World looked forwardpassionately to achieve a long awaited break from the conflicts brewing up in Middle East (ME) as well as in Central Asia. A glimmer of hope kindled after withdrawal of US forces from Iraq,
claiming to have achieved its objectives, and draw down from Afghanistan, already in full swing where NATO operates in unison for over a decade. Strange enough, metaphorically the winding down war intensity appears to have been negatively manipulated by Ares, the god of violence, to hype quietly the hostilities or the threat of them in a new theatre, called South China Sea (SCS). Rhetoric rumbles wide and far that the storm is building up.
Some scholars appear determined to prove that talk of impending conflict in Asia-Pacific region amounts to expecting tempest in a tea-cup. Despite hostile gestures, other analysts tend to connect huge economic stakes and finding them significant, they rule out conflict. Sterling (2012) thinks, ‘According to a Japanese business group, 30,000 firms operate in China. Japan has investments there of $85 billion….For their part, the Japanese don’t want to jeopardise access to a market of 1.3 billion people.’ The optimism soon vanishes, however, once some warships and submarines pop up from the ‘tea-cup’ and are observed conspicuously indulging in hostile manoeuvres. Ungar (2012) remarked about the ensuing tension, ‘The Philippines and Vietnam have already protested the Chinese action, but the Chinese Global Times responded that China will not back down on sovereignty issues….’
Ongoing territorial tiff is likely to suck in militarily not only SCS peripheral countries like China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, Thailand and Malaysia but also some distant powers like India, Japan, and Australia. US gets soon bracketed by implications because of security-guarantee obligations, it owes to Japan and Philippines, besides being recognised as a lead power to keep the Asian allies’ mercury down. Even Australia and Canada, its traditional allies are cautious to encourage or pursue a posture that would stoke diplomatic tension. Manicom (2012) comments, ‘Ottawa has made no secret of its preference to focus this engagement (with China) on economic issues as part of a strategy to diversify away from US markets.’ Perceiving these comments within the alliance, apparent ambivalence about SCS paradox by the parties ought to be seen as profuse pragmatism.
Conflict Feasibility and Limitation
Under the environments of globalised politics, the conflicts have the tragic character to expand, particularly when more than one direct party in the arena happen to be the powerful titans with heavy stakes. The chemistry of recent conflicts testifies at least two hypotheses.
First, given the prowess, it has become far more feasible to initiate a conflict by the powers, which enjoy global military reach, albeit at an exorbitant cost in men and material. In classical sense, no other power has demonstrated such versatility except NATO and recently France in Mali to sustain trans-continental operations of war. Chinese strategic reach within the sphere of South and ECS is a reality now that littoral states would find hard to rebuff. Rudd (2012) is of the view, ‘Chinese strategic capabilities, the force structure of its military together with its emerging doctrine are aimed at supporting China’s core interests….’
Second, conflicts are becoming increasingly difficult to wrap up because of the ability of lesser powers to outsource a conflict with minimal costs but stupendous gains to keep the adversaries embroiled in a conflict, no matter how potent militarily they may be. What also lacks in the entire appreciation of the SCS crumbling security paradigm is that Chinese views and diplomacy, even if not apparently palatable, are finding scant elaboration. There is a contextual need to prefer exploratory research over descriptive one. The desirability cannot be over-emphasised even if the study culminates ultimately as a balanced combination of co-relational, descriptive and exploratory modes that tend to overlap because the tangible determinants in this narrative do not predominate. Therefore critical inquiry would enable us to raise and answer some pertinent questions.
Geography and Disputes
Geological and geopolitical contours of the arena are somewhat intricate. SCS lies to the
south of China and Taiwan, west of Philippines, northwest of Sabah/Sarawak (Malaysia) and Brunei, north of Indonesia, northeast of Malay Peninsula (Malaysia) and Singapore and east of Vietnam. It has about 250 small islands. Dramatic irony plays at the peak when all the coastal states of SCS appear determined to claim respective sovereignty and get increasingly bitter when any of them is denied approach to any feature by the other party. As a consequence there are multi-layered disputes. However, China claims the entire SCS space through famous (others possibly view it as mischievous) nine-dotted line. It appears like a loft of rope by a cowboy from Chinese coast that almost hugs the entire SCS coast.
