US Pivot Research Articles

A ‘natcon takeover’? The New Right and the future of American foreign policy

Abstract Donald Trump's capture of the Republican Party enabled a radical questioning of received wisdom within the broader conservative intellectual movement. In particular, it enabled the emergence of a post-Trump, distinctly American New Right. This policy paper examines the American New Right and its visions for United States foreign policy. In the context of contemporary American politics, the New Right is best understood as a rejection of the ‘fusionism’ that has characterized US conservatism since the early decades after the Second World War. The paper argues that there are three major identifiable parts of the New Right: the Claremonters, the post-liberals and the national conservatives. In part because of their ‘big-tent’ character, as well as deft intellectual leadership by Yoram Hazony, the national conservatives have become the most influential group within the contemporary New Right. The article also examines how the New Right has attempted to create an alternative ideational infrastructure, with a clear focus on entrenching itself through large-scale credentialing of personnel deemed to be loyal to the New Right's agenda. There is reason to speak of a ‘natcon takeover’ of traditional conservative institutions. This is particularly the case with the Heritage Foundation, the largest and most influential conservative think tank. While all segments of the New Right ostensibly embrace some notion of grand strategic restraint, the policy paper argues that the rise of national conservatism is likely to accelerate the US pivot from Europe to Asia rather than lead to neo-isolationism, as is sometimes suggested.

The US Pivot to Asia Under the Obama Administration

The Obama administration announced the U.S. “Pivot to Asia” in November 2011, shifting the country’s focus from Europe and the Middle East to East Asia. In reality, it meant a lot of diplomatic gestures and new economic (trade) ties. Rebalancing was supposed to be an answer to China’s growing potential within almost all spheres. The strategy was supposed to strengthen bilateral security alliances, intensify cooperation with emerging regional powers, tighten ties within multilateral cooperation, expand US military presence in the region, develop economic engagement through new trade agreements and investments, and finally promote democracy and human rights. The paper will examine various dimensions of the pivot, focusing mainly on the military, diplomatic and economic spheres. It will also give a closer look at US–China relations and provide insight into the perception of the shift from the regional perspective.

Great Powers Rivalry in the Indo-Pacific Region and Its Impact on Vietnam’s Strategy

At the end of the 20th century, many researchers had envisioned a world where countries shift from political and military competition towards economic competition. However, the prospect of a world without conflict was short-lived, as the concerns about political tensions were revived in the early 21st century. Great powers such as the United States, China and Russia, have all shifted their focus to Asia, in particular the Indo-Pacific region. As a developing country in this region, Vietnam has its reasons to pay close attention to the competition among these great powers. Based on the theory of defensive realism, the author examines the reorientation of the US, Chinese and Russian foreign policy towards the Indo-Pacific region from Vietnam’s perspective. It shows that the US pivot to the region is set to challenge the rise of China and to maintain the US position as the leader of the world, China’s expanding influence is to reclaim its historical position in the region and Russia seeks to diversify its political and economic relations. In this context, Vietnam should maintain its multi-vector foreign policy, balancing the interests of several countries. In addition, Vietnam needs to strengthen its position in the global economy through participation in new-generation free trade agreements, expand the scope and forms of its diplomacy, and play a more active role in the global community. All these, in the author’s opinion, will enable Vietnam to strengthen its position in the global economy and boost its diplomatic activities.

Analysis of the Necessity of Cooperation Between China and ASEAN in the Epidemic Era

The dialogue process between China and ASEAN was officially launched in 1991. Over the past three decades, the bilateral relations between them have made remarkable achievements and become a model of cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, China and ASEAN have developed closer ties and made great progress in cooperation in political security, economic trade, health security and other fields. Today, ASEAN has surpassed the United States and the European Union to become China's largest trading partner. This paper discusses the necessity of cooperation between China and ASEAN in the post-epidemic era. For China, ASEAN is an important strategic pivot to safeguard its neighborhood security. China has always followed an ASEAN-centric strategy, and its vaccine diplomacy during the pandemic has been very effective, which has boosted its relations with ASEAN. For ASEAN, its internal vulnerability has forced it to rely on external powers, with China being one of its preferred powers because of its geographical location and close economic ties. As to global order, the US pivot to Asia and the more serious friction between China and the US during the pandemic era make it necessary for China and ASEAN to work together to maintain the unity of the Asian region.

