Search

Begin New Search Topic Bilateral Relations Political Geography Asia

31. Strategic Importance of India’s Triangular Development Partnerships and Implications for Korea

Author:
Kyunghoon Kim
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
While projects of India’s triangular development partnerships have been ongoing for some time, the recent formalization of mechanisms between India and traditional donors is noteworthy. This progress is based on aligning strategies to strengthen relationships with the Global South. In addition to strengthening bilateral cooperation, Korea should explore opportunities for triangular cooperation with India. Through such partnerships, Korea and India can jointly address development challenges and promote prosperity in the Indo-Pacific. Both countries have demonstrated exceptional development performance, and their combined support could be valuable to many developing countries, especially amid an era of great power competition. Following intensive discussions between high-level officials, Korea and India should aim to establish a formal agreement that outlines their general goals and mechanisms, similar to the agreements India has with other advanced countries. In the short term, focusing on overlapping target countries, such as Bangladesh and Myanmar, could be mutually beneficial. Korea should also leverage the region-based bodies in South Asia and India-led minilateral and multilateral development platforms.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Partnerships, Global South, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
India, Asia, and South Korea

32. Australians’ Perceptions of Economic Security and Implications for Korea-Australia Cooperation

Author:
Nam Seok Kim
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
This World Economy Brief (WEB) article discusses how Australian voters interpret current economic uncertainties regarding supply chain fragmentation. Based on voters' demands to diversify Australia's supply chain, this article utilized some recent survey results, which can provide insights into possible emerging cooperation partners of Australia that can enhance its economic security.   The author introduces some key policy reactions made by the Australian government in recent years, including multilateral communications, Critical Minerals Strategy, Digital Economy Strategy, National Hydrogen Strategy, and International Development Strategy. Also, `Future Made in Australia', Australia's new flagship framework, is also covered. This article concludes by suggesting new directions for Korea-Australia cooperation, which can incorporate Australians' demands and the policy efforts of the Australian government. Mutually beneficial projects can include constructing the joint supply chain early warning systems, cooperation in building infrastructures for critical minerals, upgrading the bilateral Free Trade Agreement, streamlining customs clearance related to green transition, and establishing medium- to long-term blueprints for collaboration in hydrogen carrier ships.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, International Development, Supply Chains, Economic Security, and Cooperation
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, and Australia

33. North Korea Since the 1990s and U.S.-North Korea Relations: Problems and Prospects

Author:
Haksoon Paik and Arvid Lukauskas
Publication Date:
11-2024
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University
Abstract:
Speaker: Haksoon Paik, President of the Academy of Kim Dae-jung Studies Moderator: Arvid Lukauskas, Executive Director, Picker Center for Executive Education and MPA in Economic Policy Management, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University This talk examines the strategic significance of North Korea and the Korean Peninsula for the United States and the world. It then discusses North Korea's political and economic landscape since the early 1990s, focusing on current developments. The talk highlights North Korea's security and foreign policies, emphasizing: (1) its strategy of survival and development for the 21st century, and (2) U.S.-North Korea relations, with a particular focus on nuclear and ballistic missile issues. It also reviews what happened at the Hanoi summit and the deep disillusionment among key stakeholders engaged in Korean Peninsula affairs following the failed Hanoi summit. The discussion then shifts to North Korea's recent alignment with Russia post-Hanoi, examining the implications of its mutual defense treaty with Russia for the Korean Peninsula, the Russia-Ukraine War, and broader regional and global politics. The talk considers the possibility of a renewed Cold War dynamic due to the geopolitical alignments surrounding the Koreas (US-Japan-South Korea vs. China-Russia-North Korea) and the increased threat of nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula. Finally, it concludes by highlighting challenges and prospects for improvement. This event was hosted by the Weatherhead East Asian Institute.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, and Weapons
Political Geography:
Asia, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