Vectoring Security through Economic and Geopolitical Significance
Until recently it received scant attention and the SCS littorals security woes were labelled perhaps as their self-created tomfoolery. However, dawn of third millennium brought SCS into spotlight. According to initial assessment, SCS region has 8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves with 28 billion barrel of possible reserves. As regards natural gas, it has 266 trillion cubic feet. The emergence of another ‘Middle East’ in Asia-Pacific is certainly a bonanza, not only SCS countries would crave for but the entire world because the promise of alternative fuels still remains elusive. Rather lavish territorial claims in SCS by China to secure future oil giants, under the obtaining scenario means a very complex tangle in the region and beyond, particularly when each actor would be weighing options and attempting to assess others’ degree of finesse in the realm of diplomacy.
Another factor that has bolstered the strategic significance of SCS is the enormous volume of cargo that moves through it. Year 2008 statistics show that 58 percent of the world total shipping, worth $ 435 billion went through Malacca and other straits, destined for or emanating from Asia-Pacific region (Oegroseno 2012). Recently, fast emerging vulnerability of the sea lanes, particularly in the vicinity of choke points where maritime security environments have deteriorated tremendously, has lent SCS an added dimension. Lyzhenkov (2012, p. 4), taking stock of transnational threats did not miss to underscore the need to, ‘enhancing containers security/supply chain security’. On the contrary, impending conflicts or threat of them would deliver a severe blow to operability through the vulnerable sea lanes when hostile state(s) would attempt to interdict energy supplies. SCS makes a critical area of international concern.
SCS Conflict Dynamics
Diplomacy and Posturing Antagonism
A cobweb of conflicting dynamics haunts SCS theatre. Conduct of diplomacy by the states that are party to the dispute and others who legitimise their role under available version of International Law, suggest that all analyses have to conform to different bench marks. An impression that SCS conundrum is being efficiently fed by proxies, paradoxes and profuse pragmatism simultaneously is quite relevant. The explicit stance of every actor has conciliatory tones but some policy manoeuvres made by them appear confrontational. Similarly the bracketing of US, Japan, Australia and India, in sympathy with SCS littorals’ antagonism against China tends to fall apart when the huge stakes of these major powers are seen interdependent as long as all remain focused on the priority objectives of boosting and sustaining their economic potentials and in the process fostering the world peace. Paal (2012) thinks, ‘Strategic objective of United States in Asia is to manage China’s rise.’ Here the clarity of emphasis resides in ‘management’ and not confrontation or tit-for-tat sparring. US contemplated shift to place strategic pivot in Asia-Pacific must have come as a knee-jerk decision for the Chinese, alerting them to draw some obvious deductions, not in sync with their national interests. It was ostensibly flung like a bolt in the international arena. Not denying US, its prerogative to adjust the forces’ strategic posture, had the declaration been preceded by consultations with the main stake holders, it would have generated lesser controversy than it did, particularly when their economies are extensively developed and mutually engaging.
US plan to deploy a sizeable Marines force in Australia, though at considerable distance from China and pushing 60 percent warships into SCS by 2020 would logically force Chinese to assume that the stage is being set to replay World War II Pacific Campaign in reverse order. Matloff (1973, p. 506) noted, ‘By mid 1943…. Major Allied objective was the control of South China Sea and a foothold on the coast of China so as to sever Japanese lines of communications southward and to establish bases from which Japan could…, if necessary, invaded.’ Chinese fear would have touched sky when the emerging pattern of US rebalancing of Asia-Pacific ‘Pivot’ unilaterally is transposed in 21st century, requiring China to substitute Japan. Conversely if there are really no hidden barbs as both need to reassure each other, the two powers can pull on amicably disregard to the fact that Chinese ships and submarines swarm around US West Coast or the US Marines are cruising in SCS with full array of deadly war arsenals. To achieve such a symbiotic equation which is so vital for the fast fragmenting world, some snares would naturally test the diplomats’ wizardry from both sides.
Alliances and Alignments versus Regional Security Sensibilities
Search for new alliances and cooperating partners with compatible geopolitical synergy is an ongoing phenomenon of military history. However, certain moves make others scary and lead to polarisation. Chinese suspicion stands strengthened when US, through strategic alliance with India, is found inclined to inspire it for embracing bigger role in Asia-Pacific maritime security. November 2012 dialogues between US, Japan and India, observed Indian ‘Daily News’, prove that it is not only the forum to address peace time issues but, ‘…leveraging their strengths to shape the Asia-Pacific architecture’, adding further, ‘India sought clarifications from the US about its so called Asia-Pivot Strategy which envisages roping in New Delhi as the lynchpin of security in the region’. Embracing Asia-Pacific role would sound as Indian prerogative; being a potent emerging power in Indian Ocean. However, India might find it hard to encounter China in Pacific even if its military capability is bolstered by US because of Chinese projected forces preponderance and superior strategic orientation in SCS. However, there are vast areas of convergence among US and India. Hence, India has emerged as US’s natural ally. Blumenthal (2007, p. 308) opines, ‘The United States thus has a fundamental interest in assisting India’s rise as a prosperous democracy that contributes to international security. More immediately United States would like to see India play the role of counterweight on China’s western flank (with Japan doing the same in the east).’ The emerging scenario would certainly be perceived by Chinese strategic defence-wizards as pincer in the offing in Asia-Pacific region to clinch China. Some experts are also sceptical about India’s role in Asia-Pacific, fearing that US efforts to march India against China may be a matter of serious conjecture as Indians are known to pursue independent approach to the global issues. Sibal (2012) is of the view, ‘Being a pro-American is not a stigma any longer whether in politics or business… though not at the cost of becoming subservient….’ China has, however, possibly measured the depth of Indo-US strategic alliance and has not felt jittery about it, leaving window of reconciliation open with India for resolution of its border disputes.
