Search

Begin New Search Topic Treaties and Agreements Political Geography Asia Content Type Special Report Publication Year within 10 Years

1. The United States and Japan Should Cooperate to Include India in Indo‐Pacific Economic Governance

Author:
Kensuke Yanagida
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Both the United States and Japan consider India as an important strategic partner in their respective Indo-Pacific concepts. However, India still faces many domestic challenges as a developing country. India also has traditionally been reluctant when it comes to trade liberalization. U.S. bilateral trade negotiations with India, and Japan`s effort in promoting an East Asia regional trade agreement that includes India share objectives and interests and hence can be coordinated. On November 15, 2020, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was signed by 15 countries with the glaring exception of India. RCEP is a regional free trade agreement (FTA) whose negotiations were initiated by ASEAN and six partner countries, namely Japan, China, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and India in 2012. The signing of RCEP finally came after eight years of negotiations, but India decided to pull out from the pact at the final stage of negotiations. The Japanese and U.S. Indo-Pacific concepts aim to achieve regional peace, stability, and prosperity through ensuring a rules-based international order, and to enhance cooperation among like-minded countries in both economic and security spheres. RCEP can be positioned as an important economic partnership initiative that embodies the Indo-Pacific concepts of rules-based, free and fair trade and investment governance, and contributing to the economic prosperity of the region.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, and Trade
Political Geography:
Japan, India, Asia, North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

2. Reimagining Nuclear Arms Control: A Comprehensive Approach

Author:
James M. Acton, Thomas Macdonald, and Pranay Vaddi
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The governments of China, Russia, and the United States all express support for arms control. They disagree profoundly, however, about its purposes and preconditions. To try to find common ground, this report presents nine detailed practical measures that—implemented individually or as part of a package—would help address each state’s specific security concerns and the shared dangers of arms racing and inadvertent escalation.
Topic:
Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Asia, and United States of America

3. EU – Japan Economic Partnership Agreement: Strengthening economic ties as a way out of recession

Author:
Jana Záhořová
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Europeum Institute for European Policy
Abstract:
Today, Japan remains an important international trading partner of the EU. Following China, Japan is the EU’s second-most important trading partner in Asia. According to experts from the European Commission, the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia and the University of Pavia, the EU-Japan EPA is a success because it is a great example of a higher degree of economic integration that can put pressure on other countries to feel obliged to adhere to free trade rules rather than protectionism.
Topic:
Economics, Treaties and Agreements, European Union, Partnerships, and Trade
Political Geography:
Japan, Europe, and Asia

4. Conflict and Cooperation in Asia: Geopolitical Issues

Author:
Tatiana Rosito, Andy Mok, James Crabtree, and Rudolph Lohmeyer
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Brazilian Center for International Relations (CEBRI)
Abstract:
The document produced by CEBRI’s Asia Program analyzes the following issues: 1) a long-term view of China's role in the region; 2) Regional and bilateral agreements in Asia/Eurasia and security policies; 3) The evolution of the role of the United States in the Indo-Pacific. The panelists pointed out that "Two questions remain open: China's ability to lead the international system and the United States' ability to build a broader agenda in addition to military issues in the Asian region".
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, Geopolitics, and Conflict
Political Geography:
China, Asia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

5. The Expanding China-Russia Defense Partnership

Author:
Richard Weitz
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
Russia and China’s relationship is increasingly strengthened by arms sales, joint military exercises, and mutual diplomatic support. With growing frequency, the two countries hare expressing joint concern towards “threatening” U.S. military capabilities and security policies. China’s growing ability to deny foreign navies access to waters and airspace is connected to the sophisticated defense platforms provided by Russia. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are seeking a closer defense partnership, which could take the form of integrated military operations, collaboration on battlefield technology, or a joint missile defense system. Through joint military exercises, China is learning from Russia’s military experience in Crimea, gaining operational knowledge on expeditionary logistics and how to protect military bases in foreign countries. In 2021, the Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship expires. Its renewal could introduce new dynamics to the China-Russian relationship, and the possible inclusion of collective defense provisions like those between the U.S. and Japan.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, National Security, Science and Technology, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Partnerships, and Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eurasia, Asia, and United States of America

6. A Golden Opportunity for a U.S.-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement

Author:
Dan Blumenthal and Michael Mazza
Publication Date:
02-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
The United States and Taiwan can create a free trade agreement (FTA) that serves the interests of both sides. Taiwan should seek to set the gold standard in economic openness, as well as in the legal, regulatory, and standards frameworks that will govern emerging technologies and industries such as 5G, the internet of things (IOT), artificial intelligence (AI), and the future industries to be built upon them. In pursuit of the United States’ vision for a “free and open” Indo-Pacific, it would be wise for the U.S. to enlist in its effort countries that are, themselves, already free and open. Taiwan should be considered a crucial partner in the Trump administration’s strategy. This monograph serves to provide a framework for a U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement (FTA), outlining areas of concern for the United States, in addition to areas that provide opportunities for closer bilateral cooperation. Importantly, such cooperation could give greater impetus for free trade negotiations, advance the Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy, and bolster the United States’ National Security Strategy.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Free Trade, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

