Search

Begin New Search Topic International Trade and Finance Political Geography United States of America Content Type Special Report

1. China/United States: Europe off Balance

Author:
Thomas Gomart and Marc Hecker
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
As French President Emmanuel Macron (accompanied by Ursula von der Leyen) is on a state visit to China, some twenty Ifri researchers decipher the stakes of the U.S./China/Europe strategic triangle. This 16-text study follows Olaf Scholz’s visit to Beijing (November 2022) and precedes that of Emmanuel Macron (April 2023). It comes especially one year after the beginning of a geopolitical and geoeconomic shock of a rare magnitude: the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. The War in Ukraine or the Return of Bloc Geopolitics? The war in Ukraine has broken ties between the European Union (EU) and Russia for the foreseeable future, particularly in the field of energy, though not without consequences in the Middle East, Africa, and the Indo-Pacific. Furthermore, this war has become the main show of active indirect confrontation between the United States—which has provided military support to Ukrainians, with help from its European allies—and China, which has supported Russia politically and economically. In February 2022, Moscow and Beijing declared their “no limits friendship”; in March 2023, Xi Jinping offered his personal support to Vladimir Putin after the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for his arrest. In its position on the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis, presented in February 2023, China stated: “All parties should oppose the pursuit of one’s own security at the cost of others’ security, prevent bloc confrontation, and work together for peace and stability on the Eurasian Continent”. China is no more of a mediator than the United States: it would be unrealistic to believe so. We appear to be witnessing a return of bloc geopolitics, albeit in a starkly different context than that of the Cold War (1947-1991). Globalization has produced strong economic and technological interdependencies that make any prospect of decoupling very costly, if not impossible. Economic partners are no longer necessarily military allies, and vice versa. In other words, a gap is opening up between geopolitical perceptions and geoeconomic realities. The term “decoupling” is popular in the United States, though much less so elsewhere. The rejection of bloc geopolitics is particularly acute outside of the West, where a “pragmatic” approach to foreign policy is often promoted. The Saudi foreign minister summed this up during the World Policy Conference in December 2022: “Polarization is the last thing we need right now. […] We need to build bridges, strengthen connections, and find areas of cooperation”. A few months later, China pulled off an extraordinary diplomatic coup by brokering a deal to restore relations between Riyadh and Tehran. For the EU, the situation is particularly delicate: Europe is in the Western camp, but a severing of ties with Beijing would cause a crushing economic blow. In 2022, China accounted for more than 20% of the EU’s imports, while the United States accounted for around 12%. By 2030, the EU’s GDP is expected to rise to $20.5 trillion, compared to $30.5 trillion for the United States and $33.7 trillion for China. In January 2023, the President of the European Commission declared at Davos: “We still need to work and trade with China, especially when it comes to this transition. So, we need to refocus our approach on de-risking, rather than decoupling”. For its part, Beijing has encouraged European aspirations of “strategic autonomy”, understood in China as a form of detachment from the United States. At the same time, the EU is constantly strengthening its military, technological, financial and energy ties with the U.S. This collective study notes a hypothetical search for balance on the part of the Europeans, faced with a war on their territory (the Western peninsula of the heartland), who cannot escape Sino-American mechanisms, and who do not form a monolithic whole. It also analyzes the strategy of several important actors outside our continent, and shows that, from Ukraine to Taiwan, via Africa and the Middle East, Europeans have little room for maneuver. This is why the study proposes recommendations to try, at a crucial moment, to reinforce their positioning.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Climate Change, International Trade and Finance, Science and Technology, European Union, and Industry
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and United States of America