Sino, Japan and Vietnam’s Threat Orientation
China and Japan are at odds historically and old wounds among them appear too deep to heel. Though there have been confrontations recently among them, Japan perceives Chinese force projections worrisome but manageable. Holms (2012) asserts that China would employ ‘rope-a-dope strategy’ or ‘shadow boxing’ with fellow Asian powers in the event of crises in Asia-Pacific region and not meet adversaries in direct fleet-to-fleet engagements. Quoting Admiral Yoji Koda, he observed, ‘Chinese leadership can keep the enforcement ships on station near to Senkaku/Diaoyu Island, send PLA Navy task force through…as matter of routine and otherwise overtax finite Japanese leadership and electorate overtime. Ultimately Tokyo may throw in the towel ….’ Conversely Japan seems aware that option of peaceful settlement of dispute would only sell better at an opportune moment on the dialogue table if Japan manages to convince China that East or SCS space would never be exclusive to her but rather inclusive to some or all the littorals. Augmenting Philippines high sea capability by providing her fast manoeuvring gun- boats and scrambling fighter jet recently after an alleged threat of violation by Chinese air craft, were possibly the acts well considered not only by Japan but its allies as well.
The conflict vulnerability in SCS and ECS between China and others vary from low to high probability. Some analysts (Ciorciari & Chen 2012, p. 62) maintain, ‘The Sino-Vietnamese feud is part of a tangled web of competing claims to the Paracel and Spratly chains and the surrounding South China Sea.’ Vietnam is likely to meet incessant Chinese naval provocations at forward foot, assuming that China’s loss of face among international community would be greater after attacking a small neighbour’s navy and China has essentially bigger stakes for sustaining peace as economies are always conflict-shy. China, considering Vietnam’s mischief unbearable may be inclined to drub its navy in short and intense engagements, hoping it would be a well defined deterrent for others. China and Vietnam navies appear to have toyed with access-denial strategy recently as a defensive manoeuvre that leads us to believe that both are maintaining naval alert unobtrusively.
China’s Blues and Opposing Manoeuvres
China does not omit noticing US encouraging gestures to Vietnam when, ‘Defence Secretary Leon Panetta visited a deep-water Vietnamese port near the contested South China Sea…, calling access to such harbours critical as the US shifts 60 percent of its warships to the Asia-Pacific by 2020 (Alexander 2012).’ Their protests are also the index of intense feelings raging through Chinese leadership and public alike when US is seen equipping Taiwan’s military with sophisticated weapons. China perceives Taiwan as an integral part of mainland China. Hence US role amounts to encourage Taiwan to shun Chinese overtures of re-unification and prime it as one of the link in, as some call it ‘string of pearls’ or ‘pearls’ necklace’ to consummate a sort of perfect siege around China. However, China is also carving elaborate pearl-nodes to ensure adversaries’ access-denial and exhaust them way short of their objectives in South and ECS. Chinese forays into Central Asia, South Asia, Middle East, Africa and Latin America; mainly to enhance its energy security is met with suspicion by US and her allies as their energy security stands vitally threatened by implications. Almost in parallel context, an observer had raised a question way back, asking, even if the stage setting of transition of hegemony from Anglo-Saxon-centric to Sino-centric world is accepted, remains a lot between the cup and the lips. Will the transition be peaceful or the two sides would end up locked in oil resources war as and when race for oil degenerates to oil stampede (Khan 2008, p.156)?