Unpacking the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA): Internationalisation of capital, imperial rivalry and cooperation, and regional power agency

The existing accounts of the Iranian nuclear programme and the JCPOA suffer from ontological exteriority, in conjunction with the problematic conception of the state and unpersuasive assessments of future outcomes. Grounded on the philosophy of internal relations, which challenges the artificial detachment between political economy and military-security concerns, this article contends that grasping the Iranian nuclear programme and the JCPOA requires unpacking their internal links with neoliberal global capitalism. The article thus presents a three-part argument. First, it asserts that the Iranian nuclear programme and economic sanctions should be viewed as part of the great powers’ efforts, particularly those of the United States and the European Union, to shape neoliberalism in the Middle East and North Africa. Second, it delves into the post-2008 global economy’s imperial rivalry and cooperation, suggesting that the nuclear deal was a result of the US pivot to the East, China’s Belt and Road Initiative in West Asia, and the need for multinational companies to find new avenues for capital accumulation following the financial crisis. Finally, it connects the JCPOA to Iranian neoliberalisation, which gives rise to two competing capital fractions (the internationally oriented capital fraction and the military–bonyad complex) to emphasise the crucial role played by the former in reaching the nuclear deal.

China’s Responses towards The US Pivot to Asia: “The Dialectics of Hedging and Counter-Hedging”

The US pivot to Asia, which encompassed the strategy of shifting the US focus on deploying the strategic-military, diplomatic, and economic assets to the Asia-Pacific region, had generated enormous debates among scholars and Chinese state officials. Such development then raises questions about their responses to such a US strategy in Asia. In regards to this question, this article evaluates that the US pivot to Asia had devised two primary responses in mainland China, ranging from hardline and moderate stances in Chinese scholars and officials. The hardliners stood for perceiving the US pivot to Asia as a strategy to contain China's rise, which has multiple potencies to trigger an open confrontation. In contrast, the moderates viewed the US pivot to Asia through the elements of cooperation and competition. Despite these contentions, this article argues that the US pivot to Asia had further triggered China's increasing military, diplomatic, and economic capabilities. It also sees the Sino-American relations through dual track reciprocal relations comprising the competitive-negative and cooperative-symbolic elements which had been restraining each other from going into open conflict yet were still tensioning. Therefore, to further analyze China's responses, this article will simultaneously use the concept of hedging and the “use of force” by Art and Jervis.

“America is Back” or “America First” and the Transatlantic Relationship

The presidency of Donald Trump represented an unprecedented low point in transatlantic relations. When Joe Biden took power in early 2021, his administration launched several policy initiatives suggesting that the new administration would continue to allow the seemingly long-term weakening of the transatlantic relationship to continue. A significant part of the literature on recent developments in transatlantic relations points in the same direction, namely that a weakening of the cooperation across the Atlantic has taken place. This article proposes an alternative view, arguing that the relationship has strengthened in recent years despite Donald Trump and his erratic policy. The article applies a theoretical framework combining international as well as domestic variables. Based on an analysis of four cases—NATO, the US pivot to Asia, the sanctions policy towards Russia, and the Afghanistan debacle—it is concluded that the transatlantic relationship is strong.

Dragon and bear dancing a waltz under the sharp-clawed eagle: three critical junctures, aggravating threat perceptions, and evolving strategic ties between China and Russia

AbstractIn the contemporary world order, one of the most attention-getting issues is the recent consolidation of defense and strategic engagement between China and Russia, specifically since the early 2010s. Throughout a critical juncture angle, this study attempts to explain what led to the reinforcement of these China–Russia relations, and how their strategic ties have evolved. This study argues that the three critical junctures driven by the USA – the US Pivot to Asia, the Ukraine Crisis and the US-led sanctions against Russia, and the US THAAD deployment to Korea – aggravated China and Russia's perception of threat from the USA, which contributed to the incremental China–Russia strategic and defense ties.

More than just hedging? The reactions of Cambodia and Vietnam to the power struggle between the United States and China in times of Obama's “pivot to Asia”

AbstractSoutheast Asia is a major theater in the superpower rivalry between China and the United States. The states in this region face the challenge how to react to this intensified strategic competition. Some authors suggest a concept of hedging as the main behavioral response of the region. Nevertheless, critics argue that just one concept cannot incorporate all the variation in their behavior. They often name Cambodia and Vietnam as problematic examples – Cambodia rather bandwagoning with China and Vietnam being more a balancer than a hedger. The goal of this article is to create original operational definition of hedging that would address existing limitations through a comparison of the foreign policy of Cambodia and Vietnam during the US pivot to Asia during the Barrack Obama administration. This article finds that hedging can be useful to analyze the responses of Southeast Asian states despite the perceived contradictory stances of Cambodia and Vietnam.

