Search

Begin New Search Political Geography China

2391. China’s New Afghan Diplomacy: Awakening from Inertia or Exception to Old Habits?

Author:
Abdur Rehman Shah
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
For decades, China has pursued a policy of hands-off diplomacy towards regional and international affairs, while narrowly focusing on internal development. Beijing’s recent approach to the Afghanistan conflict, however, has been a major shift. Getting Pakistan’s full support to help end the Afghan insurgency is a possibility given that the U.S. and Afghan governments have utterly failed to bring it to a close. China’s change may signal a shift in China’s “non-interference” approach. However, despite its early activism in the form of outreach to major actors—hosting the Taliban for talks, participation in Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG) and now Russia-led talks—China’s Afghan diplomacy has not produced any desirable results to alter Pakistan’s approach towards the Afghan insurgency. One explanation for this lackluster approach is that Pakistan has successfully stemmed the flow of cross-border militants toward China. Furthermore, post-2014 uncertainty in Afghanistan rather than strategic alterations prompted the shift of China’s Afghanistan policy.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and International Affairs
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, and Asia

2392. Hamstringing a Hegemon: Examining the Effectiveness of Lawfare in the South China Sea Disputes

Author:
Rodelio Cruz Manacsa
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
The South China Sea is the locus of a tense political struggle for territorial control between an increasingly aggressive regional power and a host of small states and their own respective sets of allies. In such a scenario, we can expect that China, the hegemonic state, will attempt to steer the discussions towards bilateral negotiations since its power projection and military capabilities tend to carry greater leverage against weaker states when talks are conducted on a one-on-one basis. In an international system characterized by the absence of a global government, power bends the arc of contention towards the hegemon. On the other hand, small states in the region like the Philippines, Vietnam, and Brunei have a plethora of strategies and tactics for dealing with regional powers.[1] Their menu of options ranges from direct military balancing on one end and appeasing and bandwagoning on the other.[2], [3] This analysis will focus on the strategy that was chosen by the Philippines against China, which will be characterized as “lawfare.” The paper will proceed as follows: First, it will seek to define the concept of “lawfare” as a strategy and then map out the conditions under which it can succeed and fail. Second, it will apply the framework that was developed in the initial section to the conflict between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea. Finally, the consequences of lawfare use will be assessed, with the end goal of understanding how the Philippines’ victory in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) inexplicably led to reticence and bandwagoning, a case of historic success morphing into strategic retreat...
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Territorial Disputes, Law, Negotiation, and Oceans and Seas
Political Geography:
China, Vietnam, Philippines, South China, and Brunei

2393. Ministers For Foreign Affairs 1960-1972

Author:
Melissa Conley Tyler, John Robbins, and Adrian March
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Australian Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
he Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA) is pleased to present the second book in the Australian Ministers for Foreign Affairs series. In February 2013 the AIIA held a one-day forum to examine the achievements of Australia’s foreign ministers between 1960 and 1972. This forum and publication followed on from R.G Casey: Minister for External Affairs 1951-1960, and examined the next decade in Australian foreign policy. This newest volume brings together Australia’s most eminent academics and experts in international relations, former senior diplomats and government officials to explore the major issues that confronted the seven foreign ministers during the period of 1960-1972. The book has been edited by Melissa Conley Tyler, John Robbins and Adrian March.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cold War, Regional Cooperation, United Nations, International Affairs, and Vietnam
Political Geography:
United States, China, Indonesia, Asia, and Australia

2394. Two reform proposals for membership in the UN human rights council

Author:
Gabriel C. Salvia and Matthias Peschke
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for the Opening and Development of Latin America (CADAL)
Abstract:
The biggest problem the UN is facing when defending Human Rights is that only a minority of its 193 members have a well-institutionalized democracy. Furthermore, unlike many authoritarian regimes and countries with poor democratic systems, which constitute the majority in the General Assembly, they do not coordinate their policy on human rights with each other. What stood out after analyzing the membership of the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) between 2007 and 2017 was that three countries with a poor record on human rights, namely Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China, in fact, served for the longest time possible. Without question, it is rather unlikely that these dictatorships will contribute to the mission of the UNHRC, which consists of promoting human rights in all member states. However, what is even more concerning is that most countries, which Freedom House considers “Not Free” or “Partly Free”, have stagnated in terms of political and civil liberties while serving as members on the Council. This reaffirms the need to introduce reforms that would tackle its membership problem and render it more efficient.
Topic:
Human Rights and United Nations
Political Geography:
China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia

2395. Things Fall Apart: Populism and Foreign Policy

Author:
Frank Lavin
Publication Date:
10-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
Abstract:
Donald Trump confounds political observers. For many, he is defined by his missteps and flamboyance. His foreign policy statements contain sufficient imprecision—if not outright contradictions—to allow observers to conclude a lack of care in dealing with the issues. Is China’s presence in the South China Sea acceptable or not? Is NATO useful or not? Should the United States use force in Syria for humanitarian or geo-political goals? This ambiguity gives rise to further questions regarding his foreign policy architecture: what are the guiding principles?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Politics, Geopolitics, and Populism
Political Geography:
China, Asia, Syria, North America, South China, and United States of America

