Watch Singapore’s Ambassador to the U.S., H.E. Chan Heng Chee discuss the upcoming high level conference on Singapore-U.S. relations held at CSIS in Washington, D.C. with Southeast Asia Program Senior Fellow Murray Hiebert. To learn more about the February 8th Conference, click here.
By Rajiv Bathia This post was released in the ICRIER Wadhwani Chair India-U.S. Insight Newsletter here. Re-posted with permission.
Myanmar’s Tatmadaw (military) strategists and pundits who gave the finishing touches, some two years back to their 2003 plan to bring about controlled political change, have ample reasons to celebrate the extent of success achieved so far.
Each arm of the triangle of Myanmar’s politics comprising the Government, NLD and ethnic minorities, has registered progress as compared to the situation prevailing in January 2010. Government-NLD relations have improved considerably, with Suu Kyi and her other party candidates ready to participate in April by-elections as a prelude to entering the Parliament. Following the release in batches of a sizable number of political prisoners, new winds of freedom are blowing in the land. The Government has concluded ceasefire agreements with several insurgent groups, the Karens being the most important of them all NLD and other political forces continue to back national reconciliation, while being conscious that nothing substantial can be achieved in a hurry and the Government remains the indispensable interlocutor and planner of future moves.
Likewise, the country’s relations with the international community look more promising than ever before. An unending series of high-level visits has lent new legitimacy and prestige to President Thein Sein’s government. He now plans an early tour of ASEAN capitals. Foreign travels by Suu Kyi are also likely to begin in the coming months. Sanctions by the US and EU are under review even as the EU has already lifted visa restrictions on top leaders. Purse strings for aid flows are getting loosened. Western corporate leaders are also beginning to consider anew investment prospects. (more…)
By Andrew Shearer This post originally appeared on The Interpreter. Re-posted with permission.
Source:Jennikokodesu's flickr photostream, used under a creative commons license.
Dr. Ken Henry and his team are busy preparing the Government’s White Paper on ‘Australia in the Asian Century’, due to be released in the middle of this year.
In Australian academic, business and media circles there is breathless excitement about the rise of China (and the US decline they assume as its inevitable corollary). But one of the points I would make to the White Paper team is that it would be a major error to write out the US (as the White Paper’s title seems to imply), and that we may yet prove to be living in the Asia Pacific century, or indeed the Indo-Pacific century.
Following President Obama’s November visit and his historic address to the Australian parliament, a number of influential academic, business and political figures expressed concern about moves (supported by both the major parties) to strengthen further the Australia-US alliance.
In essence, their concern was that stationing a relatively small number of US Marines in Australia’s north for half the year might feed the concerns of our largest trading partner that we are part of a US-led strategy to ‘contain’ it.
To the extent that anyone thinks current US policy really resembles Cold War containment, this reflects woeful ignorance of US strategy during the Cold War and now. But their argument also rests on an assumption that America has had its day and that China’s burgeoning gross domestic product will translate directly into predominant power which Australia has to start heeding, now. (more…)
By Tim Johnson
A rice farmer in Asuka, Japan. High import tariffs on agricultural products are one of several challenges to Japan's TPP entry. Source: filmmaker in japan's flickr photostream, used under a creative commons license.
At the APEC summit in Honolulu last November, Japanese Prime Minister Noda announced that “Japan will enter into consultations toward participating in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations.”
While “consultations toward participating” is hardly the firmest of commitments, the statement was hailed as “bold and historic” by U.S. officials and “remarkable, courageous and far reaching” by a former WTO chief. Trade watchers are generous with praise because Japan’s inclusion would elevate the TPP from a modest trade agreement among the U.S. and an assortment of small and mid-sized countries to an ambitious regional deal that includes two of the world’s three largest economies. Japan is America’s 4th largest trading partner and its GDP is more than two times that of the other eight TPP partners combined. While most recent trade agreements in Asia have been limited in scope, the TPP is expected to address so-called “21st Century” issues, such as regulatory convergence, supply chains and state owned enterprises. TPP partner countries hope that such a high-standard multilateral agreement can evolve into an APEC-wide Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) and further trade liberalization worldwide. Japan’s inclusion on these terms would advance this vision significantly.