Asian Voices on the Future of US-Asia Relations: Trade and Economic Policy under the Biden Administration

President-elect Joseph Biden faces challenges both at home and abroad in the aftermath of the Trump administration. The COVID-19 pandemic has deeply affected the United States, with over 23.5 million reported cases by early 2021. Much like many nations under lockdown and reeling from supply disruptions and the chilling effect on demand, the US economy is forecasted to shrink in the near term. It is expected to contract by 4.3% in 2020, with a tentative rebound of 3.1% growth in 2021. The roll-out of vaccines in the US commenced in late 2020, and it is a welcome precursor of health and economic recovery, but the second stimulus package was delayed. Meanwhile, the Democrats managed to flip two Senate seats in Georgia, and thus maintain a slim control in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, unprecedented political turmoil erupted in Washington, D.C. in early January, prior to the inauguration, signalling a difficult and noisy transition to the next administration. Abroad, the one-two punch of the pandemic and populist wave may continue to push many nations towards protectionism, even as multilateralism has been in retreat even before the pandemic. Part of the populist wave was driven by a push-back against globalization, owing to factors such as its un-equalizing impact as well as valid concerns over dominant lobbying by corporations and weak influence from the labor sector. In Asia, the Trump administration abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement while turning to protectionist rhetoric (and some tentative policies) against trading partners like China, Canada and Mexico. Most of these were short-lived as they amounted to more self-harm than any strategic benefits to the US or key segments of the population like its blue-collar workers. Meanwhile, the other TPP countries moved ahead and form the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) even without the US.Meanwhile, China’s sphere of influence in Asia expanded, as the US withdrawal from its traditional leadership role in the multilateral and regional economic policy discussions was matched by a ratcheting of China’s ambitions to solidify its position as a political, economic and military power. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP) was finally signed in November 2020 producing the largest agglomeration of potential consumers (about 2.2 billion people) of any regional trade agreement conceived. And it is seen as the competing China-influenced framework vis-a-vis the TPP which intended as a centerpiece of the US pivot to Asia under President Obama. In addition, China’s ambitious infrastructure plan--the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)--intended to fuel economic integration in the region while inter-connecting it with key markets in Europe and the Americas. Rather than channel all its resources into existing multilateral platforms, China has also advanced alternative financial institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the Silk Road Fund. China’s influence on “writing the rules” for regional economic integration has been increasing, yet it is not clear to what extent these new rules and institutions reflect existing norms in international cooperation.

Политика вовлечения и формирования союзнических отношений: Индия во внешнеполитической стратегии США при Дж. Буше-младшем и Б. Обаме

The article presents an analysis of the engagement policy and the formation of allied relations which hold a central place in the foreign policy of the United States. It is noted that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks demonstrated the ideological insecurity of the United States and forced Washington to join the global campaign against terrorism. Despite the untenable willingness to bear the burden of war alone, the American political establishment began to look for allies and partners. The purpose of this article is to identify India’s place in the system of American foreign policy strategies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. When studying this topic, the author relied on the methods of analysis, synthesis, comparison and generalization. The phenomenon of using public diplomacy and the engagement policy for strengthening allied relations with India has been studied very little by domestic and foreign science. The article concludes that the White House showed considerable interest in India due to its favorable geographical location, experience in counterterrorism, tense relations with China (a potential competitor of the United States), and the status of the world’s largest democracy, which indicates the country’s commitment to democratic values which are actively promoted by Washington. The article reveals the obstacles in the way of India’s involvement in this cooperation: despite its interest in establishing a dialogue with the United States, the republic did not show any desire to move away from the traditional policy of equidistance in international relations for fear of becoming an American puppet. During the administration of Barack Obama, U.S.–India relations received a new impetus as part of the US Pivot to Asia. The scope of cooperation between the two countries was significantly expanded. The relations reached a new level after Narendra Modi took office as Prime Minister of India. The scientific significance of this study lies in the fact that previously this topic has been considered exclusively through the prism of Chinese politics and nuclear problems.

