The Obama administration’s policy of “re-balance” toward Asia, that began as early as 2009, is now increasingly under stress, as those in the region question American staying power and China emerges as a challenger to U.S. dominance. As the territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas in recent months have demonstrated, China’s relations with the region and the United States have become visibly strained, bringing the U.S. re-balance policy into question and raising concerns about security tensions and the danger of conflict. 

U.S.-China relations are heading, for the foreseeable future, into “a very scratchy time,” predicted Kenneth Lieberthal, a respected senior China scholar at The Brookings Institution, in his keynote speech delivered at the annual Oksenberg Lecture on June 3 at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center.

Lieberthal told a standing room audience in Encina Hall that while the U.S. attempt to temper its relations with China and others has “worked quite well over time,” now, “at a geostrategic level, we seem to be sliding with increasing speed toward an inflection point in U.S.-China relations.”

Lieberthal was joined by a panel of China experts, including Cui Liru of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), and Stanford’s Karl Eikenberry and Thomas Fingar, distinguished fellows at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and Jean C. Oi, director of the Stanford China Program.

The discussion was part of the Oksenberg Lecture, an annual dialogue that functions as a policy workshop on U.S.-Asia relations, named in honor of late professor and senior fellow Michel Oksenberg (1938–2001). Oksenberg was a noted China specialist, who served as a senior member of the National Security Council and is credited as the architect of the normalization of relations with China under the Carter administration in the late 1970s.

Points of tension in the U.S.-China relationship have been increasingly visible. Senior American officials have assailed China for its aggressive actions toward its neighbors over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands and in South China Sea, including its latest altercations with Vietnam and the Philippines. The United States recently indicted five members of China’s People’s Liberation Army for carrying out cyber espionage against U.S. technology companies.

Incidents like these have prompted both countries to throw harsh words at each other, leading to a situation of brinkmanship. However, Lieberthal pointed out that tense relations between the United States and China are certainly not new. Most notably, relations took a nosedive in 1989 when China cracked down on democratization protests at Tiananmen Square, in 1999 after the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Serbia, and in 2008, in response to the global financial crisis.

The U.S.-China relationship has been riddled with periods of distrust in the past. But now, “the speed and scale of China’s economic growth, especially over the last two decades, has also increased concerns, on all sides, that the evolving distribution of power may create new frictions and suspicions,” Lieberthal said.

Yet, refusing to work with each other is not an option, the senior scholar, who also served in the Clinton administration, told the audience. Without the United States and China in conversation, progress in multilateral areas such as climate change and trade would falter, he argued. Given the two countries’ position as the world’s largest economies, the international system would effectively be constrained if the two were entrenched in long-term bitterness.

Lieberthal recognized the common admonition, “if we treat China as an enemy, it will surely become one,” saying this warning could be applied to both sides. China and the United States must make greater efforts to manage and mitigate tensions.

“The question is whether we can prevent bad things, not only specific conflicts, but the political tensions and politics that make cooperation on major issues very, very difficult at best.”

He then outlined a few steps that could help China and the United States sort out their disputes. His recommendations began with the need for strong determination on the part of top political leaders to move things forward and the importance of clear, consistent use of vocabulary when discussing issues.

As a final point, but one that was offered as a contingent factor to success, Lieberthal said U.S.-China relations and both countries’ roles in greater Asia will depend on “how effective each of us is in dealing with domestic reforms,” because, “that will determine how dynamic, how vibrant, how innovative, and how secure we feel.”

______________________________________________________ 

During the lecture, Ret. Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry shared his observations from the Shangri-La Dialogue, an inter-governmental security forum held from May 30 – June 1 in Singapore. The Dialogue has in recent years become a gathering of premiere defense ministers to discuss security issues in Track I and “quasi-track” meetings.

Afterward, Eikenberry talked with Shorenstein APARC about key highlights and implications that emerged from the Dialogue:

Shangri-La Dialogue

Photo credit: Flickr/The International Institute for Strategic Studies 

Media reported a tense environment overlaid the Dialogue. What was the general atmosphere there?

