Search

You searched for: Political Geography China Remove constraint Political Geography: China
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: Mickey Kantor
  • Publication Date: 11-1997
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Council on Foreign Relations
  • Abstract: The challenges of the era of interdependence will constitute the greatest foreign policy test of the 21st century. The war over globalization and interdependence is at an end. Only the battles are yet to be fought. Those who cower behind walls of fear and fail to accept responsibility do so at their own peril, and will not turn containment into engagement, or mutual assured destruction into mutual assured prosperity. The approach of the new millennium finds us at the intersection of three epochal events: in politics, the end of the Cold War; in economics, the emergence of a global economy; and in technology, the rise of the Information Age. The intersection of economics, strategic issues, and political concerns is creating the glue which will bind together an updated U.S. foreign policy. Vast opportunities lie before us, and more than a few pitfalls. We face fewer serious military threats but an increasing number of competitors. The rise of competition, the need to create new opportunities, and the confluence of major economic and political changes create a need to intensely focus on U.S. priorities and goals. Despite this urgency, we have yet to fully articulate a foreign policy that matches the era in which we now live, especially the appropriate role of international economics. We need to direct our focus toward the lessons we have learned over the past five years. Seekers of universal truths or simple catch phrases should prepare in advance for disappointment. U.S. leadership in both the public and private sectors must accept the challenges represented by these enormous changes. Our willingness to take responsibility, clearly define our goals, and recognize our limitations but pursue U.S. leadership at every opportunity will dictate the success or failure of promoting a stronger United States and a less dangerous world. The goals and objectives are clear: U.S. leadership must pursue peace, stability, economic progress, basic human rights, and sustainable development. In order to address these goals we need to create foreign-policy tools and institutions that are pragmatic, practical, and resilient reflecting the speed with which events, opportunities, and challenges now confront us as a nation. There is no question that global economics has fundamentally changed the nature of foreign policy. Today, economics and foreign policy are no longer separable, and economic security and national security have become synonymous. We live in an interdependent, globalized world. No longer are we self-contained, nor is it in our interest to be so. We can no longer take for granted our global economic dominance and turn our back on foreign markets. It is self-defeating in the short run and impossible in the long run to ignore the problems which occur across the border or across the world, and we cannot overlook our responsibility as the world's remaining superpower. Driven by technological change, freed of Cold War conflicts and connected by economic and strategic interests, the era of interdependence demands negotiation, engagement, and leadership. Interdependence dictates that our foreign policy and economic future are increasingly connected to international trade. Interdependence dictates that terrorism, weapons proliferation, environmental concerns, the drug trade, and economic opportunity are now cross-border issues. These issues profoundly affect the everyday lives of people around the globe. Cross-border issues directly influence policies, laws, and regulations of the countries in question, raising issues such as the rule of and respect for law, regulation and deregulation, privatization, and other concerns heretofore thought to be strictly internal. This new era requires a redefinition of global leadership. Being the only remaining superpower does not simply mean that we are the strongest military power, nor does it mean only that we are the most economically competitive nation on earth. Both of those statements are true, of course. But holding the position of the world's only remaining superpower in the era of interdependence means that we have the opportunity to take advantage of the vast economic potential which is being created around the globe to the benefit of all Americans, and we have a corresponding obligation to rally other nations to pursue common long-term interests, such as strategic and political stability, economic progress, and sustainable development. There are other examples which support the notion of new multidimensional international relations. Brazil has dramatically increased its international standing and influence using its potential economic strategic position. During the Cold War and prior to the dramatic growth of economic power and industrialization, Brazil's strategic position would have been defined and dictated by its ability or inability to have an influence over strategic and political issues especially those concerning East-West relations. But today, and in the foreseeable future, not only do countries increase their influence based on economic potential and achievement, but economic considerations and relationships tend to bring entities together which in other circumstances could not or would not cooperate. The recent Middle East Economic Conferences and the participation of China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) are obvious examples.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Cold War, Diplomacy, Political Economy
  • Political Geography: United States, China, America, Taiwan, Asia, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo
  • Author: Stephen S. Cohen, Michael Borrus
  • Publication Date: 11-1997
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy
  • Abstract: At the October 29, 1997, summit meeting between President Jiang Zemin of the People's Republic of China ("China") and President Bill Clinton of the United States, President Jiang announced his government's commitment to join the Information Technology Agreement ("ITA") and thereby eliminate China's tariffs on semiconductors, computers and other information technology products. President Jiang also agreed that, in the context of the negotiations concerning China's accession to the World Trade Organization ("WTO"), China would make further substantial tariff reductions.
