the rise and consolidation of “a new professional, procedural, and bureaucratic approach to diplomacy, based on the sociability of men” (p. 6). After all, our modern notions of international “politics” or “society” were forged in the aftermath of a previous European-wide conflagration that had France and Russia at its helm: the Napoleonic wars. Sluga’s account does not aim to blindly celebrate nor to categorically condemn this modern political imaginary of international ordering. Others have dismissed the post-Napoleonic diplomatic constellation as reactionary or have lauded it as protoliberal. Sluga, above all, is interested in questioning it. She invites us to: reflect on for whom this order has been built; push against the ways it narrows our perspective; and grapple with its inner tensions and contradictions (p. 282). At the heart of the book, I would suggest, lies a concern about the paradoxical record of European modernity: a project that “has offered an expansive horizon of political expectations but delivered a voice only for some” (p. 7). By taking women, non-Europeans, and “non-state” actors seriously as political agents, she shows how bankers, Jews, or ambassadrices were ironically crucial in the making of a system that came to exclude them from the historical record. And, unsurprisingly, these exclusions lead to tensions that threaten to upend international order from within and without—from 1821, 1848, or 1853 to 2022. In our conversation, we attempt to make sense of these paradoxes, contradictions, and ambiguities of international ordering.
- Topic:
- Politics, History, Multilateralism, Interview, Exclusion, International Order, and Inclusion
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
85. 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
86. Toward an Inclusive & Balanced Regional Order: A New U.S. Strategy in East Asia
- Author:
- Michael D. Swaine, Jessica J. Lee, and Rachel Esplin Odell
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Research Paper
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- The world faces twin crises — a global pandemic and rising climate chaos — even as an epochal change in the balance of power unfolds in East Asia. In response to these trends, the United States has doubled down on efforts to contain a rising China and maintain its eroding military dominance in the region. Simultaneously, it has neglected economic engagement and diplomatic cooperation with East Asian nations, thereby undermining its ability to manage the Covid–19 pandemic and the climate change challenge. This failed approach is directly harming the interests of the American people.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and International Order
- Political Geography:
- United States and East Asia
87. The New Faces of Internationalism: How Generational Change Is Reshaping American Foreign Policy Attitudes
- Author:
- A. Trevor Thrall and Erik Goepner
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- Observers of American foreign policy have been worried for years about eroding public support for international engagement, especially in light of increasing public discontent after nearly two decades of military conflict since 9/11. Low support for international engagement and military intervention among younger Americans, in particular, has led some to worry that the age of American internationalism has passed. There is little agreement, however, about how serious the erosion of public support is and what its causes are. Relying on an analysis of seven decades of polling data, we argue that generational effects have slowly reshaped patterns of American foreign policy preferences. Since World War II, Americans have come of age during periods increasingly less conducive to support of military intervention, leading them to adopt worldviews increasingly at odds with those carried by older Americans. As a result, the United States is undergoing a slow motion changing of the guard, as older and more hawkish Americans die and are replaced by younger, less hawkish ones. These findings have important implications for the debate about the state of public support for American leadership of the liberal international order and the evolution of American foreign policy.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Engagement, International Order, and Generation
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
88. No One is Satisfied: Two Theories of the US-China Global Rivalry and the International Order
- Author:
- Younn Shwe Sin Htay
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Pacific Forum
- Abstract:
- A remarkable shift is underway in the geostrategic relations between the United States, long a dominant global power, and China, a relentless economic engine with a rapidly growing military. Their competition promises to change the face of global politics in the 21st century. This paper examines that conflict from the perspectives of two discrete political theories: power transition theory and hegemonic stability theory, which come to different conclusions when applied to China and the United States separately. However, taken together with both nations in mind, they arrive at six possible futures, including regional warfare and a wholesale overhaul of the existing international order.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Hegemony, Strategic Competition, Strategic Stability, and International Order
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
89. Russian Foreign Policy in 2020: Strengthening Multi-vectorialism
- Author:
- András Rácz and Milan Nič
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
- Abstract:
- In 2020, DGAP’s Strategy Group on Russia focused on Moscow’s long-term efforts to diversify its foreign policy portfolio, turn away from Europe, and build-up other non-Western vectors in its diplomacy. Against this background, this report assesses Russia’s relations with the EU, China, and the United States. While Russian relations with the West are unlikely to improve in 2021 – especially ahead of this fall’s Duma election – there is still a chance for limited engagement on issues of mutual interest.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, European Union, Democracy, and International Order
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Europe, Eurasia, and United States of America
90. Strategic autonomy in security and defense: The EU geopolitical aspiration that is not being realized/Autonomía estratégica en seguridad y defensa: un anhelo geopolítico que no se hace realidad en la Unión Europea
- Author:
- María José Molina and Miguel Ángel Benedicto
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Revista UNISCI/UNISCI Journal
- Institution:
- Unidad de investigación sobre seguridad y cooperación (UNISCI)
- Abstract:
- In the troubled and insecure global and regional international systems, the European Union is committed to become an operational, autonomous and credible actor in the present international relations, despite a certain internal erosion of the pillars of integration, the lack of a common strategic culture that prevents a clear identification of political and security priorities, plus the new US approaches towards the European Union, no longer its strategic priority. The US would only provide assistance to the EU when its national interests are affected. Consequently, Europe must modify its approaches to face contemporary geopolitical and strategic changes and perhaps the change of paradigm in world governance. This study tries to explain the current policies and initiatives of the Union in the field of security and defense, questioning its consistency./En el convulso e inseguro contexto global y regional, la Unión Europea apuesta por reivindicarse como un actor operativo, autónomo y creíble en las actuales relaciones internacionales, pese al cierto desgaste interno que acusan los pilares que cimentan la integración, la falta de una cultura estratégica común que impide una clara identificación de prioridades políticas y de seguridad y la nueva actitud de EE.UU. hacia el concierto europeo, que deja de ser una prioridad para sólo aportar asistencia cuando sus intereses nacionales se vean afectados. Consecuentemente, Europa debe modificar sus planteamientos para enfrentarse a las coordenadas geopolíticas y estratégicas contemporáneas, y quizás al cambio de paradigma en la gobernanza mundial. Estas consideraciones encauzan el objeto general de nuestro estudio destinado a comprender y cuestionar cuál es el perfil real y actual de la Unión en el ámbito de la seguridad y defensa regional e internacional.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, European Union, Geopolitics, International Order, and Strategic Autonomy
- Political Geography:
- Europe