The remarks at the Shangri-La Dialogue by Japanese Prime Minister Abe and U.S. Defense Secretary Hagel on the one hand, and Chinese General Wang Guanzhong, made clear very different views on the causes for tension surrounding various maritime sovereignty claims in the East and South China Seas. Still, if you read the full text of all three speeches and the Q&As that followed, there is still great emphasis placed on dialogue and common interests. And in the many meetings that took place between national delegations on the margins of the conference events, the emphasis was on cooperation. 

What revelations at the Dialogue were surprising?

I think the degree to which dissatisfaction with China’s assertive behavior in pursuing its maritime claims was expressed by many of the participants – not just the United States and Japan. Vietnam, the Philippines and India were explicit. Analysts have said the only China (through threatening behavior) could contain China by catalyzing a counterbalancing response. From the results of the Dialogue, I think this is correct.   

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe emphasized values and international law throughout his keynote speech. What is your take on this?

The Prime Minister did emphasize both democracy and rule of law during his prepared remarks and answers to questions from conference participants. He was drawing an obvious distinction between Japan’s and China’s political systems and commitment to approaches to resolving territorial disputes. I think the Prime Minister is trying to establish Japan as a leader in East and Southeast Asia, and wanted to make clear what he views as important differences between the Japanese and Chinese “models.” 

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel referenced China’s suspension of the U.S.-China Cyber Working Group. What direction do you think the cybersecurity dialogue will go now?

It was unfortunate that China suspended its participation in the U.S.-China Cyber Working Group after the U.S. Government’s indictment of five People’s Liberation Army officers for alleged cyber theft. The U.S. Government has been providing the PRC Government with evidence of cyber theft being conducted by entities in China and has failed to receive any meaningful response so the indictments seem warranted. It would seem that the Cyber Working Group is precisely the forum to discuss this matter and the many related to managing the cyber domain with agreed rules and procedures. Working Groups provide a forum to address disagreement and disputes. I think China’s response was counterproductive and hope the government will indicate a willingness to resume the dialogues in the near future.

Where do you see the regional security conversation heading next?

The risk is that security dialogues will be divided into two camps – one led by the United States and its close allies and partners, and the other by China – somewhat isolated at this time but seeking to entice Asian nations to bandwagon to its side. Perhaps further regional economic integration can facilitate a more common approach to security, but this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue is perhaps a warning that trends, for now, are not heading in a positive direction.

In a rare and exclusive interview in the Tehran Times, CISAC and FSI Senior Fellow Siegfried Hecker tells Iranian journalist Kourosh Ziabari that the only way forward for the country’s nuclear program is transparency and international cooperation.

The interview comes during an unprecedented period of rapprochement between Washington and Tehran. Several days after his inauguration last August, President Hassan Rouhani called for the resumption of negotiations with the so-called P5+1, a group of six world powers using diplomatic efforts to monitor Iran’s energy program.

In September, President Barack Obama called Rouhani, marking the highest-level contact between the United States and Iran since 1979 hostage crisis.

The P5+1 and Iran are drafting a comprehensive nuclear agreement to ensure that Tehran is not building a nuclear bomb, but trying to expand its nuclear energy program. The International Atomic Energy Agency has given Iran until Aug. 25 to provide more details about the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program.

In the interview, Ziabari did not pull any punches with Hecker.

“You’ve argued that Iran doesn’t possess sufficient uranium reserves like Japan, and its uranium enrichment program is not cost-effective,” Ziabari asks. “However, you know that Iran’s nuclear program was first launched in 1950s as part of the U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program. At that time, the United States thought that it’s beneficial to help Iran with its nuclear energy program, because Iran was an ally, but now, Iran is a foe, and does not need nuclear power anymore. Is it really like that?”

You can read Hecker's response and the entire the Q&A in its entirely on Ziabari’s website.

In Feburary, the Iranian government republished an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists by Hecker and Abbas Milani, director of Iranian Studies at Stanford University. The story ran in Farsi on at least one official website. That could reflect, the scholars say, a genuine internal debate in Tehran regarding the future of its nuclear program.

Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center faculty and scholars have published a variety of publications in early 2014, covering topics from the Japanese fiscal condition to disability policy in North Korea. 

Publications are often products of long-standing research projects led by Center affiliates. New Challenges for Maturing Democracies in Korea and Taiwan, coedited by Shorenstein APARC Director Gi-Wook Shin and Center on Democracy, Development and Rule of Law Director Larry Diamond, emerged from the Stanford Korea Democracy Project, which seeks to understand social movements in South Korea.

Postdoctoral fellows who reside at Shorenstein APARC for a year of vigorous study and engagement in Center activities also support research publications. Former visiting scholar Dominik Müller, now at Goethe-University Frankfurt, published Islam, Politics and Youth in Malaysia: The Pop-Islamist Reinvention of PAS. Müller examined the religious bureaucracy of Malaysia at Shorenstein APARC in 2013.

Shorenstein APARC manages an active publishing program with Stanford University Press and the Brookings Institution Press. Center affiliates also publish extensively in external peer-reviewed academic journals and books, as well as in a working paper series led by the Asia Health Policy Program.

Publications released in recent months include: 

Comparative Institutional Analysis: Theory, Corporations and East Asia. Selected Papers of Masahiko Aoki, Masahiko Aoki, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014

The volume is a collection of 22 articles that span the course of Aoki’s 45-year academic career. The essays cover a wide range of topics from the comparative perspective including corporate governance, institutional change and mechanism design in Japan, China and South Korea. The articles suggest policy responses for industry and governments.

Confronting Memories of World War II: European and Asian Legacies, Eds. Daniel Chirot, Gi-Wook Shin, Daniel C. Sneider, University of Washington Press, 2014

Comparing the European and Asian legacies, the book provides insight into the influence that World War II continues to have on contemporary politics and attitudes. The collection gathers a variety of perspectives that compare how Europe and Asia handle memories and reflections of guilt, and how wartime experiences are reinterpreted and used for domestic and international purposes.

“Defying Gravity: How Long Will Japanese Government Bond Prices Remain High?” Takeo Hoshi, Takatoshi Ito, Economic Policy, January 2014

The article examines the fiscal regime of Japan and considers if the country can withstand its high debt to GDP ratio. The paper shows that Japan’s fiscal situation is unsustainable through various simulations, and suggests that sufficiently large tax increases and/or expenditure cuts would put government debt on a sustainable path.

“Facts, Minds, and Formats: Scholarship and Political Change in Indonesia,” Donald K. Emmerson, Cornell University Press, March 2014

Indonesia has changed dramatically in recent decades, and a wealth of literature highlights divergent interpretations and perspectives surrounding those dynamics. The article considers the demise of liberal democracy, the rise of President Sukarno in 1959, and the latter’s replacement by General Suharto in 1965. The essay is part of the larger volume, Producing Indonesia: The State of the Field of Indonesian Studies.

“The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster and the DPJ: Leadership, Structures, and Information Challenges During the Crisis,” Kenji E. Kushida, Japanese Political Economy, Spring 2014

The Fukushima nuclear disaster was a critical event that shook Japan’s political economy, society and national psyche, as well as the world’s perspectives on nuclear energy policy. The article examines how the nuclear disaster unfolded and analyzes the response undertaken by the Democratic Party of Japan under Prime Minister Naoto Kan. Kushida is the Takahashi Research Associate at Shorenstein APARC.

“Japan-Korea Relations: Time for U.S. Intervention?” Daniel C. Sneider, National Bureau of Asian Research, January 2014

The paper describes current relations between South Korea and Japan, recognizing that their relationship has noticeably deteriorated in recent months. While the United States has attempted to promote dialogue, its hesitant intervention is unlikely to change the overall dynamic of the Japan-Korea relationship. Sneider suggests that a more active U.S. mediation role could encourage reconciliation and normalization of relations.

