TRANSCRIPT:

Kahl: You're listening to World Class from the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. I'm your host, Colin Kahl.

Today, I'm thrilled to be joined by Eyck Freymann to discuss his terrific, timely, and thought-provoking new book, Defending Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War with China. This is the book, proof of life. Eyck, congratulations for making it real.

Eyck is a Hoover Fellow at Stanford University, where he directs the Allied Coordination Working Group. He's also a non-resident research fellow at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy, the Institute of Geoeconomics in Tokyo, and the China Maritime Studies Institute at the U.S. Naval War College. In his book, Defending Taiwan, Eyck outlines a strategy to integrate U.S. military strength, economic leverage, technological leadership, and diplomatic influence into a single, coherent plan to prevent war across the Taiwan Strait.

He convincingly argues that America must work with allies to develop a bold new vision of technological and economic statecraft to address the growing risk that China will act aggressively to seize Taiwan and make plans to secure U.S. interests if deterrence fails.

Eyck, welcome to World Class.

Freymann: Thanks so much for having me on, Colin.

Kahl: Let's start with the basics. What inspired you to write this book and why should the average American listening to this podcast care about the fate of Taiwan? Is it the fact that Taiwan is a democracy? Is it its geography and the so-called first island chain? Is it the possible implications on our security commitments throughout the rest of Asia? Or is it about semiconductors and AI and supply chains? Like, why should Americans care about Taiwan?

Freymann: When I got into studying China as an undergraduate, the reason was that I thought China's interests were global. In my graduate studies—the work that turned into my first book— I looked at the Belt and Road Initiative: how China used money and deals for political influence around the world. And I went on the trail of this initiative from Sri Lanka to Tanzania to Greece, and ultimately to Greenland, where I wrote my PhD.

Kahl: So, you were studying Greenland before it was cool.

Freymann: I was, in fact, studying Greenland. And it was very cool, but more in the temperature way. Greenland's a terrific place to be. And I think we discovered increasingly why it matters in the context of China's Arctic strategy. But it just gives a sense of the scope and the scale of China's ambition.

China's interests do not stop with its region. China wants a full transformation of international order to serve its interests for what the party believes will be centuries or millennia of CCP rule. And it is being methodical because it thinks it's laying the groundwork for that. Taiwan happens to occupy this very particular place in the CCP's ontology because it's the unfinished business of their civil war and because it's fundamentally bound up with relations with the United States.

So I became interested in this during my graduate studies. The origins of the project was that I asked a friend of mine—a naval historian—just an encyclopedia of all things military—to give me the book that I should read to understand this issue: what the military balance looked like and how it was changing, what a war with China would actually involve and what it would take to win, and just how dire the situation actually was.

And he said, well, no book like that exists. I can send you a thousand articles. Thus began this collaboration to figure out the military aspects of this story.

But the more that I researched it, the more I realized this is not a purely military issue. In fact, the military analysis is the easy part. China has a whole battery of options for how they could move against Taiwan. But the really significant ones involve creating crisis scenarios that break U.S. resolve and shatter our alliance structure.

And the way that China thinks it can do that is pushing on where we are weakest, which is in the economic domain, our inability to take pain.

And this gets to the heart of why Taiwan matters. Taiwan matters most obviously because they make the chips. 90% of the world's advanced chips, 99% of the true cutting-edge Nvidia chips that train the advanced AI models.

Taiwan matters geographically because if China could ever use it as a forward base for its Navy, it could project power all around the region in a way that it really can't today because of the U.S. position in these islands that we call the First Island Chain.

But then the third reason, the most globally significant, is that the way China would move against Taiwan would set norms about how they are going to seek to achieve regional hegemony and eventually global hegemony,

And the thing to understand here is this is not a continental region. The Indo-Pacific is an archipelagic region. You have economies that are basically not energy secure, not food insecure, the most trade dependent economies in the world, and they make everything. Pretty much nothing significant in the world doesn't include some thing that has to be made in this region. And that means that the sinews of commerce, which are mostly private airlines, private shipping companies, operating through international airspace and international waters, these are the lifelines of this region.

And if China can take control of that without firing a shot, that is how they will eventually achieve world domination.

So the question of how China might move against Taiwan, if they move against Taiwan in a non-military way, really matters because of the precedent it would set and what the United States would reveal in how it responds.

Kahl: I want to dig into that a lot because you have a lot to say about that. But I want to double click on one thing that you didn't mention in your litany of reasons why Americans should care about Taiwan, which is it's an island of 23 million people. And it's one of the most vibrant democracies in the world, frankly. Is that also something that Americans should care about that, China does not do to Taiwan what China did to Hong Kong, which is to snuff out a vibrant democracy and the world just kind of moves on?

Freymann: It’s absolutely a U.S. interest. The U.S. has a principled position on this. We don't take a stake in Taiwan's status, so we don't have a position on what that is. This is for Taipei and Beijing to work out by themselves. But we don't want it resolved by force or coercion, and any resolution has to be democratically acceptable to the people of Taiwan. Why? Because of the precedent that it sets for the broader region, not just for Taiwan itself.

Obviously, given what we have seen in Ukraine and elsewhere, Taiwan is a vulnerable democracy under threat from an authoritarian superpower. Allowing them to be extinguished would be a very bad precedent. But we cared about Taiwan before they were a democracy. And if something happened and Taiwan ceased to be a democracy, we would still care about Taiwan.

And at a moment where support for democracy worldwide is increasingly politicized, I'm emphasizing these three other material interests because these are things that everyone from the most progressive Democrats to the most fire-breathing MAGA Republicans can all agree on.

Kahl: That makes a lot of sense. I mean, look: you've already established that China has perennial interests in Taiwan because it's difficult for the CCP and for President Xi Jinping in particular, to imagine achieving their goals for national rejuvenation and greatness without reabsorbing Taiwan.

And you've established that there are perennial U.S. interests that are both material and values based.

I now want to talk a little bit about the infamous 2027 timeline. So my understanding of how this originated was during testimony by Phil Davidson, who was an Admiral and the Commander of Indo-Pacific Command back in 2021, who basically said that China could make a move in the next five years. And then I think Bill Burns, who was the Director of the CIA, clarified a year later that 2027 was a potential period we should be focused on for the prospect of invasion of the mainland on the island of Taiwan.

Talk a little bit about that 2027 date, because it's almost established this kind mythological status in some circles. And I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about that date. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Freymann: Completely agree. The date 2027 has been overplayed. The date that matters most is 2049. That's the hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the People's Republic of China. And Xi Jinping will be 96. So he probably thinks that he'll be around, but who knows. That is the deadline he has set for achieving national rejuvenation, which is his all around vision for putting China at the forefront of essentially every human endeavor.

The line I like to use is he wants China to win every gold medal at the Olympics and every silver and every bronze. This is not just about foreign policy. This is about technological supremacy, ethnic harmony, cultural flourishing. It's the works.

And Taiwan fits into this story because historically speaking, the division of China is a thorn in the side of the CCP. Taiwan being a free, vibrant, technologically advanced society right across the water, is living proof that the CCP is not the ‘end of history’ for the people of China, that there's an alternative version of China that is actually better in pretty much every way to live in.

So there's a whole bunch of reasons why taking Taiwan in a way that humbles the United States and pushes the United States out of the region could supercharge China's pathway towards achieving the rest of national rejuvenation.

But 2027, as Xi Jinping has described it, is just an intermediate date. For him personally, it's a significant year because there's a party Congress in 2027. He'll be up for a fourth term, which I think he's overwhelmingly likely to get. But it's a date that he's ascribed as a readiness deadline in a number of different domains, not just military.

We knew before Admiral Davidson's statements that China had set 2027 as what they call a “building goal” for the PLA. It was also a goal for various technological and economic benchmarks. And the question is, what exactly does this building goal mean? The way that I interpreted the Davidson testimony is we have some intel that suggests Xi Jinping said, this means build the capability to take and hold Taiwan.

And it was always dubious whether China would get that capability by 2027, just because so much has to go right to make an amphibious operation work. And I think now that we're coming up against that date, most of the military analysts I talked to think they're not quite ready yet. They've come a long way, but there's still some gaps in their force structure that they would really like to fill.