If China is accused of consuming all its markers, demarcating its possession through entire length and breadth of SCS, still the onus of responsibility to avert rather than initiate a conflict in SCS lies on US because the world hinges hope on US to undertake ‘fire-fight’ anywhere on the planet. Its suspicions that within a few decades, US may be challenged militarily by China are also well within US prerogative to hypothesise. However, US should evolve and attempt strategies away from use of force, preventing triggering of widespread conflagration, spinning out of control. In other words, as a RAND Review (Dobbins & Cliff 2012) suggests, US be well advised to meet such aims by creating a spectre of, ‘Mutual Assured Economic Destruction.’ In other words, US compulsion to remain an economic giant would further sharpen but it would deter any power to risk its economic destruction, as the threat of economic fiasco would outweigh the gains of lucrative military strategic objectives. An objective argument hints about US being alive to such an obligation, ‘Given the growing importance of the US-China relationship and Asia-Pacific more generally, to the global economy, the United States has a major interest in preventing anyone of the various disputes in the South China Sea from escalating militarily (Glaser 2012a, p. 1).’
Legal and Professional Dimensions
Forces Projection and Pretexts
Chinese show of force in SCS and harassing others, sometime searching them, has been a sore point. Their decision to establish a full-fledged Sansha Garrison on Paracel Islands in June 2012 means that another red rag has been flaunted to provoke the arena’s fury. Thus Philippines and Vietnam emphatically denounced such move though China perceives act of some countries contracting foreign oil and gas companies to commence oil exploration in SCS as far more serious breach of trust than establishing a garrison with symbolic connotations rather than operational one. An expert thinks, ‘The decision (of establishing Sansha Garrison) fundamentally challenges two key aspects of the conventional wisdom in Washington about China’s South China Sea strategy: that China’s assertive behaviour results from actions taken by the civil and military agencies independently of the central government and that China has been moderating its policies towards the South China Sea since 2009 (Mastro 2012).’
As regards legalities of claims over the SCS territories through historical documents, China is very well equipped with huge stock of evidence to support its plea since Yuan Dynasty period though it has not shown flare for international arbitration except from the Association of South East Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) platform. There is however, a hope for the remaining SCS states to advance their view point and press for territorial waters concessions because all of them have gone through alteration of boundaries and dynasties over the centuries. Having gained independence generally in 20th Century, some UN conventions and International Laws support their plea to the extent of being granted respective EEZs that at the moment are denied by China. When China has not ruled out negotiations, there is a scope of settlement, step by step through multiple approaches.
Responsibility and Policy paradigm
Shifting of US focus from Middle East to Asia-Pacific can be successful and draw no ire from China though the statement appears self-negating within. It would be successful, heralding an era of peace and reconciliation if the emphasis is about the quest for peace by all parties, particularly, China and US when the latter has lien over decision making of Vietnam and Philippines also, being an ally or potential ally. To do that, a paradox has to be eliminated. Glaser (2012b) comments, ‘China’s neighbours seek greater US economic, diplomatic and military involvement in the region as counter balance to Chinese growing power but at the same time every country in the region also desires a close relationship with Beijing.’ In other words, SCS littorals are pursuing double-stream foreign policy. One, to induce US that it should remain available for all out support, even military. Second, keep Chinese connection sacred and close to heart.
US is in better position to encourage them to develop thorough understanding of China and to work towards mutual recognition of merit of grievances and resolving them rather than turning to US for every thorn-prick. Another aspect which SCS countries have to watch against is the rise of nationalist sentiments for resolving the disputes. No wonders, Vietnam and lately, Philippines have managed to mobilize their youths, condemning China and obfuscating their own governance deficits but it has also propped Chinese youths’ frenzy as a repercussion. They openly question Deng Xiaoping’s policy of appeasing SCS neighbours who advised them to maintain sovereignty over SCS but circumvent all disputes for the sake of economic prosperity of China. Rachman (2012) comments favourably about Deng Xiaoping, ‘It was a brilliant strategy which ensured that China…rapid economic growth without significant international opposition.’ Chinese leadership’s aggressive posture in SCS may be, more often, a response to sooth their youths and middle class on finding narrow political space. At the same time China compensates its loss of international image with propriety of tones at diplomatic levels.
‘Go’ and ‘Shi’ Factor
It is a matter of conjecture whether Chinese stratagem has been understood. Lai (2012) emphasises that it would be possible only if US understood Chinese board game ‘Go’, the oldest, yet modern that is reflected in their philosophy. Interestingly Chinese entire range of philosophical twists are still nourished by ‘Go’ that is compatible and having firm roots in centuries old Sun Tzu’s classical ‘Shi’. The discussions in the Western world are predominantly about the narratives that are usually obvious and not on the wrapped philosophy from which the narratives emanate. Finkelstein (1999, p. 193) comments would give us the glimpse that he claims to have distilled from wide range of sources, ‘If one were to distil all of the statements of China’s national security objectives, both explicit and implicit, that have been publicly declared or adduced over the last few years they could be distilled to three simple words: sovereignty, modernity, and stability.’ From a western scholar’s point of view it sounds as an all encompassing remark but Chinese philosopher would differ about what he has distilled that relates to every aspiring sovereign state confronting challenges and also because it skips the interpretation through ‘Go’ and ‘Shi’ standards in Chinese context.
