Search

Begin New Search Political Geography China

2581. Chinese Investment in Critical U.S. Technology: Risks to U.S. Security Interests

Author:
Council on Foreign Relations
Publication Date:
10-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
Chinese firms, both private and state-owned, have in recent years invested billions of dollars in the U.S. technology industry, raising concerns that a powerful rival has gained or could soon gain access to sensitive and, in some cases, critical technologies that underpin American military superiority and economic might. At the workshop entitled “Chinese Investment in Critical U.S. Technology: Risks to U.S. Security Interests,” held in San Francisco, on July 18, 2017, CFR convened nearly thirty current and former government officials, academics, bankers, investors, and corporate executives to explore whether the large and growing early-stage Chinese investment in critical U.S. technology poses a threat to U.S. national security, and, if so, to outline policies that mitigate the risks of unbridled Chinese investment and to bolster U.S. competitiveness.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, Foreign Direct Investment, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
United States, China, Asia, and North America

2582. China and the U.S.-ROK Alliance: Promoting a Trilateral Dialogue

Author:
Heung-kyu Kim
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
As the Republic of Korea faces an increasing threat from North Korea, evolving U.S.-China relations are becoming important to Seoul’s strategy for dealing with Pyongyang. The United States and China are competitors, but they also seek cooperation on a range of global issues. And although South Korea seeks to have good relations with both great powers, it is increasingly being pushed to take sides in the ongoing U.S.-China competition. As the U.S.-China relationship becomes more complex, South Korea needs to carefully evaluate its policy toward China in order to find the best ways to ensure Chinese cooperation on the North Korean issue, particularly taking into account China’s evolving view of North Korea. Under the leadership of Xi Jinping, China is profoundly changing its foreign policy, including its relations with the United States and the two Koreas. With more confidence in its own diplomatic, military, and economic capacity to protect its national interests, China under Xi’s leadership has begun to regard the entire Korean Peninsula as part of its sphere of influence.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:
United States, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

2583. The Challenge From North Korea

Author:
Riccardo Alcaro and Ettore Greco
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
A nuclear-armed North Korea is a threat to the fragile strategic equilibrium on the Korean Peninsula and to international security at large. Emboldened by a nuclear arsenal, the highly militarized regime of President Kim Jong-un could be tempted to embark on aggressive acts. Meanwhile, the United States could opt for preventive military action. Even if neither party seeks a military confrontation, conflict could ensue due to miscalculation or simple misreading of each other’s intentions. Limited military exchanges could spiral out of control, eventually involving not only North Korea, the United States, and its allies in the region—Japan and South Korea—but also China. The repercussions of North Korea’s nuclear challenge may not be limited to Northeast Asia, not least because the nonproliferation regime, a pillar of international security, would be dealt a serious, if not fatal, blow if regional adversaries sought to meet it by acquiring their own nuclear arsenals. The destabilizing effects of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic programs on regional and international security cannot be overestimated. In devising a response to the North Korean challenge, regional actors should remain committed to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, but they should also implement security measures with observable results short of full denuclearization. Specifically, the United States and its allies should concentrate on sanctioning North Korea and on diplomatic action, actively seeking the involvement of China and Russia, while employing a strategy of deterrence and containment.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, Nonproliferation, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

2584. Writing New Rules for the U.S.-China Investment Relationship

Author:
Jennifer M. Harris
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
Chinese outbound investment is on the rise, and much of it is finding its way into the United States. Be- tween 2010 and 2015, China’s foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows to the United States grew by an average of 32 percent annually.1 Within the past two years alone, Chinese foreign investment inflows to the United States increased four-fold, and available data suggests 2017 will see the second highest annual investment on record, after 2016.2 This is not a two-way street: the United States and other foreign investors do not enjoy similar open market access in China. China maintains a dizzying assortment of formal and informal barriers to for- eign investment—from outright restrictions and quotas to mandatory joint ventures, forced localization measures, and domestic licensing regimes. Despite years of negotiations, these barriers are, if anything, growing more cumbersome in many sectors. U.S. firms paint a darkening picture of the business climate they face in China. U.S. FDI in China has slowed considerably in recent years: after growing roughly 180 percent from 2002 to 2007 (albeit from a low baseline), U.S. FDI flows into China have declined since 2012.3 The one-way surge of Chinese investment into the United States comes against a backdrop of strategic mistrust between Washington and Beijing. Ongoing accusations of state-sponsored cyber predation of U.S. firms, Beijing’s increasing aggressiveness over territorial disputes, its systematic efforts to under- mine the U.S. alliance system in Asia, and mounting tensions over North Korea all contribute to a dark- ening mood in the U.S.-China relationship. And, like so much involving China, this investment is simply different. Rarely, if ever, has the United States seen an increase in investment of this magnitude—espe- cially from a non-ally and especially from one where the lines between state ownership and private own- ership are so inherently blurred. For all the concern surrounding Japanese investment in the United States in the 1980s—coming as it did amid fierce economic competition—those debates ultimately re- mained under the umbrella of the U.S.-Japan military alliance. All of this raises questions about whether the United States needs to tighten its stance on Chinese in- bound investment; proposals to that effect have bipartisan support in the Congress. The Donald J. Trump administration has signaled its desire for a tougher approach in its economic dealings with China, which U.S. businesses seem to welcome. One foundation for such an approach is the principle of reciprocity. Roughly two dozen sectors in China—construction, mining, banking, insurance, and so on—remain effectively off-limits to American investment, because the Chinese government protects its domestic companies through regulations and financial subsidies. Even in sectors that technically allow foreign investment, discriminatory industrial policies tilt the playing field in favor of Chinese firms. Until this changes, Washington would be justi- fied—even obligated—to limit Chinese investment in the U.S. market. However, U.S. policymakers do not have a consensus on what a policy of reciprocity would entail, and different policy interpretations could spell quite different economic and foreign policy consequences for the United States. The United States should aim for a version of reciprocity that allows it the flexibility to maximize pressure on the broad range of Chinese industrial policy concerns while leaving a clear route to negotiations. The United States should also encourage European and other Western countries, many of which are seeing similar increases in Chinese investment, to adopt this new approach.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, and Foreign Direct Investment
Political Geography:
United States, China, Asia, and North America

2585. New Actors, New Models, New Outcomes? African Countries’ Engagement with China and other Development Partners in Achieving the SDGs and Agenda 2063

Author:
Chris Alden
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Oxfam Publishing
Abstract:
Understanding how Africa can engage with global development partners to provide more effective support for implementation of the SDGs and Agenda 2063 is crucial to realizing the continent’s development aspirations. This report provides a detailed assessment of the key development platforms – the SDGs, Agenda 2063 and FOCAC. It examines how Africans can mobilize around a Common African Position on Implementation of the SDGs and Agenda 2063 at the level of national governments, regional economic communities and the African Union – with an aim to improve coordination and cooperation in best practice for development between emerging and traditional partners.
Topic:
Development, International Trade and Finance, Regional Cooperation, Sustainable Development Goals, and Regionalism
Political Geography:
Africa, China, and Asia

2586. The People’s Republic of China and Burma: Not Only Pauk-Phaw

Author:
Bertil Lintner
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
Pauk-Phaw was a term coined in the 1950s to describe the supposedly friendly and close relationship between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Burma. But despite such diplomatic niceties, relations between China and Burma have not always been especially cordial. China, a vast, mainly inland, empire, has always looked for outlets to the sea for its land-locked western and southwestern provinces. China will not easily give up its hard-won access to the Indian Ocean and Burma’s strategic importance to Beijing cannot be overestimated. As China sees it, it cannot simply “hand over” Burma to the West. The country is far too important strategically and economically to the PRC for that to happen.
Topic:
Diplomacy, History, Bilateral Relations, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Burma

2587. The Limits of CCP Liaison Work: Sino-Vietnamese Relations

Author:
David Gitter and Elsa Kania
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
The PRC has fully leveraged its relative receptiveness to communist liaison work, carried out through CCP Central Committee’s International Department (CCP/ID). With Sino-Vietnamese tensions in mind, party-to-party exchanges have provided a more subtle channel for rapprochement. This party-centric dimension of diplomacy between China and Vietnam has received relatively scarce analytical attention thus far but remains active and important elements of the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) pursuit of its foreign policy interests. CCP diplomacy has focused on appealing to the ruling Communist Party of Vietnam’s (CPV) shared revolutionary heritage and socialist ideology, emphasizing the need to protect the overall special relationship that both countries supposedly enjoy.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Socialism, and Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Vietnam

2588. The Logic of Historical Nihilism: Analyzing the PRC Orthodoxy on the Origins of the Korean War

Author:
Miles M. Yu
Publication Date:
06-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) utilizes its own narrative of the Korean War to fulfill the Party’s strategic interests. Historical evidence, illustrated in this paper, proves that the Korean War began on June 25, 1950 as a result of a long and arduous preparation and agreement among the three protagonists—Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Kim Il-sung. Today, significant research and historical documents prove the CCP’s creation of a false record of the Korean War, which remains integral to Maoist historical nihilism and employed by the Party to ensure regime survival. Following the 67th anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War, it is necessary to examine the Korean War’s historical legacy and the role of the manipulation of historical narratives in communist China.
Topic:
War, History, Political Parties, and Narrative
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

2589. Dangerous Truths: The Panchen Lama’s 1962 Report and China’s Broken Promise of Tibetan Autonomy

Author:
Matthew Akester
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has sustained a strategy to manipulate history and subjugate Tibet in order to maintain Party rule. As outlined in this paper, the CCP’s tactics against Tibet can be evidenced through its denial of a report critical of the Party’s policies, authored by the 10th Panchen Lama in 1962. Through an analysis of the historical context surrounding the CCP’s repudiation of this report, and the Party’s resulting efforts to erase the grievances of the Tibetan people while imposing its own narrative, it is clear that the CCP views nationalist sentiment in Tibet as inimical to social stability. To counter that threat, the Party requires the active suppression and political compliance of the Tibetan people. Due to the CCP’s efforts, it is necessary to uncover the true historical record that proves the Party’s attempts to distort history and dominate Tibet for its own strategic ends.
Topic:
History, Territorial Disputes, Repression, and Autonomy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Tibet

2590. Negotiating History: The Chinese Communist Party’s 1981

Author:
Robert L. Suettinger
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
Over the decades, leaders of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have used the control of history to bolster their own political standing, as well as the continued primacy of the CCP in ruling the People’s Republic of China (PRC). This paper illustrates one of the most important cases of CCP historical manipulation through analysis of the political process surrounding the 1981 “Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party Since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China.” From 1979-1981, Deng Xiaoping used his ability to control what would become the CCP’s official verdict on Mao Zedong’s legacy to supplant Mao’s appointed successor, Hua Guofeng. The ability to control history to maintain the CCP’s political legitimacy has undeniably become a tool of power in the PRC. As the influence of the Chinese government and the CCP increasingly spreads abroad, it is important to understand how the CCP arrived at the “history” it exports.
Topic:
Politics, Geopolitics, History, Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Narrative
Political Geography:
China and Asia