But I think the way to think about it is we are nearing an inflection point where Xi Jinping feels confident enough in his own armed forces that he can start taking more risk. Which means we're entering a new chapter in this competition in the gray zone. And these military capabilities matter. They shape the dynamics of crisis even if they're not actually used.

Kahl: So I think that's really important and I want to drill down on this a little bit because you know my understanding when when I worked at the Pentagon was that 2027 was basically a deadline for his generals to report back that they could do this if he ordered that they should do this. But in part he was lighting a fire under them because he didn't think they could do it, that he doesn't have a lot of faith in his military. We've seen almost an endless series of purges that speak to the fact that she does not completely trust his military [and] thinks a lot of them are corrupt.

And so again, I think the 2027 date has been a little misinterpreted. I also, though, think it was useful in our own system to light a fire under us about the urgency of this issue, even if it wasn't 2027.

Freymann: Anyone who's ever taught undergraduates knows sometimes you just need a deadline.

Kahl: Yeah, but then they always email you three minutes after the deadline to ask for an extension.

I do I want to drill down on whether events in the past couple years outside of China may be affecting Xi Jinping's thinking a little bit. So obviously, in 2022 you get the all out invasion of Ukraine by Russia. On the day of the invasion, Russia looked on paper like the second best military in the world. They certainly had a lot of combat experience in places like Georgia and Ukraine in 2014 and Syria and elsewhere.

And yet a day later, they barely looked like the second best military in Ukraine. And I think what that illustrated is real war is real hard. Meanwhile, this year you've seen the Maduro raid, you know, that's an ally of Beijing. You've seen the Iran war, which has had mixed results strategically, but it's been pretty devastating militarily to the Iranians, a close partner of China.

So when Xi Jinping looks at these wars, do you think he draws the conclusion that war is easier or harder? And does that put more time on his clock?

Freymann: This is ultimately a speculative exercise. I wish we had a Being John Malkovich view into Xi Jinping's head.

Kahl: I mean, for all you know, the NSA does, but we can't talk about that.

Freymann: Yeah, those are secret capabilities. Maybe Claude Mythos will solve that one for us.

I think lacking that, lowly, unclear Stanford scholars like me have to read the tea leaves from the open sources.

Clearly, the U.S. decision to burn 25 to 40 % of our long range precision munitions and considerably more of our air defense interceptors in Iran was not the most enlightened decision from the perspective of deterring China over Taiwan. But I think it's significant that we paused there and we didn't burn the rest.

I also think that as the character of warfare is evolving and unmanned systems—which you can make in quantity very cheaply—continue to proliferate and get more sophisticated, Taiwan's options for defending itself Improve.

And when you think about what is involved in taking tens of thousands of men across the strait . . . which, granted, is only one of several scenarios for how China can move against Taiwan. They can cyber attack Taiwan, they can bombard Taiwan, they can blockade Taiwan.

But if they actually want to take and hold the island, what does it involve? They have to put tens of thousands of men on the ground, which means they need a beachhead or an airhead. It's very hard to deliver a significant number of people by air, as we saw in Ukraine, because it's just so easy to take down planes and helicopters with cheap things like stingers.

And the alternative— amphibious ships across the strait—they got lots of them, but Taiwan basically knows what the harbors and ports are that would be attacked. And it's relatively cheap with surface drones, underwater drones, aerial drones, naval mines, to make the Taiwan Strait a sort of hellscape.

Now there's so many questions. This question of would Taiwan fight? There's also a question of how resilient Taiwan's command and control infrastructure would be if it was bombarded for days on end. But if I'm China and I'm thinking about all of the things that have to go right in sequence for an amphibious invasion to go well.

When I consider these tail risk scenarios in which my guys are stuck in urban combat in Taipei . . . you walk through the streets of Taipei, you can see this is not a nice place to engage in urban combat. And you ask, how long will I have to resupply them? How many more transits across the strait will I need to do to deliver them food and medical and vehicles and fuel?

There are scenarios in which the opening campaign seems to be going well, and then it turns because China has these troops on the beaches who then get massacred. These scenarios, you can simulate them in all these ways, but ultimately no one knows. It's just much easier and simpler and more attractive to take the prize for free if you can.

And that is why the argument of the book is we can't take our eye off these military scenarios. They matter. But Taiwan's fate is more likely to be decided by a crisis than a war. And we got to deter the crisis, not just the war, because the crisis is bad. The crisis presents us with decisions that we are not currently set up or prepared to make. And how do you deter the crisis? You need a concept for deterring Xi Jinping in the gray zone, which right now is where the real action is.

Kahl: So I want to come back to that. I do think you made a really important point. If I'm Xi Jinping, on the one hand the United States burned through years worth of production of the critical munitions necessary to fight a war with China over Taiwan: long range strike capabilities like the new Prism missile or or JASM, advanced air defense interceptors for that, Patriot, and others. Not to mention relocating assets from the Indo-Pacific and all of the rest.

So on one level, the U.S. deterrence posture is inarguably weaker  in the Indo-Pacific and across the Taiwan Strait today than it was before the war with Iran.

On the other hand, I think both the war in Ukraine and the war in Iran show that even very powerful actors can be stymied by asymmetric approaches, especially using large numbers of attritable munitions. So, think of cheap missiles, especially cheap drones.

And that's, I think, a good news story for Taiwan and for the reasons that you point out. So I do think that's relevant. And I think it goes to this point the invasion is the riskiest outcome. I've participated in war games on Taiwan in the unclassified and classified settings, and they almost all culminate with whether China gets a lodgement, right? They get to the beaches.

And I think what you just compellingly argued is that, they don't just have to get to the beach once. They have to get to the beach every day with food and fuel and men, and then they have to crawl through the jungles and the mountains and occupy cities. It's a big deal. So if Xi’s going to do this, I'm convinced it's much more likely that he's going to do it through some squeeze—a quarantine, a blockade, a customs regime.

So walk through what you see as the non-amphibious invasion. If the Chinese don't do D-Day, what do they do?

Freymann: Well, the option that has drawn most attention for decades is blockade. And the reason is we've known for 130 years that you can blockade very easily with dumb mines. You seed them in the water and then no one wants to navigate through. And we're seeing this now in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran doesn't have a navy, they don't have an Air Force, they supposedly don't have any missile launchers, they don't have leadership that's willing to show their faces, and yet, they can shut down the flow of commerce through the strait.

And the United States can offer insurance to these vessels. The American president can tweet, show some guts. But these people don't want to die. And so they can make a rational calculation that it's not worth it. At some point, maybe that will change. But clearing mines is very difficult.

So, if China just wants to do a scorched earth medieval style siege, that option is on the table. And we have to take it seriously because if Xi Jinping persuades himself that this is an ugly but assured forced checkmate, he might be tempted by other options because he thinks, well, this is a guaranteed fallback plan. So I take the scenario seriously in the book because you have to show Xi Jinping that it is not assured victory.

And breaking out that blockade would be nasty. It would almost certainly involve large-scale strategic bombing inside mainland China. It would involve the risk of nuclear escalation. The challenge of resupplying Taiwan's population would be orders of magnitude harder than resupplying Berlin during the Berlin airlift of 1948-49. But it is still something that we should work on that I am sure the Pentagon has very detailed operational plans for, because you have to show China that we could do this if we had to while deterring nuclear escalation.

Kahl: What do you make though . . . so, there's the blockade or a scorched earth. But one lesson from the Strait of Hormuz is you can create the psychological risk that ships that get too close to Taiwan could be at risk. But you would also just impose a customs regime, right? That requires every ship coming in and out of Taiwan to check in on the mainland first.

And it wouldn't be putting mines in the water. It wouldn't be putting missiles onto the island of Taiwan. It would simply be to assert China's sovereignty over the island through a kind of lawfare and coercive means. What do you think of the customs possibility?

Freymann: Well, that's exactly right. And this is the scenario that I think is the most likely and dangerous. And I hope that we can dig into it. But the reason I talk about blockade first is that a lawfare customs quarantine thing: it's a completely different beast.