Chinese way of war and conduct of diplomacy even today is like water, denoting Sun Tzu and Lao Tzu’s ‘Shi’ (Lai 2012). Water ultimately finds a flow-path. Conversely, Western art of war and diplomacy flow from Greek traditions; chivalrous, agile like a boxer and have tendency to match force on force, seeking immediate result on the battlefield, assumed as chessboard, even at enormous cost in men and material.
Western diplomats found during early 70s US-China thaw that when the West spoke of events maturing in months and years, Chinese planned on span of dynasties. In other words, to push negotiations against the tide of time and expecting to pluck the success like a plum from dialogue table is dangerous. During Cold War era, America won over China against Soviet Union with patience and perseverance. What is relevant part of the argument here is to highlight a point that US and its allies may not be finding rhythm with China on the security issue of SCS and getting frustrated with her but for China, SCS may be a board game on which is being played ‘Go’ and ‘Shi’.
SCS security dilemma is not only complex but challenging. US and China emerge after evaluation from all angles of the calculus, the sole powers who would decide the destiny of SCS. However, the constructive role of other SCS border states cannot be relegated to lesser significance. The lesser powers in the region got to muster an increased sense of faith in multilateral dialogue option. Economic inter-dependability is emerging vital ground to shun war and violence as execrable acts. Spread of prosperity through economic interdependence would keep the world hostage to peace. That will remain a welcome proposition.
China, being militarily strong in SCS, draws obvious flak for coercing neighbours through its forward if not aggressive posture, driven by its weakness of domestic politics, an aspect the West does not always take into account. An analyst, who is more familiar with ‘Go’ and ‘Shi’, made very realistic remarks: Over the next decade or so, the Middle Kingdom’s future will hinge on the dynamic between the fear of revolution and the hope for political reform. The threat of revolution from below may push the elite to pursue incremental yet bold political reform. Should reform fail, however, revolt may well be the upshot. And the unfolding drama, wherever it leads, will undoubtedly have profound ramifications far beyond China’s borders (Li 2013, p. 47). Hence Chinese exercise to keep the courtyard in order may be leaning on SCS geopolitics as an instrument of effective appeasement, directed inwardly.
SCS littorals and others with heavy stakes in the arena have to avoid making it the pivot of geopolitics. Choong (2013) quotes a Chinese professor, raising very pertinent questions, ‘If China doesn`t have a Cold War mentality, why does it see the US as the main threat? If the US doesn`t have a Cold War mentality, why does it deploy so many troops in Asia? To obviate unwinding of plethora of irritants, sagacity points to an opportunity for both the arch actors to settle down, talk and build an edifice of peace that embraces South as well as ECS. Therefore, one would hinge huge hope on new leadership of China and the renewed leadership of United States of America to mobilise and commit their energies toward this end. ‘Shi’ and ‘Chess’ compatibility has to be explored as two-way responsibility and there is no other option.
Alexander, D. (2012), ‘Access of Pacific Harbors Key to US Strategy: Panetta’, Reuters, 3 June,
- www.reuters.com/articles, 15 September.
Blumenthal, D. (2007), ‘Will India Be a Better Strategic Partner than China’, in Sokolski, (Ed),
‘Gauging U.S.-India Strategic Cooperation’, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army
Choong, W. (2013), ‘US and China’s Anxieties’, DAWN, Pakistan, accessed DAWN.COM, 15
Ciorciari, J. & Chen, J, (2012), ‘The Sino-Vietnamese Stand Off in the South China Sea’,
George Town, Journal of International Affairs, Winter/Spring, accessed
http://journal.georgetown.edu/past-issues, 10 November.
Dobbins, J. & Cliff, R. (2012) ‘Peace with China through Deterrence’, ‘RAND REVIEW’, Rand
Corporation, accessed www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/2012, 5
Finkelstein, D. (1999), ‘China’s National Military Strategy’, in Mulvenon, J & Yang, R. (Eds),
The People Liberation Army in the Information Age, RAND National Security
Research Division (Project Air Force), accessed
www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings, 20 October, 2012.