The Rationale and Effects of China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Reducing Vulnerabilities in Domestic Political Economy

ABSTRACT The existing literature suggests that China’s rationale for the belt and road initiative was to stimulate infrastructural investment abroad and thus economic growth at home, foster economic ties with Eurasia, and counter the US pivot to Asia. Employing a domestic political economy perspective, this article suggests that the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) aimed to address China’s three following vulnerabilities that could derail its economic growth and threaten its political regime—industrial surplus capacity, massive imports of energy through maritime transport instead of safer land routes, and under-development of the western region. Addressing these vulnerabilities helps to sustain China’s economic model characterised by heavy reliance on investment and exports, protection of state firms, and massive energy input. Post-2012 data suggest that the BRI has partially mitigated these three vulnerabilities.

USA’s Pivot to Asia and China’s Global Rebalancing through BRI

Since the announcement of “US pivot to Asia” and “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI), both remained a center of debate in international politics both regional and global, policy making, academia, news both print and electronic media. Many people including academic experts, researchers, have written about USA pivot to Asia and BRI initiative from different perspectives. This research paper as an attempt to bring the understanding of the complexity of networked relationships between the two major powers the US and China. Moreover, attempts have been made to explore the notion of BRI and AIIB that whether it will be prone or not towards the US “Pivot to Asia” policy especially in the vast Indo Pacific region. The paper contains the significance of the Indo-Pacific region and illustrates that how the region has been using as a center for great power politics. Why the US maximize its sphere of influence and how China respond into the US interplay?

China Pakistan Economic Corridor:

In the changing regional geo-political scenario China, Pakistan and other regional countries are set to play a vital role in the emerging regional economic corridor. China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as part of “One Belt, One Road” grand strategy connect countries with China through economic collaboration extending from South East Asia to the Europe through maritime and land routes comprised of emerging markets of Africa and Middle East energy resources. 
 This paper has investigated the significance of CPEC in parlance of theoretical framework of complex interdependence because the phenomenon of interdependence has tied state and non-state entities in economic and strategic dimensions. Regional connectivity results from systematic, upgraded and need-based interaction in perspective of CPEC for socio-economic, industrial, energy and trade development. 
 CPEC is important not only for Pakistan and China but also for the other regional countries such as Afghanistan, Central Asian Republics, Iran and India. As international and regional politics follows interest’s game hence CPEC has also become matter of concerns for both regional and international players which has been amply illustrated by this research. These concerns are followed by arguments that CPEC may be seen in a broader perspective of interdependency with emphasis on strategic and economic dimensions guaranteeing regional connectivity and integration.
 CPEC can serve as a main trade avenue not only for China and Pakistan but for Central Asian Republics, Afghanistan, Iran and India as well. This study has argued that CPEChas the potential of becoming an energy transit corridor for growing economies. It has advantagesfor India also in form of improved infrastructure, communication and access to CARs market. Simultaneously it imparts an opportunity of flourishing and trade to the Afghanistan’s industries. Iran can also have benefit by ensuring Chabahar port outstretched to CPEC. 
 CPEC has potential geopolitical risks as hostile environment of South Asia and the respective power rivalry and policy shift of world powers towards this region as manifested by the US pivot to Asia and the former concern over Chinese presence in the Arabian Sea in Asian region, Gulf states considering of Gwadar Port as rival port, Indian opposition of CPEC by arguing that it passes through Pakistan’s held Kashmir on which India has also claim. 
 China and Pakistan in order to escape proxy tussle in Baluchistan need to settle Indian apprehension about the project, Confidence Building Measures (CBM) must be incorporated in order to promote closer ties with Afghanistan, Pakistan must attempt for having stable relations with Iran in order to overcome impediments to the CPEC success. By making CPEC a reality the benefits will be reaped by whole region and the very enmity of India with Pakistan and China can be turned into mutual beneficial economic relations. If India becomes a partner in the project then certainly the concerns of India will be settled down.

USA's Pivot to Asia and China's Global Rebalancing through BRI

Since the announcement of "US pivot to Asia" and "Belt and Road Initiative" (BRI), both remained a center of debate in international politics, both regional and global, policymaking, academia, news both print and electronic media. Many people, including academic experts, researchers, have written about the USA pivot to Asia and BRI initiative from different perspectives. This research paper is an attempt to bring the understanding of the complexity of networked relationships between the two major powers, the US and China. Moreover, attempts have been made to explore the notion of BRI and AIIB that whether it will be prone or not towards the US "Pivot to Asia" policy, especially in the vast Indo Pacific region. The paper comprises of three parts; the first part of the paper is an introductory one which is mainly focused on the brief explanation of the USA pivot to Asia and the BRI project of China. Secondly, the main body of the paper contains the significance of the Indo-Pacific region and illustrates that how the region has been using as a centre for great power politics? Why the US maximize its sphere of influence, and how China respond to the US interplay? Where does ASEAN stand in the interplay of great power play in the region? In the final part, the whole research work has concluded.

