Number of results to display per page
Search Results
162. US Trade Policy Options for Pacific Islands States Require Washington’s Political Commitment
- Author:
- Marcus Noland
- Publication Date:
- 07-2023
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- The Pacific Islands have emerged as a zone of contestation in the ongoing rivalry between China and the United States. While the US has long been the dominant military power in the region, China is raising its profile through activities like port visits, military exercises, and establishing diplomatic and security ties with regional states like Kiribati and the Solomon Islands. In 2018, Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Papua New Guinea for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. President Biden was supposed to visit PNG in May 2023, in the first ever visit of a sitting US president to the Pacific Islands, but that trip was scuttled due to the debt ceiling fiasco in Washington. In the economics sphere, the US has attempted to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) together with Japan and Australia through the Blue Dot Network and the Indo-Pacific Infrastructure Trilateral to promote high-quality, transparent, and sustainable infrastructure development. The region contains considerable natural resources, and the US has been working with Pacific Island nations to promote sustainable resource management, in contrast to China’s alleged illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in the Pacific. What has been missing, however, is a trade policy component to the US strategy to counterbalance China’s exploration of a free trade agreement with the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Economics, Politics, and Trade Policy
- Political Geography:
- China, North America, United States of America, and Pacific Islands
163. Abrogating the Visiting Forces Agreement: Its Effects on Philippines’ Security and Stability in Southeast Asia
- Author:
- Renato Acosta
- Publication Date:
- 02-2023
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- During much of 2022, the defense and security alliance between the United States of America and the Philippines, anchored on and reinforced by the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT, teetered on the brink of collapse. Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte brought relations to the brink through attempts to scuttle the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). This move would only embolden Chinese challenges to Manila’s territorial integrity and its aspirations to dominate Southeast Asia and the South China Sea. While the Duterte administration recited parochial reasons to terminate the VFA, pundits from the security and diplomatic sectors viewed Duterte’s attempts as a pretext to steer the Philippines towards China under his own brand and definition of an independent foreign policy. During his term, Duterte reiterated that President Xi Jinping and other Chinese officials were his friends. He also publicly declared that the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG), a northeastern section of the Spratly Islands, was already in physical control and possession of Beijing due to the unchallenged presence of its military and maritime militia vessels there. Given these statements, Duterte has constantly received criticism over his defeatist stance towards China.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Security, Politics, Armed Forces, and Instability
- Political Geography:
- China, Philippines, Southeast Asia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America
164. Balancing Natural Resources and Human and Social Capital: Pathways to Economic Diversification in Mongolia
- Author:
- Thorvaldur Gylfason and Jean-Pascal N. Nganou
- Publication Date:
- 09-2023
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (WIIW)
- Abstract:
- Economic diversification has gained significant attention as a crucial factor for sustainable development worldwide. This paper addresses the risks associated with extreme specialisation and explores the potential benefits of economic diversification for Mongolia. By comparing Mongolia with its designated aspirational and structural peers, the paper aims to shed light on strategies that can foster economic and societal diversification in the country. Although Mongolia possesses favourable levels of human capital compared with its peers, its unusually high ratio of natural capital to human capital highlights the necessity of reducing reliance on natural resources and promoting human capital-intensive economic activities. The paper examines the implications of declining demand for Mongolia's key minerals, primarily coal, resulting from climate change concerns and evolving investor preferences towards sustainability, China's coal consumption reduction goals, and the enduring impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Through this analysis, the paper offers insights into pathways for Mongolia to diversify its economy and enhance the well-being of its people by striking a balance between natural resources and human and social capital.
- Topic:
- Natural Resources, Governance, Democracy, Economic Growth, Human Capital, Diversification, Macroeconomics, Social Capital, Transition, and ASEAN
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Malaysia, Canada, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Armenia, Australia, Qatar, Chile, Peru, United Arab Emirates, Ecuador, and Guyana
165. Trade Balances and International Competitiveness in Cyber-physical, Digital Task-intensive, ICT Capital-intensive and Traditional Industries
- Author:
- Alexandra Bykova and Roman Stöllinger
- Publication Date:
- 05-2023
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (WIIW)
- Abstract:
- In this report, we analyse the international competitiveness of the EU in four industry groups over the period 1995-2018. The groups are delineated by specific factor intensities, where these intensities are assessed from digital tasks performed by labour services and ICT capital stocks. The EU’s positions relating to trade balances, revealed comparative advantages and unit value ratios are assessed relative to its main competitors, such as the US, China, Japan and South Korea. The trade specialisation patterns confirm EU advantages in traditional industries, which still represent the largest part of global trade, and in the group of digital task-intensive industries. In the cyber-physical group of industries, which are characterised by both high digital task and ICT capital intensities, the EU records a trade deficit, although this has been receding in recent years. Competitiveness indicators depict heterogeneity among EU countries. The loss of international competitiveness for some technology front-runners is a worrying sign. On the positive side, however, a reduction in trade deficits or an improvement in product quality and market shares is evident for certain EU countries, especially in the Central European region.
- Topic:
- International Trade and Finance, European Union, Trade, Digitalization, and International Competition
- Political Geography:
- Japan, China, Europe, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America
166. Competition Versus Exclusion in U.S.–China Relations: A Choice Between Stability and Conflict
- Author:
- Jake Werner
- Publication Date:
- 09-2023
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- The Biden administration’s China policy is pulling in two different directions, but the tension is not widely recognized because every antagonistic measure aimed at China is filed under the heading of competition. As a result, Washington’s debate on China loses the crucial distinction between “competition” — a kind of connection with the potential to be carried on in healthy ways — and “exclusion,” an attempt to sever connection that necessarily leads to conflict if the domain is significant. Biden’s exclusion policies focus on cutting China out of the principal growth sectors in the global economy and the most lucrative and strategically important markets. Administration officials think their approach is sensible and moderate compared to more extreme voices in Washington calling for exclusion in all realms. Even so, the Biden approach is highly destabilizing because both countries consider the targeted areas vital to the future of global authority and economic prosperity, and because the attempt to trap China in a position of permanent subordination represents a serious threat to the legitimacy of China’s leaders. Healthy competition requires a shared stake in the future. In earlier periods, despite sharp tensions and mutual suspicions suffusing the relationship, U.S.–China ties were stabilized first by the joint project of containing Soviet power and then by a shared commitment to market–led globalization. Now that leaders on both sides are disenchanted with key facets of globalization, the two countries are caught in an escalatory cycle of exclusion and retaliation that risks hardening zero–sum pressures in the global system into a permanent structure of hostility. In such a scenario, each country would organize its own society and international partners to undermine the other, dramatically increasing the likelihood of violent conflict. The warning signs are already clear on both sides, as each increasingly interprets every action on the other side as part of a conspiracy to achieve domination. Notwithstanding widespread complacency about the risks of conflict after a tentative diplomatic opening in recent months, the rise of securitized thinking in both countries is steadily building institutional and ideological momentum for confrontation that can only be broken by a new and inclusive direction for the relationship.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Political stability, Conflict, Strategic Competition, and Competition
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
167. 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
168. The Quad's Next Chapter
- Author:
- Karl Friedhoff
- Publication Date:
- 09-2023
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Chicago Council on Global Affairs
- Abstract:
- Advancing the group's pillars of prosperity and development will be at the very heart of competition with China in the coming decade. The Quad—the country grouping including the United States, Japan, Australia, and India—now stands at a crossroads as it enters its third phase. The Quad 3.0 comes as the grouping has established the dialogue as a meeting place for leaders of the four countries but must now decide what shape competition with China will take and how to best address that competition. Thus far the Quad has struggled to find function for its form. Statements issued by Quad leaders stress the importance of “development, stability, and prosperity” in an effort to roll back China’s influence across the Indo-Pacific. However, its most high-profile activities focus on stability via high-profile military exercises. Closer internal coordination along the security axis serves to highlight the lack of visible progress on the external delivery of development and prosperity to countries outside the Quad. Efforts to deliver development and prosperity are hemmed in by the Quad itself. Neither the United States or India are party to either of the major regional trade agreements—the CPTPP and RCEP. The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), held up by the Biden administration as America’s economic engagement with Asia, remains a mirage. Meanwhile, as the United States de-risks its economic relationship with China, it is effectively warning that doing business with Beijing may come at a cost to relations with Washington—an unpopular message across much of the Indo-Pacific. Additionally, any hint of security cooperation with China by smaller countries in the region creates a flurry of diplomatic reaction from the United States. To move forward, the Quad needs to better balance its portfolio and how it messages that portfolio. The overt promotion of the security agenda is actively undermining perceptions of the Quad’s ability to engage on development and prosperity. A first corrective step is to balance the group’s internal goal of improved security coordination and cohesion with the Quad’s external goal of delivering development and prosperity to countries in the region. Committing to an agenda that brings the people of the region, not its seas, to the fore of the Quad mission should be a top priority. This means rejecting the dogma that every China initiative in the region needs a Quad alternative. Instead, advancing Quad goals requires identifying China’s activities that can be co-opted for Quad purposes. This will mean working around, and sometimes with, China’s initiatives to better serve not only the Quad’s goals in prosperity and development but also the people of the region.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Development, Geopolitics, Trade, Strategic Competition, and Quad Alliance
- Political Geography:
- Japan, China, South Asia, India, East Asia, Australia, North America, United States of America, and Oceania
169. Global business environment improves
- Publication Date:
- 04-2023
- Content Type:
- Country Data and Maps
- Institution:
- Economist Intelligence Unit
- Abstract:
- No abstract is available.
- Topic:
- Economy, 5-year summary, and Forecast
- Political Geography:
- Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kenya, Japan, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Ukraine, Canada, India, Israel, Finland, Kazakhstan, Norway, Greece, South Korea, Kuwait, France, Poland, Lithuania, Libya, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Germany, Estonia, Algeria, Cuba, Belgium, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Spain, Australia, Italy, Dominican Republic, Croatia, Switzerland, Sweden, Latvia, Egypt, Mexico, Nigeria, Jordan, Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, Singapore, Thailand, Tunisia, Costa Rica, Chile, Austria, Angola, Peru, New Zealand, Hong Kong, United Arab Emirates, Ecuador, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Cyprus, Slovenia, Slovakia, United States of America, UK, Iran, Islamic Republic of, Russian Federation, Taiwan, Province of China, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of, and Viet Nam
170. Global business environment improves
- Publication Date:
- 04-2023
- Content Type:
- Country Data and Maps
- Institution:
- Economist Intelligence Unit
- Abstract:
- No abstract is available.
- Topic:
- Economy, 5-year summary, and Forecast
- Political Geography:
- Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kenya, Japan, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Ukraine, Canada, India, Israel, Finland, Kazakhstan, Norway, Greece, South Korea, Kuwait, France, Poland, Lithuania, Libya, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Germany, Estonia, Algeria, Cuba, Belgium, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Spain, Australia, Italy, Dominican Republic, Croatia, Switzerland, Sweden, Latvia, Egypt, Mexico, Nigeria, Jordan, Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, Singapore, Thailand, Tunisia, Costa Rica, Chile, Austria, Angola, Peru, New Zealand, Hong Kong, United Arab Emirates, Ecuador, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Cyprus, Slovenia, Slovakia, United States of America, UK, Iran, Islamic Republic of, Russian Federation, Taiwan, Province of China, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of, and Viet Nam