An air of uncertainty remains prevalent in the Indo-Pacific region. The South China Sea continues to be in contention, with six governments exerting claims on overlapping areas. The threat of a full-blown trade war between China and the United States puts the stability of the regional (and global) economy in question. Meanwhile, the Korean peninsula appears to swing between the brink of conflict to the possibility of dramatic diplomatic breakthroughs. It was in the midst of this precarious period for the region that the third annual gathering of the U.S.-Japan Security and Defense Dialogue Series took place in Tokyo from January 30 to February 1.

The 2019 meeting was co-sponsored by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation and APARC’s U.S.-Asia Security Initiative (USASI). For the past three years, the series has convened senior Japanese and American policymakers, military leaders, scholars, and regional experts to discuss Japan's security strategy and the alliance between Japan and the United States. Support for the workshop came from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Since its inception in 2016, the dialogue series has provided a venue for in-depth discourse on contemporary Asia-Pacific security issues, and has helped build bridges between American and Asian academics, government and military officials, and other defense and security policy specialists. “We have continued to expand the range of attendees from the Japanese and U.S. government and military,” said USASI Director Karl Eikenberry. “This has ensured for our dialogue even greater policy relevance with each iteration.”

“The U.S.-Japan security dialogue is unique because it combines civilians and military officers, both retired and serving, which simply does not take place elsewhere,” observed Stanford Lecturer in International Policy Daniel Sneider, a regular participant. “It also avoids the sometimes-empty rhetoric about our alliance in favor of an operational, but strategically informed, approach that gets at not only what is being accomplished, but where the gaps exist in our alliance.”

Threats, Challenges, and the Appropriate Responses

L to R: Amb. Karl Eikenberry and Lt. General Noboru Yamaguchi (Workshop Co-Chairs)

The 2019 dialogue opened with a day of discussions on many of the challenges facing the U.S.-Japan security alliance, including an assessment of the latest security trends in the Indo-Pacific, as well as Japan’s new National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG). Passed by the Japanese Cabinet only a month earlier, the NDPG was the focus of two sessions on day one, including a discussion of its implications for Indo-Pacific security, as well as a session on the guideline’s ramifications for concepts of Integrated Air and Missile Defense and Archipelagic Defense

“Unsurprisingly, the global rise of China—along with the U.S. and Japan’s separate and combined responses to PRC strategy in the Indo-Pacific Region—helped shape both our agenda and the selection of participants,” observed Eikenberry. “We were specifically interested in the implications for the maritime domain and certain operational aspects of the U.S.-Japan security alliance.”

The day one closing ceremony featured remarks from the U.S. Ambassador to Japan, the Honorable William Hagerty.

Developing Policy Recommendations, Meeting with Policymakers

L to R: Major Rodger Welding and Colonel Daniel Munter (United States Pacific Air Forces), and Lt. Colonel Yuka Nakazato, (Japan Air Self-Defense Force)

Days two and three were designed for small group sessions. Referred to as “Core Group”, its U.S. and Japanese members met the morning of January 31 to review the preceding day’s workshop and develop corresponding policy recommendations. The quality and depth of the conversations underscored just how great an impact the expanded range of participants had on the resulting policy.

“Participants weren't afraid to address sensitive, big-picture questions,” said Phillip Lipscy, a Center Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford, “like the slow growth of Japanese military spending in the face of increasing regional threats and the challenges posed by unpredictable US administration policies.”

“Even as an expert of Japanese politics, I found the dialogue extremely informative and stimulating,” shared Lipscy.

Sneider agreed as well. “One thing that stood out this year, in contrast to the previous years, was a greater willingness on the part of our Japanese colleagues to air their sense of unease about and even opposition to the direction of American foreign and security policy under the Trump administration,” he said. “In the past, the American participants were much more open about their criticism of their own government, the Japanese tended to be polite—not so much this year, which made for a lively exchange on many issues.”

In the afternoon, core U.S. participants again met with the US Ambassador, along with his embassy team, as well as with senior Cabinet Office officials from the government of Japan.

Field Testing Ideas

During the second annual gathering in 2018, the dialogue began including a visit by the core workshop participants to a combined U.S. military—Japanese Self Defense facility. As part of the 2019 dialogue, the Core Group spent their third and final day visiting Yokota Air Base, the headquarters of both United States Forces Japan and Japan Air Self Defense Force Air Defense Command.

“ “These visits allow us to better understand Alliance operational challenges in the field,” noted Eikenberry. “Just as importantly, it affords us an immediate opportunity to test out some of the very ideas discussed during the preceding days.”

Yokota Air Base, Japan

Chatham House Rules applied to the dialogue, but a workshop report is forthcoming.

View the reports from the first and second annual workshops.

The U.S.-Asia Security Initiative is part of Stanford University’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC). Led by former U.S. Ambassador and Lieutenant General (Retired) Karl Eikenberry, USASI seeks to further research, education, and policy relevant dialogues at Stanford University on contemporary Asia-Pacific security issues.