  • Topic: Science and Technology
  • Political Geography: United States, China, Asia
  • Author: Dieter Ernst
  • Publication Date: 01-1997
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy
  • Abstract: The "China fever" that has raged through the Japanese industry over the last few years, has drastically changed the locational patterns of Japanese investment within East Asia. The share of China in the investment of Japanese electronics firms abroad has increased by leaps and bounds: from the measly 0.6% of 1990 ( the year after the Tianmen massacre), it has now reached almost 7%, catching up fast with the 7.7% share of ASEAN.
  • Topic: Industrial Policy, International Trade and Finance
  • Political Geography: Japan, China, Israel, East Asia, Asia
  • Author: Xiangli Sun
  • Publication Date: 06-1997
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Center for International Security and Cooperation
  • Abstract: This paper focuses on the impact of a comprehensive test ban on China's nuclear program and security policy. After a general review of China's nuclear doctrine and development, the study analyzes the relationship between China's nuclear strategy and its desire for testing, and explores the reasons China decided to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. By comparing the maturity of the nuclear programs of the nuclear states and the degree of their preparations for a cessation of nuclear tests, this paper concludes that a comprehensive test ban would place greater constraints on China's nuclear program than on those of the others. Efforts such as a deeper reduction of the nuclear arsenals of the principal nuclear powers, a no-first-use commitment by all nuclear states, and the adherence to the ABM treaty by its signatories would be critical to reducing China's concerns. The progress of international arms control negotiations in the above directions would further encourage China to make even greater contributions in the field of global arms control in the post–comprehensive test ban era.
  • Topic: Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons
  • Political Geography: China, Asia
  • Author: Brian L. Job, Frank Langdon
  • Publication Date: 10-1997
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Kellogg Institute for International Studies
  • Abstract: This paper deals with the history, formation, and objectives of APEC. It describes the tensions between the Anglo-Saxon and the East Asian APEC members and the clashes of interests between the large and small and developed and less developed nations, which show how precarious the formation of APEC was. Within the short term APEC does not seem destined to become an overarching regional, political, security, and economic institution. Indeed, certain forces within the region, such as increased arms acquisitions in some states, friction arising over trade disputes, protectionism, and investment flows, and tension between China and Taiwan, could hinder the objectives of the organization. It remains possible that the very process of finding common ground through APEC may contribute more to fostering community and to ensuring security in the region than the proposals actually agreed upon by all member nations.
  • Topic: Economics, International Organization
  • Political Geography: China, Europe
  • Author: Rick Hermann
  • Publication Date: 02-1997
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: The Mershon Center
  • Abstract: My first cut at the hierarchy of driving forces ranks Israeli-Palestinian bilateral factors as the most important and regional and global factors as secondary. Competition between global powers (USA, Russia, China) is currently not intense. None of them see the bilateral Israeli-Palestinian conflict as instrumentally critical to their broader strategic competition with each other. None see their security as centrally tied to this conflict, and, consequently, while interested not even the United States will commit enough resources at this point to overturn the forces driving the bilateral bargain. Competition among regional states is substantial, but the conflicts that do not involve Israel do not involve states powerful enough to project their competition into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For example, Iranian v. Turkish, or Iranian v. Saudi Arabian, or Syrian v. Iraq, or India v. Pakistan might tangentially connect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, mostly in the realm of rhetoric and symbol manipulation. None of these states, however, are strong enough to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an instrumental regional manifestation of their broader strategic conflict. The primary determinants of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation process in the short-term are the conflicting ambitions and calculations made by Israelis and Palestinians. Forces at the global and regional level will affect these bargaining calculations, (affecting both relative coercive leverage and positive reassurance) but they will not impose additional sources of conflict. My examination of global and regional forces, will follow my construction of the primary bilateral dynamic. I do not think global and regional factors will upset the short-term prediction I will make for the bilateral Palestinian-Israeli relationship. They may play a big role in shaping longer-term predictions.