7. Economic Regionalism is Key to Openness and Growth: An ASEAN Perspective

Author:
Sanchita Basu Das
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
The 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are involved in several regional economic arrangements, not only their own ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), but also those in a bigger geographic area, such as the ASEAN+1 Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). A subset of these countries are partaking of Asia-Pacific deals, namely the latest Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Some are pursuing bilateral deals in pursuit of deeper economic cooperation. Finally, all ASEAN countries are members of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which although not labelled a trade agreement, is concerned with trade-related measures including transport infrastructure, policy coordination, economic connectivity through trade and investment, customs modernization, financial cooperation, and people-to-people linkages. A common feature of all these trade agreements is that they are not just focused on removing restrictions on trade, i.e. lowering import tariffs and quotas, but are much more comprehensive and include issues like trade in services, investment, labor, intellectual property rights, regulatory standards, and health and safety rules. All of these agreements deal with cooperation measures beyond national borders and can be called deep economic cooperation. They go beyond the WTO framework and are often labeled “new regionalism,” understood as state-led projects in the context of global developments. The extent of deepness varies, mainly depending on the participating countries’ development stage and the economic competitiveness of domestic sectors. What do the ASEAN countries aim to achieve? Theory has elucidated that governments have motives ranging from politics to economics when entering an economic cooperation arrangement. The political motives could be confidence building, i.e. if an international relationship was blemished by a history of conflict, economic cooperation can introduce a process of confidence building.3 For smaller countries, it could be seen as a means to increase bargaining power with the international community. Countries often see economic cooperation as a means to hasten their domestic economic reforms so as to increase attractiveness to foreign investors.4 Governments could follow a regionalism exercise also to defend domestic interests that are threatened by regionalism elsewhere. As for the economic motives, countries prefer cooperation among a limited number of players as it enables continued protection in a bigger geographical space and shuns producers from non-members. This enables them to exclude “politically sensitive,” noncompetitive domestic sectors completely from trade liberalization. Finally, regional economic arrangements are essential for creating economies of scale for producers and offering a larger market for consumers, which increases attractiveness to potential investors. This chapter elaborates on ASEAN’s perspective on economic regionalism in the Asia-Pacific. It examines key initiatives that ASEAN countries are currently negotiating or implementing in their national economies, discusses economic and strategic motives, and views the future of regionalism from an ASEAN perspective. It concludes that although the ASEAN countries are facing some uncertainties in their pursuit of economic regionalism, they will continue to support the endeavor as it serves their economic structure of openness. The countries have realized the benefits of economic integration in terms of confidence building of investors, thereby bolstering economic growth.
Topic:
Economics, Treaties and Agreements, Economic Growth, and Regional Integration
Political Geography:
Asia and Southeast Asia

8. Japan in the Driver’s Seat? Reshaping the Regional Trade Order without the United States

Author:
T. J. Pempel
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
On January 28, 2018 representatives from eleven countries, following the strong leadership of Japan, agreed to a modified version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This new pact —renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTTP), or TPP-11—was formally signed in Chile on March 8. The treaty will take effect once ratified by at least six member countries. Japan is planning to push the treaty through the Diet within 2018 and anticipating that it will come into force sometime in 2019. The agreement represented a major recovery by the eleven countries following initial expectations that TPP was dead after the election of Donald Trump. Trump, as an early follow through on his xenophobic and unilateral campaign promises, signed an executive order pulling the United States out of the TPP within one hundred hours of his inauguration. With that stroke of his pen, Trump wiped out 10 years of work on the so-called “Pacific” route to regional trade integration, anchored on the U.S. market. It also defied multiple analyses demonstrating the strong economic benefits that TPP would provide for the United States. Turmoil immediately prevailed among the remaining eleven signatories. Japanese prime minister Abe, for example, only weeks after Trump’s election announced, “TPP is meaningless without the U.S.” Singaporean prime minister Lee Hsien Loong argued, “if the TPP does not go ahead, it would be a great loss for the rest of the member economies.” The National Interest was typical in its skepticism about both the survival of TPP and the long-term implications for the Asia-Pacific. In an article entitled “TPP is Dead; Now What?” it observed: “The United States’ withdrawal not only throws away the potential for a trade agreement but may cause countries that expended significant political capital for the TPP to retreat from free trade for the foreseeable future.” That China will be the primary beneficiary of Trump’s withdrawal was a widespread conclusion.5 In fact, as the signing of the CPTPP indicated, all eleven countries were prepared to recommit themselves to the deal and to continue to advance the goals of a liberal trading order in the region.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Economy, Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, North America, Korea, and United States of America