The reason that a blockade is an unattractive first move is that it has a lot of the disadvantages of war for China, but none of the advantages. It's not clear that Taiwan just surrenders overnight and it puts the Americans and the allies on notice that something extreme is happening. It's a totally barbaric humanitarian disaster. It's an act of war against the civilian population of Taiwan. And it causes our gargantuan global financial crisis because all of a sudden it's not just Taiwan. No shipper is going to get covered to go anywhere near Taiwan.

So all of the supply lines in and out of South Korea, Japan, mainland China, everything gets busted. So China creates this shock. It's horrible. It's economically disruptive. And then the rest of the world lines up behind the United States and says, well, we have to make them cut it out.

The reason that the quarantine scenario is attractive for China is it doesn't do any of that stuff. It doesn't break supply chains on day one. It doesn't trigger a financial market panic necessarily on day one. China just says, “We're just enforcing our existing customs law. We're not saying you can't deliver to Taiwan. We're just saying you have to come through a mainland port.”

The goal is: establish the principle without disruption. And then if the Americans accept it, they're checkmated. Because in the long run, China then can make the character of Taiwan's exchanges with the outside world a subject of gray zone pressure, and they can squeeze that dial all the way to black. And that is how China gets Taiwan's fabs intact. That's how they seize control of the engine of the AI revolution without the Americans destroying it.

Now the Americans always have the option of escalating it up into a war or disabling the fabs: blowing them up, cyber attacking them, what have you. Like the U.S. has this capability. But the decision to do that is really significant. The decision to do that is essentially a big red button on the president's desk that says the financial crisis that ends my presidency.

And what China's banking on is that we will just choose option A and allow Taiwan to slip away while pretending that nothing meaningful has changed so that we're totally screwed in the long run because we lose AI, but we avoid this really acute short-term crisis and the politicians get to kick the can.

Kahl: I think it's a real risk and one of the things that's hardest to deal with. So let's talk the solution set, which is essentially the last 60% of your book.

Back in 2022, when I was working at the Pentagon as the undersecretary for policy, we wrote the 2022 National Defense Strategy. At the heart of that document was this idea of integrated deterrence. Integrated deterrence meant a lot of things: integrating across the domains of conflict, but also integrating across the instruments available to the U.S. government, not just military, economic, diplomatic, technological, integrating across our allies and partners since that's kind of our ace in the hole globally, and integrating across the spectrum of conflict, recognizing you are trying to deter from the gray zone to nuclear war. That's a lot.

We were criticized by hawks in Congress and elsewhere for essentially offloading the idea of deterrence—which is traditionally thought of as a military instrument and predominantly as a punishment instrument—offloading that to civilian agencies like the State Department or Treasury or Commerce or others to use other tools so that we could lower the defense budget or something by offloading it to civilians.

My view was always, it was, “Yes, and . . .” The military had to be robustly capable of deterring and prevailing if deterrence failed, but you also needed to supplement that military deterrence with economic and diplomatic measures, which I think is squarely where your book lands.

So, walk our listeners through how you think of integrated deterrence and especially how you think about integrating these non-military instruments—political, economic—into deterring the types of scenarios you've been talking about.

Freymann: Well, first of all, Colin, this is why I'm so thrilled to be on this podcast, because as I describe in the book, your concept of integrated deterrent is the inspiration for what this is trying to do. Obviously, we didn't achieve the aspiration as fully as we might have in the Biden administration. And then in the Trump administration, we are essentially gutting the interagency process. We're antagonizing our allies. We're doing the opposite of whatever integrated strategy is.

But I think what you say is absolutely right. China has an integrated strategy for Taiwan and to achieve national rejuvenation generally. They link together every tool of their national power— their control of supply chains, technology, diplomacy, information operations and propaganda, the military, everything. It's organized towards a specific set of goals. And that gives us that gives them carrots and sticks to use against other countries and us.

We need to do the same thing or we are going to be outmaneuvered because we will not be able to muster the tools of our national power to push back effectively. And by the way, because we will never be able to beat the CCP and how we organize ourselves, we need allied scale to do a lot of this stuff in response. That is very much the spirit of the book. Before we talk about the pillars, though I'm happy to get into them.

My question for you would be, what did you learn over the course of the Biden administration? Is this just a pipe dream? Is it impossible based on how the U.S. interagency is set up to do integrated deterrence? Or is this the kind of thing that we could theoretically do if we had political leadership that was determined to do it?

Kahl: First of all, whose podcast is this, man? But I would just say this. The jury is still out. I think in the lead up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there were a lot of efforts to try to convince Putin that there would not just be military costs in the sense of helping Ukraine defend itself, but there would be economic and political costs to the Russians.

Obviously, that attempt to show that there was a wide range of costs that would be significant, also thwart his ability to achieve his objectives. It didn't succeed. Putin invaded the country.

On the other hand, I think if Putin knew what was coming in retrospect and looked back and says, look, four plus years on suffered a million casualties because of all the support we provided the Ukrainians. Russia was, at least for a period of time, significantly isolated from a big chunk of the world economically and also pushed into the arms of China and in weird ways made Russia dependent on countries like North Korea and Iran. Russia was basically unplugged from the West buying a significant amount of oil and gas from them, I don't think he would have done it. So I think the jury is still out about whether it is possible.

Xi Jinping, though, has seen all of those things, right? And so  my own view on China is Xi Jinping's theory of rejuvenation requires China to be thoroughly integrated into the world. And you can hold that at risk in some ways. And I take a lot of the substance of your book as pushing in that direction as well. So why don't you let our readers pull back the curtain and let them know a little bit about how you see the pieces of deterrence fitting together.

Freymann: Great. Let me dig into it. The reason that I ask this is I want to know if it's a pipe dream to think that these things can ever be done in combination. But here's basically what I think we should do in each of the domains. In the political diplomatic domain, we need to manage China, engage Taiwan, and establish our core coalition.

What does that mean for managing China? Keep the One China policy, but communicate to China that just because we have strategic ambiguity as to what we would do if they attacked, we're not going to stand idly by as they push in the gray zone. If they push in the gray zone, we will push back proportionately, in a manner that we think is proportionate, in a domain of our choosing to maintain an overall stable situation. And if we get wind of a potential big move on Taiwan, in the same that we had advance notice of Putin moving on Ukraine, we shouldn't say that we're going to wait until they fire the first shot to reveal what our action is. We should reserve the right to act preemptively. And that's all within the format of our existing One China policy. It's just changing how we communicate it.

Kahl: I think you'd call it structured ambiguity instead of just strategic ambiguity.

Freymann: I call this structured ambiguity. It's the same substance, but it's a new way of communicating our existing policy. Just to remind China that when they push in the gray zone, they are hollowing out their commitments to us under the three communiques. And those communiques are the political foundation of our relationship. And they should understand that there's risk associated with doing that.

With engaging Taiwan, you just have to show the people of Taiwan that we understand that they're a democracy under threat and that we stand with them. And that includes respecting the right of the people of Taiwan to make their own choices, which means not picking favorites in Taiwan elections, being willing to work with whoever they work with, supporting them with technology partnerships, energy partnerships, people-to-people exchanges, just being present for Taiwan.

And then the core coalition is making a statement that we have allies that have skin in the game too. Japan, obviously. They now say publicly it's existential for them. The Australians, it's arguably existential for too. If there's any kind of crisis over Taiwan that results in financial flows or trade in and out of China being messed up, I mean, that's a financial crisis in the UK because HSBC and Standard Chartered, the two biggest UK banks essentially . . . that is their bread and butter.

Then Canada, who obviously we've been abusing lately, Canada has skin in the game as well, because we are one big economy with Canada. And if we have to decouple from China, in whole or in part, for any reason, they are going to be collateral damage or they're going to be a country that gains opportunities from working with us.

So we need to bring this coalition together, start treating these partners with the respect that they reserve, and then do what we can to communicate with a common voice what we would do. If we had in the events to do something big and economic, we would have to work with this core coalition because the Europeans, they make these decisions by consensus. So it's less predictable what they would do.

Kahl: Before you go on to the economic, though, I want to ask you to go one layer deeper on the alliances piece. Because one of the things we saw early on in Ukraine was actually it wasn't just the North Atlantic community responding to Russia. It was actually a coalition of advanced liberal democracies in Europe, in North America, and in Asia, imposing costs on the Russians.

And I think my sense is that Beijing worries very much about a similar coalition being aligned against a raid against them. But to say the least, the status of our alliances right now . . . not so hot. what do you think? And I think they're probably better in Asia than they are in Europe in terms of the health of our alliances. But how much of the need to build this political coalition has been complicated by recent tensions with our allies?

Freymann: It has not gotten easier in the last 18 months. And I think we should brace for it to get worse. But we have common interests, these five countries that I named, essentially the big Anglo countries plus Japan, we have a common interest in deterring this crisis. And then if the crisis happens, we have a common interest in dealing with it effectively, working together.

And we have other allies with skin in the game too. I don't mean to leave out South Korea, the Philippines, but these countries, for political reasons and because of their vulnerability to China's economic coercion, they are very close to the core, but they may choose, depending on the circumstances, not to be the core of the core. And that's okay.

When we're thinking about coalition building, we need to be more flexible than saying you're in the tent or you're out. We need to understand this as essentially a group of concentric circles or overlapping Venn diagrams, where different countries might collaborate on different things. And that is essentially a call to expand the viewpoint from just treaty allies to partners too. And we can get to this and talk, we talk about economic deterrence.

Kahl: Yeah, let's turn to that. So you've talked about the political piece. There's a U.S.-China piece, a U.S.-Taiwan piece, and a U.S.-allies piece. What are the other aspects of integrated deterrence in your thinking?

Freymann: Well, there's conventional military deterrence, which is the standard deterrence by denial. Show them you could defeat the invasion of the blockade. And that means replenishing our magazines of these long-range precision munitions, air defenses. Air defense is critical for Taiwan. Making sure the right stuff is forward deployed in the region, including all of the fuel and the spare parts. Because our logistics chain would struggle in any kind of protracted fight. The distances are huge. It's a tyranny of distance.

Helping to build up the supply chains for stuff like drones. Revitalizing our submarine industrial base. It sounds like a lot and is a lot, it's a few hundred billion dollars over five years. And we've already bought about half of it. So on this issue in particular, at least, the Trump administration is doing reasonably well with the big exception, obviously, of spending down all these munitions in Iran.

Kahl: But know, the value of $1.5 trillion to try to make up for lost time.

Freymann: If they get even a much smaller version of their defense budget, that takes us a lot of the way there towards getting the conventional force in a position to sustain deterrence into the 2030s.

The nuclear side is trickier because strategic deterrence is no longer just about nuclear mutually assured destruction. Our nuclear forces depend on a command, control and communication system that extends to space.

ground stations that can be cyber attacked. And that means the resilience of our space architectures, our resilience to cyber, our offensive cyber. This matters hugely for this mutually assured destruction dynamic that looms in the background of any potential crisis or fight. And AI plays a role in this. And we don't really understand how. But as we see with this new Claude Mythos model, maybe AI very quickly could totally disrupt the cyber balance in a way that could be favorable to us, but also potentially unfavorable.

And I don't come down with a clear position, but I think we need to study this. In the short term, we need to stay as far ahead in AI as we can. And then we need to be open-minded about what some kind of arms control or more stable strategic balance might look like in the future, because AI, we don't really understand yet, but it will play a role.

Kahl: You used a really important word, which you heard a lot in the Pentagon in the last administration because it was in the National Defense Strategy. You hear less about it now. And that term is resilience, which is not a terribly sexy concept, but actually quite important to deterrence as it relates to China, because their entire theory of victory over the United States is to paralyze the networks that undergird the American way of war. Undersea cables, constellations in outer space cyber networks, critical infrastructure in the homeland that supports power projection. And so a lot of, think you're right to kind of emphasize that part of strategic deterrence succeeding is convincing China that they can't paralyze either our conventional or nuclear forces.

Freymann: So what is strategic deterrence? I define it as fundamentally a threat to the survival of another state or regime. And in a world where the CCP is increasingly paranoid, AI is increasingly useful for propaganda information operations, China's population has been kept isolated, not knowing about the world.

If you can potentially bust the great firewall and deliver messages about the corruption of the party and Tiananmen Square and all this other stuff to the people of the PRC, you could potentially deliver a devastating threat to the survival of the CCP and you don't have to nuke anyone and you don't have to shut down any critical infrastructure. But if I'm the ministry of state security, I'm very concerned about that.

And all this is to say, what strategic deterrence involves is expanding across domains in ways that we are only beginning to understand, and AI is deeply tied up with it. And potentially that's useful for us, but potentially it's also destabilizing. And I'm sort of kicking the can on this because there's only so much we can say at this particular point in time. But it does matter.

Kahl: Let's talk about two of the chapters in the book really drill down on the economic statecraft associated with integrated deterrence. You want to flesh that out a bit for our listeners?

Freymann: So there's a temptation to think of economic deterrence as an extension of strategic deterrence. The U.S. and China are so economically intertwined that if we shut down that relationship, it's like an economic nuke. And that is how I think members of Congress have thought about it. There was legislation called the Stand with Taiwan Act that would have imposed these crippling across the board sanctions.

I think that that basically doesn't work. Yes, there's some really, really extreme scenarios in which we could plausibly do that. But in the crisis scenarios that I think are most plausible, I don't think that option is strategically attractive or politically available.

And what's dangerous is that we don't seem to have an affirmative economic contingency plan. If we get into a crisis and the president says, “Give me options that don't blow up the world economy,” and the president's advisors say, “I'm sorry, sir, we haven't done our homework.” That seems like a big problem because then the only option left on the table is just capitulate.

And then if China learns that it can extort us by threatening us with economic breakdown, then they can do it again. So we need an affirmative vision for a post-rupture economic order on the table, plausible, discussed, something that in a crisis situation might plausibly be of interest to both Democrats and Republicans and a bunch of other countries, and which is structured to be flexible so that the details can be worked out in the event, because obviously you can't work out the details in advance.

And the framework that I talk about is called avalanche decoupling. The basic idea of avalanche decoupling is it's just fantasy to imagine that you can decouple from China all at once like a light switch. It's just fantasy. We tried that on Liberation Day.

Kahl: Avalanche decoupling for our listeners: massive secondary sanctions, cutting off all trade, cutting off all imports of components for critical technologies, those things?.

Freymann: Exactly. And we tried a version of this on Liberation Day. The president is like, a hundred percent tariffs on China. And then the stock market crashes and then the bond market crashes. And then various captains of industry call up and say, Mr. President, you have to reverse this or we're done for. And then within a week, the president is like, lol, JK, I'm rolling it back.We're making a truce. And that reveals to everyone, including to China . . .

Kahl: Then he later threatened to do it again and China calls his bluff by putting export controls on on rare earths and he and chickened out again

Freymann: And then we see another version of this in Hormuz, where Iran takes 20% of global oil offline, and now the United States is suing for peace and essentially abandoning all of its grand designs of regime change or ending Iran's right to enrich. The U.S. is on the back foot and it's because it can't take even a small amount of economic pressure.

So if we imagine scenarios where it's not politically available to make an already bad situation vastly worse. But China has revealed that this is an abusive relationship and they're going to use our economic dependencies to squeeze and coerce us.

What do we do? Well, basically there's two things you can do. One is you can cushion the short term blow with large scale fiscal and monetary action, like we did at the beginning of COVID, coordinated with as many other countries as possible, essentially help the world economy through the crisis rather than having the world go into depression and it's our fault.

So China's doing this to the world, but we're bailing you out. And then set in motion a process that will break your critical dependencies as fast as reasonably possible, and then leave the non-critical stuff to do later, if ever. In other words, it means not maxing out on punishment of China, but focusing on our own economic interests first. And then hopefully punishing China over time as a side effect.

And the way you do this in avalanche decoupling is with a tariff or a quota that moves. Let's take the example of drones and drone parts. Right now, the United States cannot make a drone without buying parts from China. And that's crazy. It's crazy.

But what are we supposed to do? Because if we say, starting tomorrow, you can't import drone parts from China, then we can't make more drones. The only way to do it is to phase it out, to say, on X date, we will no longer buy drones from China, or there's a tariff that is going to move up in a consistent way, or a quota that will move down in a consistent way, and then by date, it will be effectively impossible to buy from China. You'll have to buy it from some safe country.

I think we can do a version of that now for like the 1% of our trade with China that is most critical, the drones, the medicines, that kind of stuff. And you can do it in a way you coordinate with allies because the French and the Japanese, they don't want to be dependent on China for this stuff either. If you can do that now, then you have a proof of concept that if a crisis happens and we need to do it for 20% of our trade with China or 50% or 70%, that that option is available and that we know how we would do it.

Kahl: My experience, and maybe this is my bias, because I've worked at the Pentagon so many times, but I also worked at a White House, and I worked around a White House that tried to integrate around interagency planning. And it remains true that even in a White House that has a lot of process and really brings the interagency together, mostly you're reacting to crises. You're not doing break glass, day one planning for these things.

The only place that does that is the Pentagon. And I think what you're seeing in a place, in a situation like Iran is that the military piece of things, like what targets to hit, how to hit them, how to generate effects, is pretty remarkable, actually, because the military is really good at planning and executing that type of stuff.

But all the other stuff fell by the wayside. The diplomatic plan, the plan to deal with the economic second and third order effects, the diplomacy in the region with our allies. It's not a critique one way or another necessarily is just of of this war—people can make up their own minds about that.

But it's just to say when we don't bring all instruments together and plan around them ahead of time, it's hard and that that's not gonna happen naturally at places like Treasury and the State Department and Commerce and Energy. That's gonna be something that requires the White House to bring people together, knock heads, and keep people in windowless rooms for as long as it takes to create the type of playbook that you were talking about.

Freymann: That's been my experience. I started briefing this stuff around the interagency and on the Hill in 2024 because the House China Select Committee had done this report and they had found the United States . . . they wrote this in the report, quote, “The United States lacks a contingency plan for the economic and financial effects of a conflict with China.”

This is December, 2023. And I read that and I was appalled. I said, “What do mean there was no plan?” Surely somewhere in Treasury, is a plan. No, there's no one office in Treasury that's responsible. Took it around the Hill, briefed it to everyone from the most progressive Dems to the MAGA Republicans. Everyone's like, yeah, of course there should be a plan.

But it's too big. It's no one's job because it's too big. And also it just gets to the difference in approach to military folks versus economic folks. Economists don't do contingency planning. It's not their thing.

So what is the purpose of what I'm doing here? It's an outsider putting something on paper. Well, I think it's helpful to start talking about these things now. We have to start having this conversation now, because in the event, we're going to find out that we don't have a plan, but maybe we'll have what the president once beautifully termed a concept of a plan. The broad outlines or the principles that would describe what it is that we're trying to achieve, what it is that we're trying to avoid, and how we aim to achieve that.

And if we put this down on paper and we start to convene conversations about it among allies, between Democrats and Republicans in an informal way, just say, imagine that our relationship with China turns openly abusive and we decide we have to start getting divorced. And yeah, divorce sucks, divorce is expensive, but divorce is also sometimes necessary and it's an opportunity. And you're imagining life on the other side.

Let's think from a blank sheet of paper. What do we want the global economy to look like as we are divorcing China? If we have the opportunity to rethink or reverse some of these mistakes that we made in the last forty years of outsourcing all these jobs, letting China steal all our IP, and we get to start again, how would we do it? That's an opportunity. And that's potentially something that politicians could sell to the American people to say, listen, we made some mistakes, now we're going to pay for those mistakes. But it's going to work out better in the end.

There's a brighter future at the end of this, where maybe we'll bring more good jobs home that we had lost. Maybe we'll become less vulnerable to coercion. Maybe we'll make a better, safer, more secure and prosperous world. And it's not an easy sell, but then the other options are not that good either. But at least it's something to start from in a crisis. So we're not starting from nothing.

Kahl: I think it's a really important point and maybe one we’ll conclude the conversation on. It’s a the very different context, but the Biden administration spent four months between when the intelligence was coming in that the Russians intended to invade Ukraine and the actual invasion and spent that four months doing an extraordinary amount of interagency work on the day one playbook for what would happen if the invasion actually happens: how the sanctions would be implemented, how we would deal with getting security assistance into Ukraine, how we would deal with the economic fallout.

And we didn't get it all right. I think we didn't do enough on things like food security that ended up being a big problem. But I know how hard it is, even when you have the intelligence that says something really bad is about to happen. The China piece is way harder, both because the problem is bigger and because we aren't going to be compelled by four months of warning, and that may not be enough.

So I think you're clarion a call in the book, which everybody should go read, for that thinking to happen as far in advance as possible and to start talking about it so that China knows that we're thinking about it and therefore hopefully is deterred by the fact that we have a plan.

All right, everybody's supposed to go read your book. But at the end of World Class, we ask all of our guests to name one article that people should go out and read if they want to understand the world.

So do you have a recommendation for our listeners?

Freymann: Yeah, there's a new piece out from Evan Medeiros, former Asia director on the National Security Council. It's called “A New Era of U.S.-China Interaction from Competing to Racing.” And I would urge everyone to read it. It's a very important piece.

Medeiros' argument is that the trade war that escalated in 2025 between the U.S. and China has created a new chapter in U.S.-China relations where essentially the two countries are are racing to de-risk from one another, to reduce their vulnerabilities in case the really acute crisis happens again. And China is thinking much more seriously, and they're working much more aggressively to break those dependencies than we are.

And we need to get serious and recognize what race we're running, otherwise we're going to get caught behind.

Kahl: Well, Eyck, I think that's a great place to end. First of all, thanks for writing such an important book on such an important topic at such an important time. I hope it does well. I hope our listeners go out and check it out. Thanks, Eyck.

Freymann: Thanks, Colin.

Kahl: You've been listening to World Class from the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. If you like what you're hearing, please leave us a review and be sure to subscribe to Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts to stay up to date on what's happening in the world and why.

Corruption is typically understood as a sign of weak institutions and failed governance. But what if it is a deliberate political technology used to consolidate power, discipline rivals, and reshape political systems?

This is the argument advanced by University of Chicago sociologist Kimberly Kay Hoang in the latest episode of the APARC Briefing series. Drawing on years of ethnographic research across Southeast Asia, including Vietnam, Myanmar, Hong Kong, and Singapore, as well as offshore tax havens, Hoang uses a comparative Asian lens to show how both democratic and authoritarian governments strategically align with private capital, reinforcing elite power. Hoang joined APARC Director Kiyoteru Tsutsui to share core insights from her work.
 

Image

Kimberly Kay Hoang speaks on the APARC Briefing series with host Kiyoteru Tsutsui.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts' analysis >

She argues that corruption discourse often operates as a political tool, widely seen across Asian political economies and increasingly evident in the United States during the Trump era. This rhetoric, she says, tends not so much to dismantle institutions but to reshape them, concentrating authority in the executive and weakening checks and balances. According to Hoang, these patterns reflect a broader global shift toward more oligarchic forms of governance, where political power is increasingly concentrated among transnational elites.

"We often think of corruption as a failure of governance – that it's a weak state, and weak states can’t govern," Hoang says. "But in Southeast Asia and in other parts of East Asia, it has become an instrument for governance. It's a way of consolidating political power, weaponizing corruption."

From Vietnam's Hostess Bars to Global Finance

Hoang's research journey began in an unexpected place: working 12-hour shifts in Vietnamese hostess bars in 2009-2010, shortly after the global financial crisis. What started as an ethnographic study of the sex industry and human trafficking in Vietnam evolved into something far larger: a story of Asian ascendancy and Western decline playing out in micro-transactions.

"I started to witness local Vietnamese men turning down deals with Western businessmen and taking extraordinary deals from investors from China, parts of Southeast Asia – Hong Kong and Singapore – and Korea, Taiwan," Hoang recalls. When she examined foreign direct investment data, "the numbers lined up to what I was seeing at a micro level."

But when she presented these findings in the United States, the response was skeptical, even hostile. "People would say, 'Okay, yes, the economy is in decline, but America still has the strongest military,' or 'China is really dependent on the American economy, so if the American economy collapses, so will China's,'" she remembers. "It was a huge oversight of American arrogance to just believe that [Asian ascendancy] was impossible."

Her continued research led her to follow not just the money but "the people who move the money" – from Vietnam and Myanmar to Hong Kong and Singapore, and ultimately to offshore tax havens in the British Virgin Islands, Panama, the Seychelles, and the Cayman Islands.

The Architecture of Global Capital

What Hoang uncovered was what she calls an "architecture of global capital" – an invisible financial infrastructure built by "hidden engineers" including specialized wealth managers, lawyers, and financial advisors who coordinate across borders to move elite wealth beyond the reach of any single nation-state.

The scale is staggering: approximately $7.6 trillion in household wealth is hidden offshore globally, with the top 0.01% avoiding about 25% of their tax obligations through legal structures and shell corporations.

"We have to move beyond national boundaries," Hoang argues, "because global oligarchs choose the sovereigns and choose the jurisdictions that govern their financial transactions and activities."

This system creates what Hoang describes in her book, Spiderweb Capitalism: How Global Elites Exploit Frontier Markets (Princeton University Press), as a web of legal and financial gray zones that allow wealth to compound while evading accountability.

Corruption as Governance Mechanism

Hoang’s work exposes the connections between the rise of global elites, corruption, and the emergence of oligarchic governance. Across both Asia and the United States, she explains, corruption discourse operates as a mechanism for reshaping democratic governance by means of dissolving the boundary between political authority and economic power.

"What does that mean? It means that we no longer rely on institutions," she says. "People who have executive authority can just go after their rivals."

This creates what Hoang calls "anticipatory compliance," a situation in which political and economic elites preemptively align themselves with power centers. The mechanism works through strategic ambiguity: when corruption charges can be selectively deployed, everyone becomes potentially vulnerable, leading to self-regulation through fear.

While this pattern is well-established in countries like China and Vietnam, Hoang sees similar dynamics emerging in the United States. "Under the Trump administration, we've seen charges of corruption being weaponized as a tool of governance," she notes, while emphasizing that elements of this already appeared under the Biden administration.

Democratic Reordering, Not Collapse

When explaining the impacts of corruption discourse on democratic governance, Hoang is careful to distinguish between democratic collapse and what she terms "democratic reordering." Rather than overtly capturing the state, global oligarchs work through existing institutions, gradually redefining their function through moralized narratives, weakened oversight, selective enforcement, and strategic risk management. The outward forms of democracy remain intact, but the independence of courts, election fairness, and accountability mechanisms are steadily eroded. "They increasingly serve concentrated elite interests."

In comparing the United States to China, Hoang notes a crucial difference: "China has a long view. They're playing a 50-year view [...] If we're in this constant [electoral] cycle, and we've delegitimized oversight and political authority, [...] we need to have stronger independent institutions that outlast whoever is in office."

Finding Hope in Resistance

Despite her sobering analysis, Hoang sees reasons for optimism. "What gives me hope is that, if you look carefully, there are a lot of resistance movements," she says. "I think there's a growing battle between the millionaires and billionaires."

She points to resistance not just from grassroots movements but from millionaires who "don't want to live in a billionaire oligarchy world, who feel economically precarious vis-à-vis the extreme inequality."

The challenge, she argues, is that both mainstream and social media highlight extremes while missing the middle-level discourse and resistance movements that are actively organizing.

Kimberly Kay Hoang is Professor of Sociology and the College, and Director of Global Studies at the University of Chicago. In addition to Spiderweb Capitalism, she is the author of Dealing in Desire: Asian Ascendancy, Western Decline, and the Hidden Currencies of Global Sex Work (University of California Press). Her forthcoming work examines U.S.-China power relations in offshore financial centers.

The full APARC Briefing conversation with Hoang is available on APARC’s YouTube channel.

Stanford e-Japan is an online course that teaches Japanese high school students about U.S. society and culture and U.S.–Japan relations. The course introduces students to both U.S. and Japanese perspectives on many historical and contemporary issues. It is offered biannually by the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE). Stanford e-Japan is currently supported by the Yanai Tadashi Foundation.

In August 2026, the top honorees of the Spring 2025 and the Fall 2025 Stanford e-Japan courses will be honored through an event at Stanford University. SPICE is most grateful to Mr. Tadashi Yanai and the Yanai Foundation for making Stanford e-Japan, including the ceremony in August 2026, possible.

The three Spring 2025 honorees—Mahono Fuji (Seinan High School), Nagi Matsuyama (Doshisha International High School), and Jinichiro Taguchi (Kaijo High School)—will be recognized for their coursework and exceptional research essays that focused respectively on “From White Flight to Gentrification: Rethinking Urban Spatial Inequality,” “Reconsidering U.S.–Japan Food Trade,” and “Trump’s Policies and the Monroe Doctrine.”

Dion Munasingha (Yaizu Chuo High School) and Natsuka Yamamoto (Keio Girls Senior High School) each received an Honorable Mention for their coursework and research papers that respectively focused on “Language Support for Children of Immigrants in Japan and the United States” and “Future of Natural Disaster Response Management in Japan and the United States.”

The three Fall 2025 honorees—Sawa Ito (Iida High School), Yurino Ohara (Okayama Prefectural Okayama Asahi High School), and Amy Yanai (The British School in Tokyo)—will be recognized for their coursework and exceptional research essays that focused respectively on “A Comparison of Mental Health in the United States and Japan: What Japan Can Learn from the United States,” “Redesigning Japan’s OTC Policy: A Digital Strategy for Fiscal Sustainability and Patient Protection,” and “Community Resilience and Soft Power: Disaster Recovery in the United States and Japan.”

Aiko Nakano (Shizuoka Futaba Senior High School) and Takaki Okada (Musashi High School) each received an Honorable Mention for their coursework and research papers that respectively focused on “A Comparison of Refugee Recognition Systems in Japan and the United States: The Role of Public Awareness” and “‘Anti-Globalism’ Sentiment in the United States: Its Causes and Effects.”

In the Spring 2025 session of Stanford e-Japan, students from the following schools completed the course: Azabu High School (Tokyo); Chiba Prefectural Higashi Katsushika High School (Chiba); Doshisha International High School (Kyoto); Ehime Prefectural Matsuyama Chuo High School (Ehime); Fuji Sacred Heart School (Shizuoka); Gunma Kokusai Academy Secondary School (Gunma); Hiroshima Prefectural Ogaki High School (Hiroshima); International Christian University High School (Tokyo); Kaijo High School (Tokyo); Kanazawa Izumigaoka High School (Ishikawa); Keio Girls Senior High School (Tokyo); Keio Shonan Fujisawa Senior High School (Tokyo); Kyoto Rakuhoku High School (Kyoto);  Meijigakuen Senior High School (Fukuoka); Meikei Gakuen High School (Ibaraki); Nagasaki Nishi High School (Nagasaki); Saitama Municipal Urawa High School (Saitama); Saku Chosei Senior High School (Nagano); Sapporo Kaisei Secondary School (Hokkaido); Seinan High School (Fukuoka); Shibuya Makuhari High School (Tokyo); Suwa Seiryo High School (Nagano); Toin Gakuen Secondary Education School (Kanagawa); Tokyo Gakugei University International Secondary School (Tokyo); Tokyo Metropolitan Kokusai High School (Tokyo); Waseda University Senior High School (Tokyo); Yaizu Chuo High School (Shizuoka); and Yatsushiro High School (Kumamoto).