“People with Disabilities in a Changing North Korea,” Katharina Zellweger, Shorenstein APARC, 2014 

The working paper details the environment that people with disabilities face in the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea. Despite its reputation as a repressive, closed society where human rights are routinely abused, there are in fact a number of institutions that work to address the needs of the disabled. Zellweger writes from a perspective of a senior aid worker with over thirty years of experience in Asia; she was the Pantech Fellow at Shorenstein APARC from 2011­–13.

To view the full listing of publications, as well as reviews and purchasing information, please consult the Publications page on Shorenstein APARC's website.

In a recent panel discussion, Shorenstein APARC’s Masahiko Aoki considered the challenges that Japan faces as it prepares for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, and the prospects of the Games being used as an impetus for broader, national change.

“The 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Japan’s Future,” the opening session of the 2014 Yomiuri International Forum “Resurface! Japan” was held April 19 at the Marunouchi Building in Marunouchi, Tokyo.

Cohosted by the Yomiuri International Economic Society and The Yomiuri Shimbun, the forum featured an examination of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics, and a discussion on how the Tokyo Games should be carried out, as well as focusing on issues and prospects for using the Olympics as an opportunity for “Japan’s resurgence.”

The forum was moderated by Satoru Watanabe, senior research fellow at the Yomiuri Research Institute.

Priority issues

Watanabe: What advice do you have based on your experiences at the London Olympics?

Jonathan Stephens: Six years can seem a long time, but it is important to be starting now to plan for those benefits to come...It is important to be looking not just to success in 2020 itself but beyond 2020 to the benefits that you want to realize. And I hope that all parts of the country and all parts involved in organizing the Games come together to agree a clear set of priorities for the benefits to be realized for the future so that all can work together to realize those benefits.

Watanabe: The Olympics can also be considered a cultural festival.

Seiichi Kondo: Japan is a compartmentalized society, so just because there are good museums and concert halls, one plus one doesn’t necessarily equal two. How much can these restrictions be done away within six years? I have high hopes for Gov. Masuzoe.

Yoichi Masuzoe: One way to enjoy [the Olympics] would be to watch sports during the day and spend the evening appreciating art. But public museums close at 5 p.m. I’d like to do something about this, even if just during the Olympics.

Watanabe: How should Tokyo change?

Masahiko Aoki: Tokyo needs to face the fact that an earthquake could occur directly underneath the city. The Great East Japan Earthquake and Great Hanshin Earthquake made clear the importance of countermeasures. It is the host city’s responsibility to ensure safety through “flawless disaster preparations.”

Watanabe: How should the costs for the new national stadium be dealt with?

Masuzoe: In principle, it is the responsibility of the national government. But if a park is to be built around it for the benefit of the residents of Tokyo, that’s something for the taxpayers to consider. The issue shouldn’t be decided through top-level, behind-the-scenes negotiations.

Watanabe: What are your thoughts about the philosophy and legacy of the Olympics?

Masuzoe: It is a festival that crosses barriers of skin color, religion, nationality and language. The Olympics are the best opportunity to recognize the diversity of humankind. 

Seiko Hashimoto: Through the Olympics, we can go back to basic questions like, “Why do people play sports?” and, “What do people live for?” Also, in Japan, some things that need to be changed haven’t, and others that shouldn’t be changed have. It’s a chance to take a fresh look at Japan.

Watanabe: Do you have any advice for Tokyo?

Stephens: Now is the time to be thinking about and planning the legacy and the benefits. And I think our other experience is that that planning needs to involve a wide array of organizations and groups across the country. Only a small group of governments and authorities can build the national stadiums and the transport infrastructure that has been spoken about, but to build more people participating in sport, to rebuild communities, to encourage more volunteers—that requires an effort across many local organizations and local community groups and local sports bodies. So it is very important in our experience, to begin to engage those bodies now, both in Tokyo and outside Tokyo, across the country, to encourage them to think about the benefits and how they can realize and use the Games to encourage more participation.

Solidarity

Watanabe: How can the Olympics be used as an opportunity for strengthening athletes? 