Рецензия: Харш В. Пант, Йогеш Джоши. Американский поворот и внешняя политика Индии: меняющийся баланс сил в Азии. Нью-Йорк : Палгрейв Макмиллан, 2016. 154 c.

Рецензия: Харш В. Пант, Йогеш Джоши. Американский поворот и внешняя политика Индии: меняющийся баланс сил в Азии. Нью-Йорк : Палгрейв Макмиллан, 2016. 154 c.

US Pivot and Stability in the Asia Pacific Region

The US rebalancing strategy in Asia Pacific confirms the importance of AsiaPacific region particularly for the US and her interest. A rapid economicdevelopment in Asia Pacific states coupled with security dynamics thatpotentially triggers instability in the region have become driving factors forthe US involvement in the region. The US (re)-existence as well as her activeengagement obviously gives rise to multiple responses and leads to negativeperception. This article perceives that the US pivot in Asia Pacific including thestrengthening of US influence in the region might provoke tension particularlywith China. Nonetheless, a common and mutual interest in economic andsecurity has forced both states to self-restrain and develop strategicpartnership, which is essential to achieve their common goals together withother Asia Pacific states. To understand the US strategy and the impact of thestrategy, this article analyzes the US official documents as well as otherrelated states’ documents, and using the “post-modern states” approach toexplain the implication of US military strategy

Historical Perspective on China’s “Tipping Point” with North Korea

The view that China would not “abandon” North Korea, despite repeated provocations by North Korea, has been strengthened in the context of the US pivot to Asia, which is generally regarded by Chinese strategists as Washington’s ploy to contain China. As the rivalry and competition between Washington and Beijing deepen. North Korea’s strategic value to China increases. However, history shows that Beijing regarded Pyongyang as “expendable” even during the Korean War. Based on Sino-North Korean historical relations, in this article we argue that China’s policy toward North Korea is not fixed but fluid, and that Washington and Seoul could inspire changes within China’s policy toward North Korea.

China’s New Silk Route Initiative: Political and Economic Implications for the Middle East and Southeast Asia

:The liberal economic policies which have been developed in China in the 1980s have significantly produced a “new demographic” reality with an increasing proportion of about 350 to 400-million strong Chinese middle class. This new reality is starting to affect the conduct and direction of China’s foreign policy particularly toward countries in Middle East and Southeast Asian regions, which hold considerable amount of energy resources, such as crude oil and gas. The “One Belt One Road” initiative (OBOR), proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013, signals the reinvigoration of the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Route as a necessary measure to meet future Chinese demand for energy and open markets for its surplus products. Over the last two years, various Middle East countries, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Israel have watched China in cultural and political arenas. China’s economic needs have triggered this development. The same year, China’s president visited Indonesia and pledged a $40 billion fund to develop infrastructures along the route. With the new silk route proposal, China would be able to guarantee not only the stable energy supply from the Middle East but also access the markets of Southeast Asian countries. However, diverse views arising from this proposal questioned China’s real intentions. Has China’s proposal been designed to reorder Asia and contain US pivot to Asia? Does it signal the enlargement of China’s regional influence using its economic might? What does this policy say about ASEAN member countries, particularly the Philippines? This article however argues that China’s regional and international expansion is a natural byproduct of its economic weight; it also argues that the Middle East and maritime Southeast Asian countries can expect maximum economic and political gains from joining the “One Belt One Road” initiative.

Avoiding a Thucydides Trap in Sino-American Relations (…and 7 Reasons Why that Might be Difficult)

ABSTRACTIn 2015, Harvard’s Graham Allison wrote an evocative article discussing the “Thucydides Trap” in relations between China and the United States, highlighting the danger of war between a rising power and a reigning power in the international system. Can China and the United States avoid the Thucydides Trap as China rises? This analysis identifies and analyzes seven reasons China and the US might not be able to avoid the trap: the bilateral strategic trust deficit, lack of agreement on the nature of the US pivot, recent trends in China’s maritime policies, disagreements over cyber security, security dynamics underlying China’s Anti-Access/Area Denial and Washington’s AirSea Battle strategies, recent trends in Sino-Russian strategic alignment, and Washington’s concerns about China’s increased defense spending.