2. 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

3. Rewriting the Future of America’s Maritime Industry to Compete with China

Author:
Michael Roberts
Publication Date:
10-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
For decades, companies outside the United States have dominated the international commercial shipping and shipbuilding industries. At various times since World War II, Japan, Korea, and certain European countries have been able to leverage their export-driven manufacturing economies and government support to become world leaders in commercial shipbuilding and major players in international shipping. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has taken that strategy to a new level and now produces more than half the large commercial ships delivered annually, controls scores of seaports in dozens of foreign countries, and owns almost one-fifth of the global commercial fleet. American commercial shipbuilders and US flag shipping companies have long faced fierce headwinds in international markets and have seen support from the US government dwindle. The US reset its maritime policies in the 1990s when America was the sole superpower and the security benefits of a robust commercial maritime industry were in doubt. By the end of 2022, Americans owned only 3 percent of the 55,000 ships in the global commercial fleet, including just 178 large US flag cargo ships, 85 of which are committed to international trade (see tables 1 and 2 below for a breakdown of US and global commercial fleets). The emergence of the PRC as a challenger to America’s global leadership has forced sweeping changes in US policy and spending priorities to boost America’s economic and military security. This report recommends that the US reform its policies governing America’s commercial maritime industries because shipping and shipbuilding are core components of national power. These industries remain especially crucial in the twenty-first century, as international trade is more important to a healthy American economy today than ever before. Yet Americans have almost no control over the maritime logistics systems that feed the US economy. The pandemic-induced supply chain crisis showed how much damage can be done when those systems break down.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, National Security, Maritime, Industry, Domestic Policy, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

4. U.S. Strategy: Rebalancing Global Energy between Europe, Russia, and Asia and U.S. Security Policy in the Middle East and the Gulf

Author:
Anthony H. Cordesman
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
The war in Ukraine has already shown how dangerous it is for the U.S. to assume that it can rebalance its forces to one region and count on a lasting peace or detente in others. It now is all too clear that U.S. strategy must continue to focus on Europe as well as China. What is less clear is the extent to which the Ukraine War is an equal warning that the U.S. must have a truly global strategy – and one that continues to focus on other critical regions like the Middle East. The sudden escalation of the Ukraine crisis into a major regional conflict and the need for political and diplomatic support in the UN as well as for sanctions are warnings that much of the U.S. success in deterrence and defense lies in creating long-term global diplomatic and political support as well as true and lasting strategic partnerships.
Topic:
Security, Energy Policy, International Trade and Finance, Hegemony, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Middle East, Asia, North America, and United States of America

5. Securing Medical Supply Chains with Trusted Trade Partners

Author:
Meredith Broadbent
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
There is bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill and in the Biden administration regarding excessive dependence on Chinese manufacturing and production. An extension of this is that diversification of supply chains for certain medical products will make U.S. citizens more secure in fighting future infectious diseases. The highly disrupted international economic environment, reeling from supply and demand dislocations unleashed by the pandemic, U.S.-China trade conflicts, and war in Eastern Europe, is prompting certain countries in the Western Hemisphere to seize the occasion to aggressively market themselves as attractive hosts for foreign direct investment looking to move closer to the U.S. market. It is an opportune time for the United States to shape some of the larger forces of global economic disruption, including the movement of investment and production capital. It is time to forge enhanced trade links and diversified supply chains with friends and allies to promote health security, stronger economic and diplomatic engagement, commitments to exchange of data on production, and best practices in fighting disease. This paper breaks down CSIS’s analyses on the capacity for nearshoring in Canada, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Manufacturing, Medicine, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

6. China's Belt and Road: Implications for the United States

Author:
Jennifer A. Hillman and David Sacks
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Chinese President Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy undertaking and the world’s largest infrastructure program, poses a significant challenge to U.S. economic, political, climate change, security, and global health interests. Since BRI’s launch in 2013, Chinese banks and companies have financed and built everything from power plants, railways, highways, and ports to telecommunications infrastructure, fiber-optic cables, and smart cities around the world. If implemented sustainably and responsibly, BRI has the potential to meet long-standing developing country needs and spur global economic growth. To date, however, the risks for both the United States and recipient countries raised by BRI’s implementation considerably outweigh its benefits. BRI was initially designed to connect China’s modern coastal cities to its underdeveloped interior and to its Southeast, Central, and South Asian neighbors, cementing China’s position at the center of a more connected world. The initiative has since outgrown its original regional corridors, expanding to all corners of the globe. Its scope now includes a Digital Silk Road intended to improve recipients’ telecommunications networks, artificial intelligence capabilities, cloud computing, e-commerce and mobile payment systems, surveillance technology, and other high-tech areas, along with a Health Silk Road designed to operationalize China’s vision of global health governance.1 Hundreds of projects around the world now fall under the BRI umbrella.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Infrastructure, Hegemony, Conflict, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and Regionalism
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