2396. Weighing the Consequences of China’s Control over the South China Sea

Author:
Charles Perry and Bobby Andersen
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA)
Abstract:
This monograph, completed and published after the September 2017 death of principal investigator Charles Perry, details the findings of an 18-month project to research, analyze, and examine in depth the various consequences for the United States – and, to a somewhat lesser extent, for its regional allies and partner states – of varying degrees of Chinese control over the South China Sea.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, National Security, Military Affairs, and Navy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, South China, and United States of America

2397. The Trump Factor in Asia and the Into-Pacific

Author:
Juan Manuel López-Nadal
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Fundación Alternativas
Abstract:
The elected President Donald Trump and his new administration at the White House sewed confusion and alarm in Asian and India-Pacific by broadcasting ambiguous and disconcerting signs about the American new policy towards the region. The later steps taken recently point to a certain return to the traditional parameters of Washington's Asian policy: the alliance with Japan and South Korea, and a firm attitude to China in commitment to dialogue, at the same time confirmation of Asia's strategic importance for the American fundamental interests. Since the campaign trail, Trump had already hinted at abandoning the pivot policy on military, commercial and diplomatic terms. Just three days hereinafter his assumption of power, the ambitious and highly contentious Trans-Pacific Partnership was ditched, which spread great dismay among the Trans-Pacific partner countries. To add, the One-China policy, respected by all the Republicans and Democrats since the historical Shanghai Communiqué in 1972, was threatened due to Trump's phone call to the Taiwanese President, Tsai Ing-wen, during his first days in office. Would Trump presidency actually redraw the geopolitical landscape in Asia?
Topic:
Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

2398. The Tactical Utility and Strategic Effects of the Emerging Asian Phased Adaptive Approach Missile Defense System

Author:
Jaganath Sankaran
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
Abstract:
The United States and Japan are jointly developing and deploying an integrated advanced regional missile defense system meant to counter threats from North Korea. North Korea possesses a large and diversified arsenal of short- and medium-range missiles that could strike Japanese cities and military bases in the event of a crisis and cause measurable damage. The missile defense system currently in place provides strong kinematic defensive coverage over Japanese territory. However, in general, the offense enjoys a strong cost advantage. It is impractical to deploy as many defensive interceptors as there are offensive missiles, which, in turn, limits the efficiency of missile defenses. It should be understood that regional missile defenses in the Asia-Pacific are neither capable nor expected to provide 100% defense. Rather, their goal is to provide sufficient capability to bolster deterrence and, should deterrence fail, to provide enough defense in the initial stages of a crisis to protect vital military assets. Additionally, U.S. and Japanese forces apparently also need to develop a better command and control architecture to operate the Asia-Pacific regional missile defense system. Finally, while the system is meant to defend only against regional threats, China has argued that the system might in the future be able to intercept Chinese ICBMs, thereby diluting its strategic deterrent against the United States. Maintaining effective defenses against North Korea while reassuring China will be one of the major challenges the U.S. and Japan face in their missile defense endeavor.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

2399. Seeing Missile Defense as U.S. Hostility, North Korea Aims at More and Better Weapons

Author:
Naoko Aoki
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
Abstract:
North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs have spurred Japan and South Korea to develop their own ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems and to regenerate their interest in regional missile defense cooperation with the United States. Has North Korea reacted to such developments, and if so, how? This paper looks at North Korea’s missile capacity development as well as its official proclamations and concludes that while Pyongyang likely does not believe that it is the region’s sole target for U.S. and allied BMD, it feels deeply threatened by its deployment. Existing and potential BMD systems have not discouraged Pyongyang from building its own missiles. Rather, North Korea is accelerating its efforts to improve and expand its missile arsenal to develop a survivable force, likely perceiving BMD systems as part of an overall U.S. strategy that is hostile to Pyongyang.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Regional Cooperation, and Nonproliferation
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

2400. Ballistic Missile Defense in South Korea: Separate Systems Against a Common Threat

Author:
Joshua Pollack
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
Abstract:
Some of the most enduring disagreements in the alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea (ROK) concern ballistic missile defenses (BMD). At the same time that South Korea has expanded its conventional offensive missile program, it has declined American proposals for a regionally integrated BMD architecture, insisting on developing its own national system in parallel to the defenses operated by U.S. Forces Korea (USFK). American appeals for interoperability between U.S. and ROK systems have been received cautiously, as were proposals to enhance its own BMD in Korea by introducing the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) to the Peninsula for several years. A desire for expanded autonomy in national security appears to underpin Seoul’s attitudes on BMD. Rather than rely passively on American protection against North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats, South Korea’s military leaders have focused on developing precision-strike capabilities to intimidate Pyongyang, and resisted simply accepting an American BMD umbrella. Even more than they desire greater independence from their American patron-ally, South Koreans are suspicious of entanglements with Japan, their former colonial master, whose own defensive systems are already integrated with the American regional BMD architecture. This outlook encourages the pursuit of independent defense capabilities and discourages institutionalizing trilateral security arrangements.
Topic:
Security, Nuclear Weapons, Regional Cooperation, Nonproliferation, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea