Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Russia Author Gilbert Rozman

1. Trilateralism in the Wake of the 2022 Jolt Toward Bipolarity in the Indo-Pacific and World

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
Gil Rozman argues that trilateralism reached unprecedented levels in the first two decades of the 21st century. Russia, Japan, and South Korea each sought different triangular frameworks to position themselves at the pivot of great power relations in Northeast Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region. However, Rozman contends that by 2024 trilateralism had shifted to reinforce bipolarity amidst great power competition. After describing three types of triangular frameworks, Rozman examines the transformation of trilateralism in the Indo-Pacific region from 2022 to 2024 (particularly in Northeast Asia), analyzes the challenges military security, economic security, and national identity gaps pose to trilateralism, and evaluates the potential impact of leadership on triangular relationships. The shift from what Rozman calls triangular pivots to alliance triangles in international relations is primarily driven by security concerns yet also by economic vulnerability and national identity gaps. For Korea, the US-Japan-ROK alliance triangle, which was solidified at the Camp David Summit, is at the center of triangular solidarity. Given the polarized international and regional environment, Rozman argues it is unlikely that leadership could reverse the current trend of alliance triangle consolidation in the near future.
Topic:
Security, Alliance, Strategic Competition, Regional Politics, and Trilateralism
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, South Korea, and Indo-Pacific

2. The Russo-U.S. National Identity Gap and the Indo-Pacific in 2021

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
The start of the Biden administration demonstrated how far Russo-U.S. relations had sunk. On the heels of the massive cyber-hacking of U.S. government files, attributed to Russia, hearings for Biden’s appointees showcased harsh accusations. These were compounded by the arrest of Aleksey Navalny on his return to Moscow from convalescence in Germany after a near fatal poisoning in Russia, arousing severe rebukes in the U.S. Meanwhile, Russian officials and news sources attacked Biden personally as senile or a figurehead, a flawed U.S. system of democracy as a farce and dysfunctional, and U.S. plotting through Navalny as aimed at taking down Putin. Mutual accusations intensified in mid-March 2021 when Biden responded to a query whether he considered Putin a killer by saying, “I do,” which reverberated in sharp retorts by Putin and from many in Russia. In late April, as Russia massed troops on Ukraine’s border, Biden placed new sanctions on Russia, and Russian language grew even more threatening, relations had sunk even further. If there was no direct focus on the Indo-Pacific in such vitriolic exchanges, that can be seen elsewhere, especially in a further tilt toward China in a reputed “strategic triangle.” The Indo-Pacific is where relations between Moscow and Washington have the most potential, spared of the quandaries of NATO expansion and Soviet nostalgia over a sphere of influence or Middle East intrigues leading to shifting alliances. Many in Washington thought that a win-win scenario could be achieved if Moscow accepted integration into a dynamic region, a balance of power welcoming Beijing’s rise but preventing it from domination, the denuclearization and stabilization of Pyongyang, and breakthroughs in bilateral relations with Tokyo and Seoul. All of these objectives appeared consistent with Russian aspirations in the early 1990s, but they were thwarted by the national identity that was being reconstructed in the following quarter century, especially under Vladimir Putin from the mid-2000s. Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific proved to be a casualty of Russian thinking toward the United States, most of all, but also toward China, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, and India. The Russo-U.S. identity gap has widened further in 2021. As Dmitry Medvedev wrote on January 16, the relations of Moscow and Beijing with the new U.S. administration are likely to remain extremely cold after years in which the trajectory of relations between Washington and Moscow had already been heading steadfastly downhill. Russo-U.S. bilateral relations and conflicting agendas in Europe and the Middle East draw avid interest, but the Indo-Pacific appears to be an inconsequential factor in their sharp rivalry. Nor do their differences in this region appear to have much significance for the development of the area, where China casts a broad shadow and U.S. alliances and partnerships are being renewed. To argue to the contrary leads one down several possible pathways: 1) this is the one promising arena for rebuilding relations; 2) Russia has a special role to play, distinct from China’s, due to its ties to India, North Korea, or ASEAN; 3) continued strengthening of Sino-Russian ties adds an element of concern for U.S. policies in the Indo-Pacific; or 4) Russia’s animus toward the U.S. may find an unexpected outlet in this region. Whichever pathway is explored, it is important to grasp how Russians perceive this region and its various sub-regions, while keeping in mind the context of the broader clash of national identities severely affecting the Russo-U.S. relationship. In this chapter, I offer an overview of the Russo-U.S. identity gap, turn to Russian thinking about the Biden administration, review Russian national identity, focus on aspects of Sino-Russian ties and their identity gap, subsequently shift to how Russians have viewed other parts of Asia of late, and conclude with an assessment of the prospects for Russo-U.S. relations in the region.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Culture, Domestic Politics, and Identity
Political Geography:
Russia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

3. Why Did the Hanoi Summit Fail and What Comes Next? Coverage in Four Countries

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
The summit on February 27-28 in Hanoi between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un ended on a sour note, casting doubt on the one-year old diplomatic process that had produced an upbeat summit between the two in Singapore the previous June. Much speculation followed on what had gone wrong, who was to blame, and how diplomacy could be put back on track. Given the importance of the four countries caught between the U.S. and North Korea in setting the course for addressing the North Korean challenge, their media and journal coverage of the state of diplomacy after the Hanoi summit merits close attention, which is provided below. The following chapters examine how the South Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and Russian media and journal articles have covered the Hanoi summit and its immediate aftermath. They tell us about the hopes and concerns of four countries and point to differences in thinking about the nature of the diplomacy between the U.S. and North Korea and the expectations for what will follow. Coverage ranges from anticipation of the summit in the first two months of 2019 to immediate reporting on what transpired on February 27-28 to interpretations over the next month or longer of the impact of the summit for U.S. and North Korean policy and for the geopolitics of Northeast Asia and, specifically, the foreign policies of each of the four countries. Each chapter pays special heed to the apprehensions related to the talks or how they could leave one’s country in dire straits, and to the range of responses to what is transpiring. Close attention is given to what one’s own country should do either if progress is made in diplomacy or if a breakdown occurs. Also of interest is whether coordination with other states is sought.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Geopolitics, Media, and News Analysis
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

4. Chinese Sharp Power and U.S. Values Diplomacy: How Do They Intersect?

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
An intensifying backlash against Xi Jinping’s makeover of China and Donald Trump’s makeover of the United States has muddied thinking about the national identity struggle recently building between the world’s top two powers. What was heralded as the “China Dream,” benefitting from earlier touting of “harmonious” themes, became tarnished as the “China nightmare” of stooping to any means to steal secrets and undermine other states. The long-admired “beacon on the hill” had become sullied as the valueless and selfish “America First” unable to champion democracy or even truth, which was dismissed as “fake news.” The clash in national identities between the two dominant powers on opposite sides of the Pacific is now taking an idiosyncratic form, which challenges us to separate the essence of the struggle likely to be unavoidable for decades ahead from its specific manifestations under the exceptional circumstances of today. Whereas Trump is seen as sui generis, an anomaly that is unlikely to put U.S. values diplomacy at long-run risk, Xi Jinping’s shift from soft power to sharp power appears more sustainable even if there is reason to assume that another effort will be made to raise the profile of Chinese soft power at some point. If 2017 was the year of mounting obsession with Russian sharp power, 2018 proved to be the year of increasing attention to Chinese sharp power. As the focus expanded from Russia to China, a similar set of questions was being asked: 1) how was sharp power manifested? 2) what are the comparisons between Chinese and Russian sharp power? and 3) what was the United States, cognizant of the experiences of other targets of sharp power, doing in response? The suggested answers have pointed not only to developments in Sino-U.S. relations, but also to some wider implications for the Indo-Pacific region of an ever-deepening values confrontation. As many anticipate a prolonged struggle ahead between the United States and China, steeped in different and clashing national identities, the prospects for Chinese usage of sharp power and of U.S. effectiveness in the advance of values diplomacy should be on people’s minds, but there has been a shift of attention as Trump refused to acknowledge the blatant use of Russian sharp power on the minds of many Americans, let alone to make Chinese sharp power his concern. In the absence of such concern, others have raised alarm about China’s sharp power and warned that Trump’s indifference to advancing U.S. values diplomacy is resulting in a dangerous vacuum.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Geopolitics, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

5. The China-Russia-North Korea Triangle After Kim Jong-un's Turn to Diplomacy

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
The triangle of Beijing-Moscow-Pyongyang has great significance for the geopolitics of not only Northeast Asia, but the globe. It played a critical role in the 1950 launching of the Korean War, when the Cold War took shape. It became the subject of much speculation in the 2000s, when the Six-Party Talks offered hope that the post-Cold War framework could become one of trust based on shared interests in peace and stability and joint prosperity focused on Northeast Asia. Today, it is again worthy of close attention, as diplomacy has intensified in an atmosphere of increasing polarization. Various alternatives for the future of this triangle have recently been suggested. The options offered for the emerging China-Russia-North Korea triangle include the following. One, a North Korean defection centered on a deal with the United States and an understanding with South Korea allowing for gradual inter-Korean integration with economics in the forefront. Two, a Chinese sphere of influence, which Russia is too weak to resist and North Korea prefers to the danger of regime change through Korean integration and U.S. demands for openness and human rights. Three, a balanced triangular alliance, where North Korea resumes playing off its allies in Beijing and Moscow without having to take the side of either, but this time without a serious split between the two great powers. Four, maximum autonomy of Pyongyang carving space among the five states most concerned with its destiny, leaving this triangle with no more significance than the triangle with the U.S. and South Korea. Fast-moving, diplomatic developments in 2018-2019 provide some evidence for assessing these alternative outcomes.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Economy
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Asia, and North Korea

6. The Impact of Chinese National Identity on Sino-Russian Relations

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
When we think of national identity as a factor in China’s external relations, we normally focus on Japan or, for those bolder in their thinking, the United States. Few recently have put China’s policies toward Russia in that context. After all, the Chinese and Russians are adamant that their relationship eschews ideology or any other sign of national identity in favor of pure realpolitik. This paper takes exception to that interpretation, arguing that it would be difficult to understand the Sino-Russian relationship without paying close heed to the identity factor, not just from the Russian side, but seen in China’s views of Russia. Moreover, in the mid-2010s this factor has intensified, now favoring a closer relationship.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Ideology, and Identity
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eurasia, and Asia

7. Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies 2015 - Full Publication

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
02-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
At the Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI), we take pride in being able to connect people and ideas. In a globalized, networked world, connections are made constantly. It is often the ability to sustain those contacts, then collaborate and develop products or programs that makes meetings worthwhile. For KEI, one of our goals is to be a bridge between the academic community and the policy community. We want to be as an organization where information and ideas flow back and forth between the two sides. A main way we accomplish this goal is through our Academic Symposium. This year, KEI traveled back to my home state of Illinois for our annual Academic Symposium in conjunction with the Association for Asian Studies (AAS) conference. More and more, in a globalized, interconnected world, conversations about the importance of Korea and Asia are no longer just bridged between in Washington, DC and Seoul or any other foreign capital. Now various cities, states, and even Congressional districts can no longer ignore the trends in a rising Asia. Each year at our Academic Symposium, KEI tries to focus on key developments that are important for all of us to better understand. KEI again turned to the skills and insights of Dr. Gilbert Rozman, the emeritus Musgrave Professor of Sociology at Princeton University, to serve as the Editor-in-Chief for this Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies volume and as an advisor to KEI’s efforts with the AAS conference. This collaboration has once more brought together an excellent group of scholars and practitioners for this project. Both at the conference and in this volume, these experts have intelligently addressed large, challenging themes that are pervasive throughout Asia and important for the U.S.-Korea alliance. A major issue is how countries in Asia address their relationships with China and the United States. Often, China is the main economic partner for these countries while the U.S. provides the security and stability they need to thrive in a competitive Asia region. Another challenge is with North Korea creating more instability, causing the militaries in the region to make new calculations about North Korea’s capabilities and its capacity to create tensions that could quickly escalate into dangerous conflicts. Yet, even with the troubles North Korea provides at the nation-state level, we also wanted to better understand the growing implications for policy from the lives of the individual people living and interacting on the Korean peninsula and across the DMZ. This volume also discusses Korea’s and Japan’s development assistance efforts in Southeast Asia, which still raise questions about the ability for East Asian interaction and progressing in a way that benefits the countries themselves and the whole Asia region in a positive way. The connection between the academic and policy communities through the distribution of information about key issues in Asia permeates through this volume. Whether our connection with you is new or continuing, we hope you enjoy the 26th edition of the Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies volume and the excellent work inside.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, and Politics
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, China, South Korea, North Korea, Korea, and United States of America