The next step toward Japan’s entry into TPP negotiations consists of the ongoing bilateral consultations with each of the TPP partners. Their bilateral consultations with the United States will carry the most weight and may pose the greatest challenges. As the debate on the inclusion of Japan in the TPP gets underway, some key issues are taking shape: (more…)
By James Wallar
Market in Shanghai. Would EAS serve as a broader platform for U.S. trade focus than TPP? Source: d'n'c's flickr photostream, used under a creative commons license.
CSIS took another great initiative in launching the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) series on January 6. It is important that this series not fall prey to a Washington-centric focus. The first session, which began with a keynote address by Michael Froman, deputy national security advisor for international economics, ran the risk of doing so, but this was avoided by the brilliant presentations by Matthew Goodman, senior economics advisor at the State Department, and Susan Schwab, former U.S. Trade Representative, who lifted the veil on the broader Asian context.
Few would dispute that the U.S. government needs to be engaged in Asia, where more than half the world’s growth is generated and where U.S. political security interests loom large. The U.S. government’s Asia “pivot” is a welcomed and necessary redirection of the U.S. administration’s energies. The question is whether the TPP is a sufficiently robust platform for the United State’s Asian engagement.
“Where are the markets?” was Schwab’s rhetorical question. Countries participating in the TPP negotiations account for a small share of U.S. trade. China, India, Korea, Japan, and Indonesia, where the real markets are, are not yet part of the TPP. The speakers at the CSIS conference did not give comfort that any of them would be welcomed to join soon. We were informed that the TPP negotiations will continue apace. Which countries will want to join an agreement that they have not been involved in shaping to reflect their economic interests? (more…)
Bonnie Glaser, a Senior Fellow with the CSIS Freeman Chair in China Studies, sat down with our Japan Chair Michael Green to discuss the implications of President Ma Ying-jeou’s victory during Taiwan’s January 14 elections. Bonnie describes how Ma’s re-election will affect future cross-strait relations, Beijing’s perspective on the result, domestic political developments in Taiwan, and what a second Ma administration entails for U.S. policy.
By Amer Latif & Nicholas Lombardo
Bagan sunrise in Myanmar. Sustained political reform in Myanmar represents an opportunity for U.S.-India strategic engagement. Source: druidabruxux's flickr photostream, used under a creative commons license.
With the recent decision by the United States to restore full diplomatic relations with Myanmar, prompted by the country’s nascent political reforms and release of political prisoners, 2012 is set to be a pivotal year for Myanmar’s relations with its neighbors and with the West. In recent months, Myanmar has hosted Thailand’s prime minister, foreign ministers from Indonesia and Japan, and historic visits by U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton and British foreign secretary William Hague. Naypyidaw, sent a parliamentary delegation to Delhi in mid-December to study the rules and practices of the Indian parliament, signaling its interest in alternate democratic processes, and India’s army chief, General V.K. Singh, visited Myanmar for bilateral consultations this past week. The gradual changes in Myanmar also provide an opportunity for closer policy collaboration between United States and India in the year ahead.
Until recently, Washington and Delhi have historically taken divergent approaches to relations with Naypyidaw (the capital was Yangon until 2005). While the United States has aimed to isolate Myanmar politically and economically with sanctions directed at the military junta’s human rights abuses and suppression of democracy, India shifted away from a similar stance during the 1990s after becoming wary of losing influence with Myanmar vis-à-vis China. Delhi and Naypyidaw have cooperated since then on areas of mutual strategic interest including infrastructure development, counterterrorism, military-to-military relations, and science and technology training.
Yet, as Indian ambassador Rajiv Bhatia points out in a recent ICRIER publication, the United States has criticized India in the past for its approach to relations with Myanmar’s government. During President Obama’s state visit to India in November 2010, Bhatia notes, the president called out India in a speech to parliament for often avoiding issues of democracy and human rights violations “in international fora.” He urged India to accept expanded international responsibilities commensurate with its role as an emerging power, including the condemnation of violations in Myanmar. (more…)
By Bonnie Glaser [Editor's Note: This post originally appeared on China-U.S. Focus Peace & Security blog here]
North Korea from space at night. Geopolitical uncertainty is high for the DPRK's neighbors, China and South Korea. Source: DoD DMSP Satellite image in the public domain.
Kim Jong-il’s sudden death has introduced a new element of uncertainty into the security dynamics in Northeast Asia. In recent years, quiet discussions have undoubtedly taken place in all of the region’s capitals, as well as in Washington DC, about the challenges that Kim’s passing might pose. Nevertheless, no country is well prepared for the power transition in North Korea. Moreover, suspicions among neighboring countries run deep and all are monitoring each other as closely as they are monitoring developments inside the hermit kingdom.
There are several possible scenarios for North Korea’s future. A smooth succession that brings to power Kim Jong-il’s anointed successor, his youngest son Kim Jong-un, cannot be ruled out. Reportedly not yet thirty years of age and with a weak power base, Jong-un is unlikely to be able to take over the reins of power immediately, however. Experts speculate that a cabal of elders led by Jang Song-taek, Jong-un’s uncle and vice-chairman of the National Defense Commission, perhaps joined by Kim Jong-il’s sister, Kim Kyong-hui, will wield real power while preparing young Kim to eventually assume the helm. The process could yield an outcome largely the same as the North Korea that exists today—a closed, militarized state with starving people and nuclear weapons that periodically takes belligerent actions against South Korea—or produce a younger, bolder leadership that opts to implement economic reform and become more integrated into the rest of the world.
If the leadership succession fails, internal rivalry could lead to major instability that sends refugees fleeing across North Korea’s borders and creates doubts about effective control of nuclear weapons facilities. Stabilizing the country and eliminating the threat of insecure weapons of mass destruction could require external intervention and assistance. (more…)
By Ernie Bower
U.S. Navy lookout watches the horizon in Asia. U.S. engagement will face stiff tests yet has significant opportunities in 2012. Source: U.S. Pacific Fleet's flickr photostream, used under a creative commons license.
The biggest challenge for the United States in Southeast Asia in 2012 will be to focus and follow through. The biggest opportunity is supporting real political reform in Myanmar and thereby strengthening ASEAN.
In 2011, President Obama and his foreign policy and national security teams made a compelling case that the United States was pivoting toward Asia. He said the Asia Pacific region will be the center point for new economic growth and security concerns in the first part of the 21st century. Asian allies and strategic partners were encouraged by those words, backed up by actions including American leadership in trade with the Transpacific Partnership negotiations and the US attending the East Asia Summit for the first time, announcing new basing agreements in Australia and following through with strong and consistent focus on resolving South China Sea disputes.
While 2011 was an impressive year for advancing U.S. goals and engagement in Asia, partners in the region are anxious about whether the United States can sustain the new level of commitment it has staked out. Most Asian countries have sought a more robust US presence in the region to help convince a rising China to engage in regional frameworks that will result in the collective development of rules around trade and security. They want a China that asks the question what it “should” do instead of what it “can” do. (more…)
In the short video below CSIS Korea Chair Victor Cha explains why Kim Jong Il’s sudden death is highly problematic for the regime in North Korea, and how the United States, China, and South Korea may respond. Talking with Murray Hiebert in this CSIS Small Screen Session, Dr. Cha highlights the lack North Korean planning for such an abrupt transition of power, discusses the make-up of Kim Jong Eun’s advisory circle and considers what the moment could mean in terms of unification of the Korean peninsula in the future.