7. Thai-U.S. Bilateral Relations: Benefits and Challenges

Author:
Arunrat Chumroentaweesup
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Arunrat Chumroentaweesup, Consulting Manager at Tractus Asia, explains that “American firms enjoy two significant benefits. First, US entities are permitted to maintain a majority shareholding or to wholly own a company, branch office or representative office located in Thailand. Second, US companies are permitted to engage in business on almost the same footing as Thai firms and are exempted from most of the foreign investment restrictions imposed by the Foreign Business Act.”
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, Bilateral Relations, and Business
Political Geography:
North America, Thailand, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

8. U.S.-Thai Economic Prospects–Turning A New Page

Author:
Judy A. Benn
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Judy A. Benn, Former Executive Director American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand, explains that “for Thailand to take full advantage of post-pandemic opportunities and reignite its economy to make-up for the last 18 months, the nation will need to capitalize on its centralized geographic location and position as one of Southeast Asia’s strongest manufacturing bases.”
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Regulation, and Economy
Political Geography:
North America, Thailand, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

9. U.S. Policy in the Arctic

Author:
Paweł Markiewicz
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The Arctic has become another contested area between the U.S., Russia, and China. The region’s growing importance for global trade and American security means the U.S. goal is largely to maintain freedom of navigation in the Arctic. For this reason, the Trump administration strives to increase American capacities to operate in the Arctic. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will delay implementing these plans; nevertheless, they will be achieved in the long term and the U.S. will also expect support in the Arctic from NATO allies.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, NATO, and International Trade and Finance
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Arctic, and United States of America

10. US-Brazil trade and FDI: Enhancing the bilateral economic relationship

Author:
Abrão Neto, Ken Hyatt, Daniel Godinho, Lisa Schineller, and Roberta Braga
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The year 2020 marks the turning of a page for the Western Hemisphere, a region that in 2019 saw uncertainty dominate headlines as new governments came in and out of office, trade tensions grew, and citizens took to the streets to voice their concerns with the status quo. For years, the opportunities that could come with a stronger bilateral relationship between the United States and Brazil have been underestimated. Significant potential exists to produce sizeable benefits for both societies. That potential must be maximized. While US and Brazilian governments and businesses have begun to seize the benefits of the synergies the two countries share, hurdles remain that prevent a full and successful commercial reality. The United States and Brazil would benefit from a closer and stronger trade and foreign-direct-investment-relationship that would amplify growth and prosperity, in both the short and long terms. Deepening the economic relationship would pay dividends in other areas as well, translating into greater opportunities for strategic bilateral cooperation. This paper recognizes that the moment is now and that 2020 is a pivotal year to substantively advance bilateral economic ties. Building upon the successes and progress made over the years, this paper incorporates the input and expertise of the US and Brazilian private sectors and policymakers to offer a renewed vision and new momentum for strengthening US-Brazil trade and foreign direct investment (FDI), supporting concrete steps toward deepening the commercial relationship, and laying the foundation for a potential free trade agreement (FTA) between the United States and Brazil. As the global balance of power shifts, as the world faces new hurdles that could slow growth, and as Latin America must contend with more uncertainty amid new external shocks, the two countries strategically and economically have countless reasons to deepen commercial relations. Stronger ties will ultimately provide additional certainty at this critical time.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Bilateral Relations, Global Markets, Economy, and Business
Political Geography:
Brazil, South America, North America, and United States of America