34. Political Drivers of China’s Changing Nuclear Policy: Implications for U.S.-China Nuclear Relations and International Security

Author:
Tong Zhao
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The message from Chinese officials has become increasingly clear: the United States and China should first stabilize their political relationship before taking on nuclear issues.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, International Security, Bilateral Relations, and Decision-Making
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

35. Negotiating the India-China Standoff: 2020–2024

Author:
Saheb Singh Chadha
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
India and China have been engaged in a standoff at their border in eastern Ladakh since April–May 2020. Over 100,000 troops remain deployed on both sides, and rebuilding political trust will take time.
Topic:
Security, Bilateral Relations, Territorial Disputes, and Borders
Political Geography:
China, South Asia, India, and Asia

36. 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

37. The China-Russia Entente in East Asia: Contending with Authoritarian Partnership in a Critical Region

Author:
Jacob Stokes, Evan Wright, and Nathaniel Schochet
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
Closer cooperation between China and Russia is a major force driving global geopolitics. But how relations between the two authoritarian powers are shaping specific regional and functional areas remains understudied. This report helps to fill that gap for the critical region of East Asia. The China-Russia relationship has improved despite—and, in some ways, because of—Russia’s war in Ukraine. Beijing helps to fuel Russia’s war machine and defends the principles Moscow uses to justify the invasion. Both powers are also deepening and expanding their relationship beyond Ukraine. The pair cooperate across a range of fields, from military affairs to economics and global norms. Undoubtedly, current and potential fissures remain in the bilateral relationship. However, the leadership in both countries carefully manages these tensions to ensure they do not derail the overall relationship. Beijing-Moscow coordination extends to East Asian hot spots, including the areas around Japan, the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan, and the South China Sea. Around Japan, China and Russia work together to advance their respective territorial claims and pressure a rival Northeast Asian power and close U.S. ally. China and Russia use multiple military tools in pursuit of those goals, including joint aerial and naval patrols, joint exercises, and incursions into Japan’s air defense identification zone. Together, these activities put significant operational strain on the Self-Defense Forces, Japan’s military, as they respond. On the Korean Peninsula, China and Russia have turned away from multilateral cooperation to manage the North Korea threat and toward blaming democracies and reaching out to Pyongyang instead. Russia has moved closer to North Korea to help offset Moscow’s diplomatic isolation and barter for weapons. But that cooperation has not yet undermined China’s preferences or interests. Beijing maintains its own working relationship with Pyongyang while coordinating with Moscow to blunt international pressure on North Korea. How China and Russia manage their relations in East Asia will be a major factor shaping the regional diplomatic and security environment. To the south, Russia increasingly backs Beijing’s actions to pressure Taiwan as Taipei reaches out to democracies worldwide. Moscow’s support for Beijing has been particularly pronounced during major cross-Strait events in recent years. In the South China Sea, Russia tries to balance historical relationships with Southeast Asian states even as its power wanes and subservience to China deepens. For example, Russia’s cooperation on energy projects with Vietnam shows that Beijing’s and Moscow’s regional interests sometimes diverge. How China and Russia manage their relations in East Asia will be a major factor shaping the regional diplomatic and security environment. Moscow’s presence and power in East Asia have already suffered because of its disastrous war in Ukraine. Over time, Russia likely will become even more subservient to China. The China-Russia entente might therefore prove most useful for Beijing in its home region.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Authoritarianism, Partnerships, and Cooperation
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eurasia, and Asia