Glaser, B. (2012a), ‘Armed Clash in South China Sea’, Council of Foreign Relations,
Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 14’ accessed
www.cfr.org/east-asia/armed- clash-south-china-sea, 20 September.
Glaser, B. (2012b), ‘Trouble in South China Sea’, ‘Foreign Policy (National Security)’, 17
September, accessed www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012, 30 October.
Holmes, J, (2012), ‘Can China Win without Fight? The Diplomat, accessed
www.thediplomat.com/the-naval-diplomat, 7 November.
Khan, M. (2008), ‘The New Great Game: Oil and Gas Politics in Central Eurasia’, (Raider
Publishing International, New York, London, Swansea).
Lai, D. (2012), ‘Learning from the Stones: A ‘Go’ Approach to Mastering China Strategic
Concept, ‘Shi’, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 1 May,
- www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pub, 25 September.
Li, C. (2013), ‘China at the Tipping Point’, Journal of Democracy’, 24:1, January, National
Endowment for Democracy and The Johns Hopkins University Press,
- http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles, 15 January.
Lyzhenkov, A. (2012), ‘Towards necessary adaptation in improving the fight against new
threats’, (Presentation), Crans Montana Forum, Geneva, Switzerland, attended
18 October, accessed www.cmf.ch, 2 November.
Manicom, J. (2012), ‘Canada’s Re-Engagement Challenge with South China Sea Dispute’, Asia
Pacific Foundation ,Vancouver, Canada, 30 May, accessed
www.asiapacific.ca/editorial/canada-asia-viewpoint, 31 December.
Mastro, O. (2012), ‘The Sansha Garrison: Chinese Deliberate Escalation in South China Sea’,
Centre for New American Security, East and South China Sea, Bulletin-5,
accessed www.cnas.org, 15 October.
Matloff, M. (1973), (ed), ‘American Military History’, (Centre of Military History, Lafayette,
CO), accessed www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar 10 October, 2012.
Nixon, R. (1993), ‘In The Arena: A Memoir of Victory, Defeat and Renewal’, Army Education
Oegroseno, A. (2012), ‘Managing Strategic Waters in South Asia’, (Presentation), Crans
Montana Forum, Geneva, attended 18 October, accessed www.cmf.ch, 29
Paal, D. (2012), ‘Dangerous Shoals: US Policy in South China Sea’, Carnegie Endowment,
Washington DC, 11 August, accessed
Rachman, G. (2012), China and US navigate in risky waters, ‘Financial Times’, London, 12
November, accessed www.ft.com/cms, 13 November.
Rudd, K. (2012), ‘Dynamics Driving China’s Policies,’ ‘The Standard’ Zimbabwe, 11
November, accessed www.thestandard.co.zw, 13 November.
Sibal, K. (2012), ‘The Arc of India-US Partnership’, Indian Defence Review (Journal) 27:2,
April-June, Bangalore, India, accessed www.indiandefensereview.com, 30
Sterling, H. (2012), ‘Tempests toss East China Sea’, (Winnipeg Free Press), accessed
www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion, 19 November.
Ungar, A. (2012), ‘China Dares US to Respond with More than Bromides to Measures’, Israel
National News, 27 July, accessed www.israelnationalnews.com/news, 24
China & Nepal working towards a genuine good-neighbour tie
Authors: Himal Neupane & Jamal Ait Laadam
Although China and Nepal are very different in terms of each territorial size, population, economic capacity, technological prowess and above all military power, the bilateral relations between them have been undergone consistently and significantly. Since 1955 when China and Nepal formally recognized each with, their bilateral relationship has been characterized by equality, harmonious coexistence, everlasting friendship and overall cooperation. Particularly during the past over 40 years, China and Nepal have undergone substantial developments in view of mutual understandings. For example, in 1996 the two sides for the first time agreed to build up a good-neighbour partnership of the 21st century.
In line with this spirit of mutual respect and equality, Chinese President Xi Jinping paid a state visit to Nepal on October 12-13, during which the heads of the two states formally announced that they elevated the China-Nepal Comprehensive Partnership of Cooperation to Strategic Partnership of Cooperation in light of their many common values to enhance cooperation It is reported that President Xi frankly said Nepal wouldn’t be a landlocked country in the future as the trans-Himalayan connectivity network ultimately will support sustainable development and stability of the entire South Asia region. This is not only a promise from a large neighbor, but also a sort of responsibility from a rising major power of the world, which aims along with other parties, either large or small, to create an international community of shared future.