11. In Dire Straits? Implications of U.S.-Iran Tensions for the Global Oil Market

Author:
Ilan Goldenberg, Kaleigh Thomas, and Jessica Schwed
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
In recent months, Iran has responded to rising tensions with the United States—particularly the US launch of the “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran—by attacking oil tankers and infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region around the Strait of Hormuz (the Strait). These actions have been designed to signal to the United States, the Gulf states, and the international community that the American strategy of strangling Iran economically will not be cost-free, and to Saudi Arabia in particular that it is highly vulnerable to Iranian retaliation. As the Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, the implications of Iran’s efforts merit close scrutiny and analysis. This study was designed to examine three scenarios for military conflict between Iran and the United States and assess the potential impacts on global oil prices—as one specific representation of the immediate economic impact of conflict—as well as broader strategic implications.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Oil, and Global Markets
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

12. China’s Quest for Gas Supply Security: The Global Implications

Author:
Sylvie Cornot-Gandolphe
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
The major transformations that are occurring on the Chinese gas market have profound repercussions on the global gas and LNG markets, especially on trade, investment and prices. In just two years, China has become the world’s first gas importer and is on track to become the largest importer of Liquefied natural gas (LNG). China alone explained 63% of the net global LNG demand growth in 2018 and now accounts for 17% of global LNG imports. The pace and scale of China’s LNG imports have reshaped the global LNG market. Over the past two years, fears of an LNG supply glut have largely been replaced by warnings that the lack of investments in new LNG capacity would lead to a supply shortage in the mid-2020s unless more LNG production project commitments are made soon. There is now a bullish outlook for future global LNG demand which has encouraged companies to sanction additional LNG projects, based on the anticipated supply shortage. China’s gas imports can be expected to continue to grow strongly, from 120 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2018 to up to 300 bcm by 2030.
Topic:
Security, Energy Policy, International Trade and Finance, and Gas
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, Global Focus, and United States of America

13. Public and Opinion Leaders' Views on US-China Trade War

Author:
Craig Kafura
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
The Trump Administration has taken an aggressive line on US-China trade issues. Starting with steel and aluminum tariffs in March 2018, the United States has gradually imposed a number of tariffs on various Chinese goods. China responded in turn to each round. Recent negotiations, though initially fruitful, foundered on issues of Chinese subsidies and what US trade representative Robert Lighthizer described as “an erosion in commitments by China.” Now the escalation cycle has resumed. According to surveys conducted in 2018 among foreign policy opinion leaders by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the University of Texas, and the results of the 2018 Chicago Council Survey of the general US public, concerns about a potential trade war between the United States and China were already widespread before this most recent escalation.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Trade and Finance, Public Opinion, and Trade Wars
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

14. Americans Favor US-China Trade, Split Over Tariffs

Author:
Craig Kafura
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
Over the past 18 months, the United States and China have engaged in a steady escalation of tariffs. Beginning with steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by the Trump administration in March 2018, the trade conflict has expanded to cover hundreds of billions of dollars in bilateral trade. Recent rounds of negotiations have made no new progress and have led to both sides escalating further. The most recent US tariffs on Chinese imports went into effect on September 1, covering $112 billion of goods. Beijing has countered with retaliatory tariffs and has halted all agricultural purchases from the United States, a move targeted at already-struggling US farmers. While Americans broadly support engaging in trade with China, they are split along partisan lines on how to engage in that trade. Republicans support raising tariffs on Chinese imports and believe it will help the US economy in the long run, while Democrats oppose doing so and believe it will be harmful.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Bilateral Relations, Tariffs, and Trade Wars
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

15. Record Number of Americans Say International Trade Is Good for the US Economy

Author:
Brendan Helm, Dina Smeltz, and Alexander Hitch
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
President Donald Trump has embarked on an ambitious and disruptive trade agenda, driven by his belief that the United States has lost “many billions of dollars” to trading partners and that “trade wars are good, and easy to win.”[1] During his term, the president has escalated trade tensions with China; has renegotiated trade agreements with countries such as Mexico, Canada, and South Korea; and has withdrawn US involvement in trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The 2019 Chicago Council Survey finds that though Republicans and Democrats differ on whether President Trump’s strategy is an effective approach to trade policy, the American public is more likely than ever to say that international trade benefits the United States.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Economy, and WTO
Political Geography:
Canada, South Korea, North America, Mexico, Global Focus, and United States of America