In the Fall 2025 session of Stanford e-Japan, students from the following schools completed the course: AICJ High School (Hiroshima), Akita Minami Senior High School (Akita), Caritas Senior High School (Kanagawa), Higashiyama High School (Kyoto), Iida High School (Nagano), International Christian University High School (Tokyo), Kaetsu Ariake High School (Tokyo), Katayama Gakuen High School (Toyama), Keio Girls Senior High School (Tokyo), Kindai Toyooka High School (Hyogo), Koshigaya Kita High School (Saitama), Makuhari Senior High School (Chiba), Mita International School of Science (Tokyo), Musashi High School (Tokyo), Nagoya University Affiliated Upper Secondary School (Aichi), Nishiyamato Gakuen High School (Nara), Okayama Prefectural Okayama Asahi High School (Okayama), Okinawa Prefectural Kaiho Senior High School (Okinawa), Ritsumeikan Keisho High School (Hokkaido), Seigakuin High School (Tokyo), Senior High School at Otsuka, University of Tsukuba (Tokyo), Shizuoka Futaba Senior High School (Shizuoka), Shuyukan High School (Fukuoka), Suwa Seiryo High School (Nagano), The British School in Tokyo (Tokyo), Tokyo Metropolitan Hibiya High School (Tokyo), Tokyo Metropolitan Koshikawa Secondary School (Tokyo), and Tsurumaru High School (Kagoshima).

Stanford e-Japan is one of several online courses for high school students offered by SPICE, including the China Scholars Program, the Reischauer Scholars Program, the Sejong Korea Scholars Program, Stanford e-Entrepreneurship U.S., Stanford e-China, Stanford e-Entrepreneurship Japan, as well as numerous local student programs in Japan. For more information about Stanford e-Japan, please visit stanfordejapan.org.

To stay informed of news about Stanford e-Japan and SPICE’s other programs, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

Our team traveled to the Philippines in March for a week of fieldwork as part of our capstone project on carbon markets. In partnership with the Asian Development Bank, we are examining how international climate finance can be mobilized for carbon projects under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, with a focus on agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU), including rice cultivation, mangroves, and seagrasses. Over five days in Manila and Laguna, we met with government agencies, project developers, investors, startups, and multilateral partners to better understand the opportunities and constraints shaping the country’s emerging carbon market.

The field visit brought our research into direct conversation with on-the-ground realities. Across 21 interviews and three site visits, we found strong interest in the Philippines’ potential for AFOLU carbon projects, but also significant barriers to scaling them. Stakeholders pointed to the fragmented policy framework  for Article 6, unresolved land and carbon rights, limited bankable project pipelines, and continued concerns about carbon credit integrity. We also explored sector-specific challenges in rice, forestry, and biomass management, including emerging technologies such as biochar and biodigesters.

A key takeaway from the trip was that unlocking climate finance for AFOLU projects will require progress on several fronts at once: clearer institutional pathways, stronger support for project development and aggregation, and more credible long-term demand signals from buyers and investors.

To complement our on-the-ground fieldwork, one team member attended CERAWeek in Houston — one of the world's foremost gatherings of energy industry leaders — where engagement with a broad set of energy stakeholders further reinforced the direction of our research. Conversations with executives from major players, some of whom are actively navigating their entry into voluntary carbon markets, highlighted that purchasing decisions are increasingly driven by credibility, policy durability, and the ability to stack economic value across compliance and voluntary mechanisms.

As we move into the final phase of the capstone, we are using these insights to refine practical recommendations for how the Philippines can attract international finance while building a more credible and investable carbon market.

Our five-day fieldwork trip to Kyiv, Ukraine, gave us valuable firsthand insight into how key stakeholders view municipal bonds as a potential tool for municipal-level reconstruction and development. Over the course of the trip, we met with experts, ministry representatives, and municipal actors to better understand existing financing structures and to assess perceptions of municipal bonds as a possible solution for Ukraine’s reconstruction needs. 

We also participated in a roundtable with representatives from the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry for Development of Communities and Territories of Ukraine, the National Bank of Ukraine, the National Securities and Stock Market Commission, as well as our partners NGO EU-LEAP and MP Oleksiy Movchan.

These meetings helped us better understand both Ukraine’s capacity to develop a municipal bond market and the barriers that currently stand in the way. They also highlighted key stakeholder concerns, institutional constraints, and differing perspectives on the viability of this approach. In parallel, we had the opportunity to present several of the more innovative financing ideas we are continuing to refine.

In the coming weeks, we hope to develop a viable policy solution and produce a final report on approaches to expanding sub-sovereign financing for Ukraine’s reconstruction, informed by our updated analysis.

Our team traveled to London to examine the growing gap between rapid AI deployment and governance in the United Kingdom's communications sector. Engaging directly with stakeholders on the ground provided a valuable opportunity to root their research in real-world perspectives and observe how these challenges are unfolding in practice.

While in London, the team met extensively with government, regulatory, industry, and research institutions. We presented initial findings to their partner, the AI Security Institute (AISI), and consulted with experts from Oxford Martin AI Governance Initiative. The trip reinforced the importance of clear guidance and risk frameworks, cross-sector coordination, and adaptive governance as the UK navigates the safe integration of AI into its communications systems.

We engaged a range of stakeholders in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and Armavir, Armenia to assess how city leadership can build public trust amid increasing mis- and disinformation.

In Scranton, we met with leadership and staff across City Hall, university faculty, community leaders, and local youth center practitioners. We then travelled to Armavir — Scranton's sister city — where we met with the mayor, a local NGO, and a fact-checking organization to better understand how mis- and disinformation spreads and how local actors are responding.

Across both cities, a consistent theme emerged: trust depends on clear, two-way communication with constituents, especially through in-person engagement. We are now developing solutions to operationalize this insight, refining our approach as we identify and integrate new evidence, and building stakeholder alignment ahead of our report to both cities in June.

Over five days in Tokyo, our team met with officials across Japan's Ministry of Agriculture (MAFF), Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), and the Defense Innovation agency (DISTI/ATLA), as well as private sector and public-private institutions including Mitsubishi Corporation, the Development Bank of Japan, JICT Fund, and Deloitte Tohmatsu.

Our fieldwork revealed a persistent gap in Japan's path from research to deployment. The country invests heavily in frontier R&D through programs like its Moonshot Research and Development Program, but startups struggle to commercialize that research, and the broader ecosystem is not set up to help them. Large corporates and government agencies lack clear procurement pathways for working with startups, meaning that even promising technologies stall before reaching operational use.

Understanding where and why that pipeline breaks down became central to our final recommendations for how a foreign climate tech company can position itself within Japan's institutional landscape.

The team divided fieldwork across multiple locations to engage the wide range of stakeholders shaping U.S. space launch resilience and capacity. One team member met with space policy researchers at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and with U.S. Special Operations Command’s space-related research and development stakeholders in Tampa. Another attended Satellite Show 2026 in Washington, D.C., where he engaged representatives from industry, policy research organizations, government, and other space stakeholders.

A third team member traveled to Australia to meet with officials and commercial space actors about allied partnership opportunities, while another traveled to New York City to speak with representatives from the United Arab Emirates about potential areas for cooperation.

This division of labor allowed the team to examine the policy, operational, commercial, and international dimensions of the U.S. space launch challenge at the same time. Across these engagements, the team explored how coordination gaps, infrastructure constraints, and the interests of allies and private-sector actors affect U.S. launch cadence and resilience.

The fieldwork helped the team refine recommendations focused not only on physical launch infrastructure, but also on the broader network of institutions, partnerships, and policy mechanisms needed to strengthen the United States’ ability to sustain space access in both routine and contested environments.

The following is a guest article written by Yuki Kihara, who traveled to the San Francisco Bay Area with other graduate students from the University of Tokyo in January 2026, under the leadership of Professor Hideto Fukudome. Yuki is also an administrative staff member at the University of Tokyo. SPICE/Stanford collaborates closely with the Graduate School of Education at the University of Tokyo and met with the students during their visit to the Bay Area.

On the final day of the intensive seminar in the San Francisco Bay Area, we visited the Japanese American Museum of San Jose. When we entered the museum, an elderly woman who happened to be there told us about her experience living in a concentation camp. She said that in the middle of the desert, the barracks’ housing was full of dust, and that every night before falling asleep she would check under the bed to make sure there was no scorpion. This unexpected encounter became a memorable moment that wrapped up what I learned at the intensive seminar.