Accordingly, on October 12, Nepal and China signed 18 memorandums of understanding and two letters of exchange. The priority was laid down with a focus on the implementation of signed agreements and acknowledged policies. Besides, they also reaffirmed the commitment to broaden the level of cooperation under the spirit of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Moreover, China and Nepal have agreed to enhance connectivity through ports, railways, roads, aviation and communications within the broad framework of the BRI and the Trans-Himalayan Multi-Dimensional Connectivity Network which are of strategic significance. As Chinese President Xi put it, “our two peoples have shared weal and woe, and set an example of friendly exchanges between neighboring countries, and we would act to carry forward the traditional friendship and take the bilateral relationship to a new and higher level via his state visit to Nepal.
For sure, nothing is free in the realm of international politics as the realists argue what China and Nepal need from each other are their common geopolitical and geo-economical interests? This kind of inquiry is sensible and also cynical. In fact, historically China and Nepal had been at good terms for a few centuries, and during the British colonial era, Nepal actually acted as a natural buffer state between imperial China and colonial India. Since 1949 when the People’s Republic of China was founded soon after the independence of India, Nepal ended its isolation and forged amicable ties with India and other countries. Initially, Nepal had close ties to India in terms of culture, ethnics and even military affair, but it never accepts external domination. In 1955 Nepal formally recognized Beijing as the legitimate government of China and since then, it has consistently supported China in foreign affairs. Meanwhile, China has offered economic aid to Nepali reconstruction in a gradual way.
However, since the 1980s, China has steadily transformed itself into the second largest economy of the world with its alarming manufacturing capability and progressive technologies. Due to this, China has provided more assistances to Nepal and other neighbours to share Chinese public goods, especially in terms of the infrastructure projects and alleviation of poverty. For example, President Xi announced in 2018, “In the coming three years, China will provide assistance worth RMB 60 billion to developing countries and international organizations participating in the Belt and Road Initiative, and contributing an additional RMB 100 billion to the Silk Road Fund.” As a developing country nestled in the heart of the Himalaya, Nepal surely needs to expand its infrastructure through involving itself into the BRI with the view to exploring and finally harnessing its huge potential sources —hydropower—for export.
Strategically speaking, China needs to maintain its border areas peaceful and stable in light of its “NEWS strategy” that means while China tries to consolidate its entente partnership with Russia on the North and pacifying its East coast, it necessarily aims to sustain the BRI projects to the West and the maritime silk route to the South. This is the core of the NEWS strategy initiated by the Chinese elite since President Xi took power. Consider Nepal’s strategic location and political stability, China is sure to promote the bilateral ties as the two previous MOUs were signed in Beijing including to rebuild Chinese—Nepali transit road network agreements. It will help northern Himalayan areas get an alternative transit route and also facilitate the local economics, as much important part of the BRI as the economic corridor between China and Pakistan. Moreover, since 2016, a freight rail line was even completed linking Lanzhou, a heavy industrial city in the West of China through Xigaze in Tibet, down to the capital of Nepal. This is a truly strategic pivot of the grand BRI project.
To that end, President Xi revealed to his Nepali counterpart Bidhya Devi Bhandari that the two sides should work closely to carry out the construction of a trans-Himalayan connectivity network, and expand exchanges and cooperation in various fields. For her part, Nepali President Bhandari graciously welcomed Xi’s state visit to Nepal and stressed that the rise of China backed up by its modernization drive will help bring benefits to Nepal and promote regional peace and prosperity. In light of this cordiality, the two governments issued a joint statement on Oct. 13, agreeing on more practical cooperation in the new phase of bilateral relations. For a few key points serve to inllustrate that first, the two sides agreed to take the BRI as an opportunity to deepen mutual benefits in arious fields including the Kathmandu-Pokhara-Lumbini Railway Project. Furthermore, cooperation will cover the Zhangmu/Khasa port, the Lizi/Nechung port, and the three North-South corridors in Nepal. Second, the two sides will hold comprehensive discussions to strengthen trade relations, including to take positive measures to increase Nepal’s exports to China and to facilitate Chinese banks to open their branches and other financial services in Nepal. Last, China promises to help Nepal shake off the status of being a least developed country and achieve the sustainable development goals in the next two decades.
Since states are committed to each other by the nature of the world in which they exist, any close cooperation between China and Nepal is never bilateral only, that means there is always local, regional and international concerns, suspicions and even hostilities towards either China or Nepal or both. Geopolitically, India is the first power, understandably, to feel uncomfortable if not angry. This is the reason why President Xi made his first trip to India prior to his state visit to Nepal, and held comprehensive talks with Indian Prime Minister Modi. Second, China and Nepal also need to coordinate each other deftly to convince other neighbours such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh that any sort of their cooperation would never be exclusive but inclusive and open all others in the South Asia. Geo-economically, China has reiterated that it would not seek to use its economic or financial leverages to “dictate” the local affairs of the recipient countries. Meanwhile, Chinese companies also need to move in prudently and read the local laws and political norms before jumping into the businesses.