16. Creating the North Atlantic Marketplace for Jobs and Growth: Three Paths, One Detour, A U-Turn, and the Road to Nowhere

Author:
Daniel S. Hamilton
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Transatlantic Relations
Abstract:
For decades the partnership between North America and Europe has been a steady anchor in a world of rapid change. Today, however, the transatlantic partnership itself has become unsettled and uncertain. Nowhere is this clearer than in the economic sphere. Voters across the United States and many parts of Europe have grown skeptical of open markets. Concerns about stagnant wages, widening income inequality, and pockets of stubbornly high unemployment have combined with fears of automation, digitization and immigration to swell economic insecurities on each side of the Atlantic. The election of Donald Trump as U.S. president and the decision by British citizens to leave the European Union have only added to transatlantic uncertainties. This state of division and mutual inwardness threatens the prosperity and ultimately the position of North America and Europe in the global economy and the broader global security system. This study charts possible paths by which Americans and Europeans can navigate this strange new world. It describes how the transatlantic economy is being transformed by domestic political uncertainties, the digital revolution, the changing nature of production, and the diffusion of global power and intensified global competition. It takes account of shifting trade relations among the United States, Canada and Mexico through NAFTA, and what Brexit and the rise of non-EU Europe may mean for the European Union and for transatlantic partnership.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, Treaties and Agreements, Partnerships, Brexit, Economic Growth, Trump, and NAFTA
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, Canada, North America, Mexico, United States of America, and European Union

17. Trading the Global Future Part III: Bad Consequences

Author:
Dan Steinbock
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
Abstract:
The Trump administration’s ‘America First’ policies come at a critical time in the global economy. These bad policies will have adverse consequences in international trade. In the absence of countervailing forces, they could unsettle the post-2008 global recovery and undermine postwar globalization.
Topic:
Globalization, International Trade and Finance, Economy, and Tariffs
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

18. The Trump-led Trade War with China: Energy Dominance Self-destructed?

Author:
Sylvie Cornot-Gandolphe and Jean-François Boittin
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
Under particular US legal rationale, such as calling foreign imports a “national security threat”, President Donald Trump has started imposing tariffs and/or quotas and has launched national security investigations on a growing number of imported goods from US allies and others alike.In March and June 2018, the US imposed tariffs or quotas on steel and aluminium on all trading partners, but Australia. In July and August 2018, the US began imposing tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese industrial goods on the ground of unfair trade practices. As China has retaliated with tit-for-tat measures, President Trump has imposed tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods from 24 September 2018 onwards, and in an unprecedented escalation of his trade war with China, he has also threatened to impose tariffs on an additional $267 billion in Chinese goods. If eventually carried out, Trump’s latest threat could result in tariffs on all Chinese goods entering the US. China has retaliated and imposed tariffs on $60 billion in US goods, including a 10% duty on liquefied natural gas (LNG). For the time being, trade tensions have had a limited impact on the energy market. But the new round of US tariffs and retaliation measures by China suggest that this is going to change.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, International Trade and Finance, Gas, Renewable Energy, and Coal
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

19. Making Reform a Priority for Taiwan’s Fishing Fleet

Author:
Trevor Sutton
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Reform of the Taiwanese fishing sector will strengthen bilateral ties between Taipei and Washington and enhance global perceptions of Taiwanese democracy.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Bilateral Relations, Water, Reform, Democracy, and Fishing
Political Geography:
Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

20. Do Not Fall for the Hype on U.S.-China Natural Gas Trade

Author:
Melanie Hart, Luke Bassett, and Blaine Johnson
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The Trump administration’s obsession with fossil fuel exports plays into Beijing’s grand strategy to become the next high-tech superpower.
Topic:
Energy Policy, International Trade and Finance, Science and Technology, Natural Resources, Hegemony, Gas, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