Hashimoto: One of the training themes the Japanese Olympic Committee employs is that [athletes’] competitiveness cannot increase without enhancing their strengths as human beings. Although Japanese have inferior physiques, we tend to have the qualities of not giving up, a willingness to strive for the sake of others, and solidarity. To burnish these, [athletes] are trained to acquire virtues such as how to treat objects with care. Athletes who have visited the disaster areas experienced a change in attitude. Records are, of course, important, but so is nurturing memorable athletes who have wonderful humanity.

Stephens: I would just add one thing, that in 2020 Japan will have one big advantage. It will have a home crowd. And in London in 2012, the athletes said that performing in front of their home crowd helped them perform even better. Mo Farah, who was the Olympic gold medalist for both the 5,000 meters and the 10,000 meters, said that it gave him extra yards as he turned the final bend. And that home crowd was based on sort of the enthusiasm, knowledge, participation of the British crowd in sport. And so, ensuring that Japan makes the most of that home advantage and that the home crowd gets behind its athletes, I’m sure, will help them perform to their very best.

Watanabe: How should the Paralympics be coordinated with the Olympics?

Hashimoto: This fiscal year, the jurisdiction for the Paralympic Games was transferred from the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry to the Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Ministry. A sports ministry is expected to be created in or after next April. There are also opportunities in business, medical care and other areas related to athletics for disabled people. The activities of Paralympians could be very beneficial in designing a new Japan.

Kondo: One of the strengths of culture and art is “social inclusion,” or their ability to include people from all different standpoints. This is realized at the Paralympics, so they have great significance in that they can change people’s consciousness. 

Aoki: Elderly people have returned to the heart of Tokyo. This is the result of progress made by the metropolitan government in elderly-friendly frameworks in recreation and transportation. Creating a barrier-free city is very important not just for impaired people, but also when thinking about how to build a city that is comfortable to live in.

Stephens: [The Olympics were] an opportunity for London as a city to review how, in terms of public transport and public accessibility, it treated disabled people, but it also, most of all, transformed attitudes. I don’t know if anyone has watched Paralympic wheelchair rugby, but you cannot watch wheelchair rugby and come away thinking that disabled people are weak or need protecting. They bring their wheelchairs together with great crashes; the wheelchairs sometimes break; and the Paralympic athletes just continue going. And I think that portrayed to people that disabled people could be strong, competitive and deserved a full part in society. And that was one of the most lasting benefits from the Games.

Collaboration with disaster-hit areas

Watanabe: It is also important to think about collaborations with the areas affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake.

Kondo: Almost all of the competitions will be held in Tokyo, but cultural events can take place nationwide. We could invite artists from around the world to the Tohoku region, so they can be inspired by living in mountain villages or other experiences. They can learn from Tohoku’s wonderful spirituality. 

Aoki: Internationally, it’s vital that the decommissioning of the reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant is carried out in all seriousness. Instead of just thinking about what to do about compensation for the disaster, we should consider whether a framework that has something to say to the world can be linked to the decommissioning effort. It’s also important to learn from Fukushima when thinking about how to prepare for a possible earthquake directly under the capital. 

Hashimoto: There has been some discussion about wanting to hold some competitions in Tohoku, but that might be difficult in the present situation. However, serving Tohoku cuisine in the athletes village is one way to convey the message of “Cool Japan.” I also hope all the children in Tohoku can participate in the torch relay. As an event that would give children hopes and dreams, and bring the country together, I hope it can be realized. 

Watanabe: How can the Olympics contribute to international relations?

Kondo: I’d like to make them a place where Japanese athletes and athletes from countries that have delicate relations with Japan can share some enjoyment. Although leaders may have their hands tied in politics, I think it’s possible to create a groundswell of grassroots sentiment.

Stephens: The Olympics can be a positive opportunity to bring together people from across the world to participate in a celebration of peaceful competition. And that sets a great example, I think, to the world. Nations want to come together; they want to participate in the Olympics and the Paralympics. The Olympics can’t solve every problem; it’s important to be realistic, but they can be a great symbol of what’s to be gained by competing peacefully with one another.

The English article was originally carried by The Japan News (The Yomiuri Shimbun) on May 10, reposted with permission.