8. Asia at a Tipping Point: Korea, The Rise of China, and the Impact of Leadership Transitions

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
06-2012
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
For over twenty years, the Korea Economic Institute (KEI) invited leading Korea and Asia scholars and experts from around the world for its annual academic symposium. Each year, KEI partnered with a leading university in the United States and organized a three-day conference covering Korea’s economy, politics, foreign affairs, and regional affairs. The event was held at a university campus and was open to the local academic community to participate in this world-class Korea conference. Starting in 2012, KEI embarked on a new initiative to reenergize this series and partner with the Association of Asian Studies (AAS) to incorporate the symposium within the AAS annual conference. To this end, KEI organized four conference panels, advertised KEI’s outreach work to over 3,000 conference participants at AAS, and raised the profile of the institute on a global stage. As before, KEI edited, compiled and published the research papers presented by the distinguished speakers at the symposium as part of our Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies series. A new addition to our endeavor is the involvement of Dr. Gilbert Rozman, the Musgrave Professor of Sociology at Princeton University, who worked tirelessly as the Editor-in-Chief for this Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies volume and consulted with us on forming the most reputable conference panels for this new initiative. His involvement not only raised the profile of this academic symposium series, but also heightened the quality and rigor of the volume for our subscribers’ benefit. This year’s volume is particularly rich with the dramatic leadership transitions within the Asia-Pacific region, the growing uncertainty of North Korea’s future, and the growing influence of China and South Korea globally. This year’s presenters covered a breadth of issues ranging from the political and security dynamics around the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia to increasingly contentious national identity and migration issues to the future of Asia-Pacific economic integration. Scholars from the U.S., South Korea, Japan, and China all contributed to this compilation. I trust you will not be disappointed by the scholarship and insights of these chapters.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Economics, and Domestic Politics
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, Korea, and United States of America

9. When Will Russia Really Enter Northeast Asia?

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
08-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University
Abstract:
Russia needs to open the Russian Far East for regional integration and make use of its dynamism and vast natural resources. Initiatives of the past decade have demonstrated great sensitivity to the dangers of foreign presence, but little forward thinking on their positive contributions. Putin has advanced beyond Yeltsin, but there is still no vision of regionalism. A reorientation of Sino-Russian relations from strategic goals associated with multipolarity to economic cooperation in a multilateral context offers hope that a new approach is coming. Under the umbrella of globalization including closer relations with the U.S., Putin can more easily pursue regional integration as well. In 2002-03, the nuclear standoff between North Korea and the U.S. put regionalism on hold, while energy security achieved a new profile that gave Putin the opportunity to weigh offers from China, Japan, and the U.S., while asserting control over oligarch Mikhail Khodorovsky and his oil behemoth Yukos. Clearly, Putin planned to take firm charge of managing all dimensions of regionalism, but it was less clear if he would encourage market forces.
Topic:
Civil Society and Politics
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Japan, China, Asia, and North Korea