38. Korea’s Trade Policy Agenda in an Uncertain US Trade Environment

Author:
Alan Wm. Wolff and Han-Koo Yeo
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
This paper addresses how South Korea, a mid-sized ally of the United States, can best navigate clearly identifiable risks, crafting a positive and pragmatic international trade policy. Korea is heavily dependent on the United States for its defense. It is clear that US trade policy has recently shifted toward being more self-centered, a policy unlikely to be reversed any time soon. The United States is on the threshold of a presidential election that makes it unpredictable in its trade policy, which may become directly harmful to Korean economic prospects if there is a change in leadership. US trade policies under President Joseph Biden have been primarily aimed at onshoring rather than friendshoring, but they have not been actively hostile or threatening. If there is a second Donald Trump term, Korea might not be excluded from substantially increased tariffs—whether for protection, revenue, or leverage—despite the Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). At the same time that Korea is watchful of developments in the United States, it needs to pay attention to its neighbor, China, the world’s largest trading economy, a country that has practiced trade coercion against it. South Korea is the world’s 13th-largest economy. It is a strong proponent and practitioner of free trade. It is one of a group of midsize free market democracies aligned with the United States that, ranked by GDP, includes Japan, Germany, and France (and therefore with others, the European Union), the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, and Australia. The future of the global trading system that the market-oriented countries wish to enjoy is increasingly dependent on this group of midsize economies and the European Union. Korea has thrived in large part through its open trade policy that has made it the country with the world’s greatest number of free trade agreements (including with both the United States and China, as well as with the European Union). It shares strong economic security interests with the United States: It has its own K-CHIPS Act, which provides substantial subsidies to its semiconductor industry. It invests very substantially in critical minerals and batteries, as does the United States. Korea also collaborates with the United States in the production of vaccines to meet future pandemics.
Topic:
Climate Change, Bilateral Relations, Geopolitics, Investment, Trade, Economic Security, Semiconductors, Steel, and Critical Minerals
Political Geography:
Asia and South Korea

39. Economic implications of revoking China’s permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status

Author:
Megan Hogan, Warwick McKibben, and Marcus Noland
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
The United States’ granting of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status, formerly known as most favored nation status, to China in 2000 resulted in a large expansion of bilateral trade. Concerns over Chinese trade practices and the impact of Chinese exports on US import-competing sectors have contributed to US political discontent and calls for the revocation of PNTR, including by former president Donald Trump in his reelection campaign and in the 2024 Republican Party Platform. The authors find that revoking China’s PNTR status would cause higher inflation and a short-term decline in US gross domestic product relative to baseline from which the economy never fully recovers. The loss of output and employment would be felt unevenly across the economy, with agriculture, durable manufacturing, and mining taking the biggest hits. Stock market prices would fall, with agricultural, durable manufacturing, and mining firms absorbing the biggest declines. All of these impacts would be magnified if China retaliates. Ironically, the revocation would damage the US industrial sector and contribute to a wider US trade deficit.
Topic:
Economics, Bilateral Relations, Manufacturing, and Trade
Political Geography:
China and Asia

40. China’s influence at the United Nations: words and deeds

Author:
Alicia Garcia-Herrero, Théo Storella, and Pauline Weil
Publication Date:
11-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
We investigate China’s influence at the United Nations by focusing on the promotion of its narratives (words) and its voting behaviour (deeds). For the former, we assess the extent to which China’s global initiatives have become embedded in UN discourse compared to Western initiatives. For the latter, we assess the degree to which countries, regions and voting coalitions align their UN General Assembly votes with China compared to the US. When it comes to words, China’s global initiatives are sometimes louder than the West’s. More specifically, the Belt and Road Initiative has had a much greater impact on UN discourse than any Western initiative. Other Chinese global initiatives do not clearly stand out from those of the West, with the Global Compact for Migration mentioned more frequently at the UN than any Chinese initiative other than the BRI. We also find that Chinese initiatives are more self-referential. Thematically, both Chinese and Western initiatives are very focused on security as well as aid and human rights. Moving to voting patterns, countries’ income levels are a key determinant of alignment in voting. Poorer countries are much more aligned with China than with the US. North America and the European Union, in that order, are generally more aligned with the US than with China and these trends are much more stable than one could expect given China’s growing economic influence.
Topic:
United Nations, Bilateral Relations, Governance, European Union, Economy, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and Asia