At first, this story did not have a strong impression on me. However, as we walked through the museum, docent Atsushi Uchida explained in detail about life in the concentration camp, citing the elderly lady’s words. For instance, because the camps were built hastily, undried wood was used for the barracks. Consequently, as the wood dried and shrank over time, gaps appeared, and clouds of dust came into the barracks and rose in the air. These gaps also allowed scorpions to sneak in, which is why the elderly lady had to be cautious every night. Of course, this is a minor memory of that elderly lady which would never be written down in a textbook. It would also perhaps have slipped out of my memory quickly if Atsushi had not shed light on it. But because he pointed it out, her experience was incorporated into my thoughts and has stayed with me for a long time. Photo below of docent Atsushi Uchida at the Japanese American Museum of San Jose, courtesy of Tina Tan.

Image

Atsushi also told us about some remaining words which have been passed down within the Nikkei (Japanese emigrants and their descendants) community in California. Among them is the phrase “Shikata Ga Nai,” meaning “it cannot be helped” in English. In Japan, this expression shows a certain sense of giving up or resignation. On the other hand, the word “Shikata Ga Nai” used in California also contains a slightly positive nuance: It means doing what can be done in the place where one has been put. This story made me focus on the pain that Nikkei people at that time had to face, and the perseverance to overcome the hardship, with a somewhat optimistic outlook on life. Atsushi’s comment on “Shikata ga nai” also made me realize that the nuanced differences between the Japanese and Japanese American interpretation of specific Japanese terminology are not merely subtle linguistic variations, but something I may be able to perceive, perhaps, because I stand both inside and outside of this cultural context.

I believe that the privilege of a researcher is to pass down people’s words, regardless of how many people read them. In this regard, I cannot help but think about what I should write and pass down as a person who specializes in education. The children captured by an official government photographer looked cheerful, even at the concentration camp, but I feel that I must also turn my eyes to the moments of pain that would have been hidden from a master narrative of history.

The explanation from Atsushi extended to the story of Norman Mineta. He was a Nisei (second-generation Japanese American) who served as the United States Secretary of Transportation during the George W. Bush administration. Because of his experience of incarceration in his childhood, he opposed racial profiling after the September 11 attacks. His influence on society was huge, and no one doubts his significant achievement. At the same time, interestingly enough, the recollection of the elderly lady also stayed in my memory. I felt that the defining experiences of the two were the same, and it was not until I visited the museum that I came to realize the link between the two. I learned the importance of actually visiting the site on my own. The story of Norman Mineta and the recollection of this elderly woman formed an interesting contrast, and together they left a deep impression on me.

Speaking of this contrast, I also cannot help looking back on the education I received when I was an elementary school student. As homework for a history class, I interviewed my grandmother about her experiences during World War II. She told me about wartime evacuation and her life at home and school. At that time, somewhere in my mind, I regarded these stories as merely personal experiences, not as history to be learned, and I dismissed them as insignificant. The encounter with the elderly lady brought up this memory again, forming a strong contrast with my elementary school experience. It made me reconsider what history is and for whom it exists.

But then another question comes to my mind. If I once regarded my grandmother’s experience as insignificant because of what I learned in history education, does that mean education itself is meaningless? Of course, now, as an adult, I need to examine critically what I have been taught. Yet it was also education itself, this time through Atsushi’s explanation which functioned as scaffolding, that enabled me to question and shed light on something unseen. Here I found hope in education.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Hideto Fukudome for arranging such a wonderful opportunity, to Director Gary Mukai and everyone at SPICE for creating the rich program and welcoming atmosphere, to our Teaching Assistant Mr. Naoya Kobayashi for making the seminar run smoothly in many ways, and to all the classmates who shared thoughtful and engaging discussions with me throughout this intensive seminar. Special thanks to Ms. Anna Marie Rodriguez, my friend and an assistant language teacher (ALT) in Japan under the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Programme, for her proofreading of this article.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

The Japanese public is largely opposed to dispatching the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) to the Strait of Hormuz, but framing the issue in terms of Japan’s energy dependence substantially raises support for military involvement in Iran. By contrast, arguments invoking the Japan-U.S. alliance and legal legitimacy for military action have no such effect. These are the findings from a vignette experiment fielded by the Stanford Japan Barometer (SJB) in March, one month after Japan’s February 2026 general election.

The results also reveal that mentioning energy dependence moves opinion in favor of military deployment even among respondents who are told that diplomacy, not deployment, is the right response, suggesting that energy-dependence messaging changes minds regardless of policy recommendation. Alliance- and legal-focused messaging, by contrast, have no measurable effect.

SJB is a large-scale, multi-wave public opinion survey on political, economic, and social issues in Japan. A project of the Japan Program at Stanford University’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC), SJB is led by Stanford sociologist Kiyoteru Tsutsui, the director of APARC and the Japan Program, and political scientist Charles Crabtree. The vignette experiment on the Japanese public's attitude toward military deployment in Iran was part of the final, three-wave panel survey SJB fielded around Japan’s February 2026 snap election, which focused on identifying public attitudes toward immigration.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our scholars' research updates >

A Public Wary of War

The SJB experiment finds that, without any contextual framing, Japanese respondents lean against JSDF dispatch to the Strait of Hormuz, averaging a score of 2.00 on a four-point scale, where 1 represents "strongly oppose" and 4 represents "strongly support." 

This baseline skepticism reflects the Japanese public’s reluctance to deploy military forces abroad, rooted in Article 9 of the postwar constitution, and a broader wariness of entanglement in the Iran conflict. But the crisis in the Middle East has fueled deep economic fears in Japan, which relies on the region for over 90% of its crude oil imports, making it highly dependent on the Strait of Hormuz for energy security.

The SJB team wanted to know: Could this energy security argument shift the public’s baseline opposition to military deployment, and if so, how, compared with other justifications?

The Energy Argument Works Both Directions

The experiment randomly assigned respondents to read one of several short policy statements before answering whether they supported JSDF dispatch to the Strait of Hormuz. Some arguments favored deployment; others opposed it. Each invoked a different rationale: energy security, the Japan-U.S. alliance, and constitutional legitimacy.

The most striking change in attitude came from the energy-dependence framing.

Respondents who read a pro-dispatch energy argument – emphasizing that a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would devastate Japan's economy and living standards, making military involvement necessary – showed a statistically significant increase in support for JSDF deployment, rising approximately 0.12 points above the control group.

Notably, respondents who read a con-dispatch energy argument – which presented the same energy-dependence facts but concluded that Japan should pursue diplomacy through its own channels with Iran rather than deploy forces – showed an even larger increase in support, rising approximately 0.28 points above the control group.

That is, simply mentioning Japan's vulnerability to an oil supply disruption raised support for JSDF involvement, even when the message explicitly argued against military action. “This pattern suggests that the energy-dependence information itself, rather than the normative conclusion drawn from it, is what moves opinion,” the researchers write on the SJB website.

Alliance and Legal Arguments Fall Flat

In contrast, two other commonly invoked arguments – obligations related to the Japan-U.S. alliance and constitutional authority – had virtually no effect on the Japanese public’s support of JSDF deployment.

The alliance framing emphasized that contributing to U.S. operations in the Strait of Hormuz is essential, given the centrality of the U.S.-Japan security partnership to Japan's defense. A counter-argument noted that many international observers view U.S. strikes on Iran as violations of international law and that most European allies are declining to participate.

Neither version significantly moved opinion on JSDF dispatch.

Similarly, arguments about whether the conflict legally qualifies for the exercise of collective self-defense – with one version arguing that new legislation could authorize dispatch and another arguing that no existing legal basis permits it – produced near-zero effects.

These null results are particularly striking given how frequently alliance obligations and constitutional legitimacy dominate elite debates over JSDF deployment in Japan. The data suggest that, at least in this scenario, these arguments resonate far more in policy circles than with the general public.

The findings carry important lessons for Japanese policymakers, who are walking a tightrope between the United States and Iran: “Concrete economic stakes are more resonant than foreign-policy abstractions,” note the SJB researchers. Still, the Japanese public’s default position is opposition to JSDF deployment in Iran. “The framing experiments shift opinion at the margins, but do not reverse the underlying skepticism toward JSDF dispatch.”