(L to R: Karl Eikenberry, Michael McFaul, Major Marcus Morgan (U.S. Army LNO to Japan Ground Self Defense Force Northern Army and Stanford University Center for East Asian Studies MA ’18), Phillip Lipscy, Daniel Sneider)

In the nearly seven years since assuming the role of General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, Xi Jinping has had far-ranging impact on the country’s policies at home and abroad. From his anti-corruption campaign and tightening restrictions on civil society to championing the Belt and Road initiative and abolishing China’s presidential term limits, Xi is transforming the Chinese state and its place on the global stage.

Among the cutting-edge topics that China scholars are beginning to explore is Xi’s impact on Chinese politics and its concomitant influence on what and how scholars study Chinese politics. Last December, the China Program at Shorenstein APARC hosted a conference that drew preeminent scholars of Chinese politics and comparative politics primarily from across the United States and Canada, where they gathered to assess the state of the discipline, and where the field might go next.

Too Big for One Room

The conference traces its origins to a prior gathering at the American Political Science Association (APSA). The number of attendees at that meeting outpaced any room upgrade APSA could provide. “We were impressed by the number of people studying Chinese politics,” said the China Program Director Jean Oi . “It was apparent to many of us who attended that meeting that it was time we convened a separate event with leaders in the field.”

The need to bring together the multiple generations of scholars of Chinese politics was also clear. “Younger scholars today are so much more well-equipped with various sophisticated methodologies such as machine learning and web scraping,” noted Oi. “We decided it would be useful to gather those doing various types of research, quantitative and qualitative, to think about what we don’t know about Chinese politics but would like to know; and how possibly we might go about doing that research. Our goal for this conference was to try to identify collectively some of those questions for the study of Chinese politics and how our research might contribute to the broader field of comparative politics.” The first gathering of Chinese politics scholars took place at Harvard in December 2017.

‘Burning Questions’ Light Up Second Gathering

That first conference at Harvard reinforced the utility of inter-dialog and helped organizers secure a grant from APSA, which along with support from from FSI and Shorenstein APARC facilitated the second gathering, this time at Stanford. To ensure that the sessions allowed for maximum participant engagement, attendees were assigned into seven working groups. In the months preceding the conference, each group prepared a memo identifying the key questions in the field of Chinese politics, the ways to addressing these questions, and the synergies between Chinese politics and comparative politics .

“The State of the Field in Chinese Politics” conference opened with presentations by the seven small group leaders to a plenary session, followed by discussion of the various burning questions identified by the participants. Unsurprisingly, one prominent item across many of the memos was the oversized impact of Xi on China. Other areas of interest included “elite politics,” the relationship between newfound billionaires and the party, the renewed role of state-owned enterprises in the economy, and the current status of relationships between the private sector, the Party, and the state

Several groups also expressed their desire to learn more about the internal workings of the Party, specifically the adaptation of political institutions over time. While observers often point out that China’s political institutions have changed little compared to its economic institutions, scholars have also found that, in fact, the changes within China’s governmental organizations have been subtle yet profound. But how can we determine when an organizational structure changes the ways in which it operates, and who decides? The field of Chinese politics remains uncertain about these questions.

On the second day, conference attendees were joined by several Stanford scholars of comparative politics, including FSI Director Mike McFaul and FSI Senior Fellows Lisa Blaydes, Beatriz Magaloni and Barry Weingast, who responded to the group memos. Breakout discussions of methodology followed.

Keeping the Fire Going

The conference concluded with a plenary session that focused on the questions "Where are we now?” and “Where do we go next?" One conclusion from the closing was an acknowledgment of the need to more fully consider China in the context of its interactions with other countries in the region as well as globally. “I think that ‘China in the Global Context’ may very well be the theme of our next conference,” said Oi.

A third conference is tentatively scheduled for December 2019. The five partners behind the series—Stanford University, Harvard University, Duke University, MIT, and the University of Michigan—are currently seeking outside funding to keep this effort going. The hope is that the next meeting will be at Duke University.

Author Chen Ying writes about Professor Scott Rozelle and REAP's projects supporting youth in rural China. Read full text here.  

罗斯高，斯坦福大学教授，发展经济学家。扎根中国农村近40年，是不折不扣的中国通。近十年来，罗斯高教授和他中国的同事在贫困农村开展一系列针对农村儿童的研究，并设计干预实验寻求解决方案...

Bloomberg Businessweek writes on China's historic economic reforms and the future to come, quoting Scott Rozelle and REAP's work on education and human capacity building in rural China. Read full text here.

"...About 80 percent of students are “left-behind kids” — children whose parents left for higher-paying jobs, usually on the industrial east coast, and who are looked after by grandparents, relatives or friends.

'China has failed to invest in its single most important asset: its people,' said economist Scott Rozelle at Stanford University. 'It has one of the lowest levels of education.'..."