21. Arctic Imperatives: Reinforcing U.S. Strategy on America’s Fourth Coast

Author:
Thad W. Allen, Christine Todd Whitman, and Esther Brimmer
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
"The United States, through Alaska, is a significant Arctic nation with strategic, economic, and scientific interests," asserts a new Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored (CFR) Independent Task Force report, Arctic Imperatives: Reinforcing U.S. Strategy on America's Fourth Coast. With the Arctic "warming at twice the rate as the rest of the planet" and melting sea ice opening up this resource-rich region to new trade routes and commercial activities, the report stresses that "the United States needs to increase its strategic commitment to the region or risk leaving its interests unprotected." The report notes that while Russia has numerous ice-breaking vessels and China is building a third icebreaker, the United States owns only two operational icebreaking ships—one heavy icebreaker and one medium-weight icebreaker—to serve both the Arctic and the Antarctic. Asserting that "icebreakers are a national capacity" required for a range of maritime missions to support U.S. security, economic, and commercial needs, the Task Force recommends that the United States fund and build additional icebreakers. The report also finds that the United States needs greater investment in Alaskan infrastructure, including deepwater ports, roads, and reliable telecommunications, to support economic development and a sustained security presence in the region. Currently, "almost no marine infrastructure is in place within the U.S. maritime Arctic."
Topic:
Climate Change, International Trade and Finance, Infrastructure, Hegemony, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Asia, North America, Arctic, and United States of America

22. Preserving and Strengthening the U.S.-Mexico Relationship

Author:
Dan Restrepo, Michael Werz, and Joel Martinez
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The United States and Mexico share far more than a 1,989-mile border.1 The two countries share a deep, complex history. This history is marked by ups and downs; by war and cooperation; by competition and collaboration; by the movement—northbound and southbound—of millions of people across a shared border in search of a better future; by a trickle of trade and today’s flow of more than $1.5 billion of goods and services crossing the border every day.* As the new U.S. administration transitions from rhetoric to reality and from campaigning to governing, it will inherit a U.S.-Mexico relationship in perhaps the best shape it has ever been. But it will also inherit a relationship threatened by President Donald Trump’s repeated vilification of Mexico and Mexicans. If that vilification becomes official U.S. policy, it will harm the United States—at home, throughout the Americas, and around the globe—because of the profound transformations that have unfolded over the past 30 years in Mexico and in the bilateral relationship itself.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Trade and Finance, Regional Cooperation, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
North America, Mexico, and United States of America

23. Common Ground for the United States, Japan, and China in Southeast Asia

Author:
Brian Harding
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Over the past decade, Southeast Asia’s economic and geopolitical profile in the world has risen dramatically. Its $2.5 trillion economy is a rare bright spot for global growth.1 Plus, the increasingly integrated Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, is a rare example of a regional political structure writing its own destiny—in this case, the agenda for the emerging regional security architecture of the Asia-Pacific.2 The region has also emerged, however, as a nexus for a range of transnational threats, ranging from trafficking in illicit goods to extreme weather events that are a result of climate change.3 Yet the region’s vital sea lanes have only grown more important, with more than half of the world’s merchant tonnage and one-third of global maritime traffic transiting the region every day on their journey from the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean to the economic powerhouses of Northeast Asia.4 The world has taken note of the opportunities presented by increased involvement in Southeast Asian affairs, as well as the challenges the region faces. Governments and multinational companies across the world are ramping up engagement with the region bilaterally with individual countries and multilaterally with ASEAN. Southeast Asian countries wholeheartedly welcome this global interest for both economic and strategic reasons. Economically, despite the region’s promise, all but Singapore and Brunei are developing countries in desperate need of foreign investment to continue their upward trajectories. Most critically, the region faces a multitrillion-dollar infrastructure gap that constrains economic growth and perpetuates inequality.5 With indigenous capital and even the commitments of international development banks unable to meet demand on this scale, investment by major powers is essential for the region to achieve its potential. Strategically, Southeast Asian countries welcome engagement by a wide range of outside powers to ensure that the region’s partnerships are highly diversified. As a grouping of small countries with modest military and economic power, robust partnerships with a range of actors ensure that no single outside power can dominate regional affairs. In essence, the region prefers a balance of power—or in Indonesian parlance, dynamic equilibrium. While welcoming and encouraging international involvement in regional affairs, Southeast Asian nations also naturally seek to do so on their own terms. For countries making national decisions regarding foreign investment or security cooperation with an outside power, these smaller countries can often find themselves in a position of weakness relative to the outside power. However, collectively, ASEAN provides a platform that allows each country to punch above its weight, providing a venue to make certain issues ASEAN issues rather than national issues for the purpose of creating greater leverage with outside powers. Quite remarkably, despite its flaws, the bloc has managed to maintain its position in the region as the driver of Asia-Pacific regionalism, while outside powers routinely reiterate the importance of “ASEAN centrality.”6 This report outlines findings from a recent trilateral dialogue, organized by the Center for American Progress, of Southeast Asia experts from the United States, Japan, and China. It describes the current state of U.S., Japanese, and Chinese engagement in Southeast Asia and presents four areas for potential U.S.-Japan-China collaboration with Southeast Asian partners on shared challenges.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Partnerships, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, North America, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