  • Political Geography: Russia, China, Iraq, Middle East, Israel, Syria
  • Author: K.C. Fung, Lawrence Lau
  • Publication Date: 04-1996
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Asia-Pacific Research Center
  • Abstract: There are huge discrepancies between the official Chinese and U.S. estimates of the bilateral trade balance. The discrepancies are caused by different treatments accorded to re-exports through Hong Kong, re-export markups, and trade in services. Deficit-shifting between China, on the one hand, and Hong Kong and Taiwan, on the other, due to direct investment in China from Taiwan and Hong Kong, is partly responsible for the growth in the China United States bilateral trade deficit.
  • Topic: International Political Economy, International Trade and Finance
  • Political Geography: United States, China, Taiwan, Asia, Hong Kong
  • Author: Donald Emmerson, Henry Rowen, Michel Oksenberg, Daniel Okimoto, James Raphael, Thomas Rohlen, Michael H. Armacost
  • Publication Date: 01-1996
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Asia-Pacific Research Center
  • Abstract: Since the end of the Cold War, the power and prestige of the United States in East Asia have suffered a worrisome degree of erosion. The erosion is, in part, the by-product of long-run secular trends, such as structural shifts in the balance of power caused by the pacesetting growth of East Asian economies. But the decline has been aggravated by shortcomings in U.S. policy toward East Asia, particularly the lack of a coherent strategy and a clear-cut set of policy priorities for the post-Cold War environment. If these shortcomings are not corrected, the United States runs the risk of being marginalized in East Asia--precisely at a time when our stakes in the region are as essential as those in any area of the world. What is needed, above all, is a sound, consistent, and publicly articulated strategy, one which holds forth the prospect of serving as the basis for a sustainable, nonpartisan domestic consensus. The elements of an emerging national consensus can be identified as follows:
  • Topic: International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Economics
  • Political Geography: United States, China, Israel, East Asia, Asia
  • Author: Michael May, Michael Stankiewicz, Edward Fei, Celeste Johnson, Tatsujiro Suzuki
  • Publication Date: 08-1996
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California
  • Abstract: Since 1993, the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC), a state-wide policy research institute of the University of California, has coordinated a series of high-level, track two consultations among security experts and officials from China, Japan, North and South Korea, Russia, and the United States. Known as the Northeast Asia Cooperation Dialogue (NEACD), this forum has sought to reduce mistrust within the North Pacific region, and to avert conflicts among the major powers in Asia through ongoing, multilateral dialogues about current security issues. The informality of the process allows the participants to air their concerns and brainstorm about new approaches to building cooperation and reducing the risk of conflict in Northeast Asia.
  • Topic: Conflict Prevention, International Cooperation, United Nations
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, China, Asia, Korea, Northeast Asia
  • Author: Ralph A. Cossa
  • Publication Date: 08-1996
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Institute for National Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: The political, economic, and security environment of the Asia-Pacific region in the 21st century will be shaped in very large part by the interrelationships among the United States, Japan, China, and Russia. To the extent these four nations can cooperate, a generally benign environment can develop in which the challenges sure to develop in the region can be managed. Conversely, tensions and conflict among the four will have a profoundly destabilizing impact regionally, if not globally.
  • Topic: Security, Defense Policy, International Law
  • Political Geography: Russia, Japan, China, Asia, Northeast Asia