9. Is the Belt and Road Initiative a Chinese-style Regionalism?

Author:
Tu Xinquan
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
In the last two decades, bilateral and regional trade agreements (RTAs) have been considered a primary force to advance the world trading system because the Doha Development Agenda of the WTO has stagnated since its launch in 2001. The continuous expansion of the European Union and the American-led NAFTA and TPP as well as bilateral FTAs between the United States and EU and their partners best exemplified this phenomenon. However, such an approach is facing serious challenges from rising anti-globalization sentiment originating in the EU and United States in recent years. In June 2016, the United Kingdom decided to exit the EU as a result of a referendum. This is the first time a EU member chose to leave. On January 23, 2017, at the start of his presidency, Donald Trump signed as his first executive order the withdrawal from TPP, which his predecessor spent years concluding with 11 partners. These two consecutive dramatic actions of the previous and current world leaders shocked the globe. Next to the WTO, regionalism is seen as the second-best choice in promoting globalization. Now, two regional initiatives led by developed countries are facing a serious backlash. The world is concerned that this means the end and a reversal of globalization. Since its WTO accession in 2001, China has also been actively negotiating FTAs with its neighbors as well as some remote partners such as Iceland and New Zealand. While its WTO accession package was praised for its ambition and courage, it is difficult to defend Chinese FTAs as comparable to those of developed countries in terms of market access and institutional changes. One explanation for that is China has made very high-level multilateral commitments. Another one is China is not in such a comfortable strategic and economic position as the United States in negotiating FTAs with either developed or developing countries. The former want to obtain more market access concessions and institutional reforms from China, while the latter are afraid to expose their domestic industries to China’s overwhelming competitiveness in manufacturing. In addition, the Chinese government seems more confident in its own institutions and unwilling to change them due to outside pressure, especially after the 2008 global financial crisis. President Xi Jinping proposed the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) during his state visits to Kazakhstan and Indonesia in September and October 2013, which soon was made a top national priority and even included in the Constitution of the Communist Party of China at the 19th Party Congress in 2017. Nadege Rolland labels this China’s Grand Strategy1 and the organizing foreign policy concept in the Xi Jinping era.2 One key feature of BRI in comparison with RTAs is that BRI focuses more on improving physical connectivity rather than reducing institutional barriers. The logic of physical connectivity is undoubtedly powerful, especially for developing countries with poor infrastructure. The impact of more and better international links on the regional landscape could be huge, not only by boosting trade and commerce but also by easing flows of energy and other resources, stimulating technological innovation, influencing culture and politics, and shaping strategic choices. Given the fact that RTAs are facing serious difficulties, the BRI looks like an attractive and feasible alternative to promote regional economic integration and globalization. However, there are also plenty of uncertainties and ambiguities surrounding the BRI, particularly due to China’s centrality as well as its direction of economic and strategic development. Hence, this chapter explores BRI characteristics in promoting regional economic integration and whether it could become an alternative approach to regionalism and globalization for China as well as the world.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Economic Policy, Trade, and Integration
Political Geography:
China and Asia

10. Technical Note on a Timeline for North Korean Denuclearization

Author:
Institute for Science and International Security
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Science and International Security
Abstract:
On May 28, 2018, the New York Times reported on a technical roadmap for North Korean denuclearization written by Stanford University professor and scientist Siegfried S. Hecker and colleagues Robert L. Carlin and Elliot A. Serbin. While we greatly respect the work of Dr. Hecker and colleagues, we disagree on the up to 15-year timeline put forth for completing full denuclearization. Our assessments are based on verified dismantlement in other countries. If North Korea agrees to denuclearize and to cooperate fully, admittedly big “ifs,” then verified dismantlement of the key parts of its nuclear weapons program can happen in parallel and be accomplished in as little as about two years. Gaining assurance that North Korea is not hiding relatively small but significant amounts of plutonium, enriched uranium, or nuclear weapons will take longer than two years and will likely fall to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to handle as part of bringing North Korea into compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state. This whole process could take several more years, as the IAEA insists on accounting for even grams of nuclear explosive materials, as it should. Decommissioning operating reactors and plutonium separation plants will also take years longer. But within a few years, all the declared nuclear weapons and stocks of plutonium and enriched uranium could be verifiably eliminated, and all key facilities identified and rendered unable to operate. Moreover, the verification process can include a sufficient estimate of the amount of plutonium and enriched uranium North Korea has produced, allowing a first order check on whether North Korea has declared all its nuclear weapons. Of course, this process could take longer, but such a process should not be structured in a way that invites North Korea to go slowly and delays the date when North Korea demonstrates it intends to get rid of its nuclear weapons. The past two major negotiations with North Korea are a cautionary tale for avoiding a drawn-out process, where the most difficult decisions are left to the future.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Nuclear Power, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:
Asia and North Korea