24. Boosting U.S.-Mexico Clean Energy Cooperation

Author:
Joel Martinez
Publication Date:
10-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Expanding cooperation and interconnectivity across the U.S.-Mexico border to increase renewable energy trade can help address pressing issues in the binational economic relationship.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Energy Policy, International Trade and Finance, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
North America, Mexico, and United States of America

25. Working With a Rising India

Author:
Charles R. Kayne, Joseph S. Nye Jr., and Alyssa Ayres
Publication Date:
11-2015
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
“A rising India offers one of the most substantial opportunities to advance American national interests over the next two decades,” asserts a new Independent Task Force report sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Working With a Rising India: A Joint Venture for the New Century. Over the past ten years, India, the world's largest democracy, has lifted more than 130 million people out of poverty. The country has rebounded from a recent economic growth slump, surpassing China this year to become the world's fastest-growing major economy. “If India can maintain its current growth rate, let alone attain sustained double digits, it has the potential over the next two to three decades to follow China on the path to becoming another $10 trillion economy,” notes the Task Force. With Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's prioritization of economic growth and foreign policy revitalization, the country now has a window of opportunity to either make the necessary reforms or risk being left behind. “[India] will have to decide whether it wants to become a major part of global trade flows and deeply integrated into global supply chains. Doing so would boost India's efforts to grow its manufacturing sector and its economy; choosing not to will make that ambition harder to achieve.” Because India does not seek an alliance with the United States and closely guards its policy independence, U.S.-India relations will not resemble those Washington has with its conventional allies. For that reason, the Task Force recommends that “U.S. policymakers [should] explicitly emphasize a ‘joint-venture’ model for U.S.-India relations, focused on a slate of shared pursuits on which interests converge—and with clear mechanisms for coordinating and managing the known and expected disagreements.” The bipartisan Task Force is chaired by Charles R. Kaye, co-chief executive officer of the private equity firm Warburg Pincus and former chairman of the U.S.-India Business Council, and Joseph S. Nye Jr., distinguished service professor and former dean of the Harvard Kennedy School. Directed by CFR Senior Fellow for India, Pakistan, and South Asia Alyssa Ayres, the Task Force is composed of sixteen prominent experts from government, academic, nonprofit, and other sectors.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Bilateral Relations, Democracy, and Economic Growth
Political Geography:
India, Asia, North America, and United States of America

26. Promoting U.S. Economic Growth and Security Through Expanding World Trade: A Call for Bold American Leadership

Author:
Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development
Publication Date:
06-2003
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Conference Board
Abstract:
This report presents a leadership vision of a strong and open global trading system, and urges the United States and its trading partners to adopt vital policy reforms, including delinking agricultural subsidies from prices and production while opening agricultural markets everywhere, and eliminating all tariffs and non-tariff barriers in both manufacturing and services.
Topic:
Security, International Trade and Finance, Leadership, Economy, and Economic Growth
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America