Xi has frequently said, China is the largest developing country and also a learning country all the time. In order to promote China’s strategy to link the countries involved, mutual respect and equality are the prior condition to the long-term cooperation. In light of this, it is expected that Xi’s state visit to Nepal, the first one by a president of China over the past 26 years, will unlock new strategic opportunities for bilateral relations, as well as positively promote their ties with India by understanding the prospects for trilateral cooperation. It is clear that Chinese-Nepali economic integration through BRI is unstoppable, so it is sensible for India and the others in the region to take the opportunity to extend the proposed high-speed railway between those two all the way south to the nearby West Bengal port of Kolkata to more closely tie the three together in a system of complex economic interdependence. This is a balanced approach to prevent an open rivalry between the key member states of the BRICS and the SCO over their common neighbors. Given this, Xi’s visit to both India and Nepal might be the very time to enhance the trilateral understanding among Nepal with its giant neighbor. To that end, Nepal, though a much smaller state compared to China and India, could play positively a role as the bridge for building a more trust-based relationship across this region.
China has showed its willingness to share with Nepal its development experiences, practices and inclusive economic governance approaches. In doing so, geopolitical factors should never be the obstacles for China-Nepal cooperation. Rather, Nepal could serve as a dynamic bridge between China and India, and China and South Asia.
Semiconductor War between Japan and South Korea
Authors: Gleb Toropchin and Anastasia Tolstukhina
In the summer of 2019, a trade conflict broke out between Tokyo and Seoul and the matter is about more than the history between the two countries. The two developed economies have long been locked in a competition on the global cutting-edge technologies market. At the same time, they are links in the same technological chain.
At first glance, the exchange of trade restrictions that is taking place against the background of mutual accusations is nobody’s business but Tokyo and Seoul’s. Nonetheless, the consequences of the confrontation between the two countries have a global nature. The present article analyses the causes of the disagreements and looks at how the situation may develop
Introducing Restrictions and Removal from the “White List”
Despite the events of the colonial past , as well as the current territorial disputes that are so typical of Asia’s international politics , South Korea is one of Japan’s three largest trade partners. Japan exports into South Korea up to $54 billion in goodsThe key commodities include semiconductors and materials for their manufacture
The dependence of South Korean companies on imports of fluorinated polyimides and photoresists exceeds 90 percent, and their dependence on imports of hydrogen fluoride is around 44 percent (although this figure has fallen gradually from 72 percent in 2010)
However, on July 1, 2019, the Government of Japan announced restrictions on the export of commodities to South Korea that are of critical importance for microelectronics, and on July 4, the changes to the procedure came into force
Given the long-established delivery mechanism, such a political step was a surprise for many. The restrictions mainly affected three key materials for the microelectronics industry: fluorinated polyimides, hydrogen fluoride, and photoresists (these materials are used in the manufacturing of semiconductors and display panels). This measure does not mean that deliveries of these materials to South Korea have been completely stopped; however, from now on, it may take up to 90 days to approve transactions. Additionally, Japan said it would be taking South Korea off its “white list” of trade partners. The list includes states that are believed to be safe from the point of view of exporting strategic commodities and that are granted trade preferences
Let us try to understand why the Government of Japan took such steps
Pressure from Taiwanese and South Korean competitors
In 1986, an agreement was signed between Tokyo and Washington that prohibited Japan from undercutting global semiconductor prices. This step was initially intended to make the United States more competitive. However, even in those circumstances, Japan managed to take a significant chunk of the global semiconductor market from the United States in the late 20th century and retain its high positions until the 2010s. However, as early as 2012, experts noted that pressure from Taiwanese and South Korean competitors resulted in semiconductor sales of Japan’s four chip-makers, Toshiba, Renesas, Sony and Fujitsu taking a marked dip
Samsung Electronics succeeded in mastering the subtleties of developing technologies just at the right time, while Japan began to lag behind in R&D due to problems with formal education, and its revenues from global sales of microelectronics were falling against the backdrop of falling prices and the high exchange rate of the Japanese yen. Among other causes of this phenomenon, Japanese experts cite the desire to create hi-tech goods without account for high costs, and lack of innovative ideas
Today, South Korea is the leading manufacturer of memory microchips. Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix hold two-thirds of the global market. Additionally, both the United States’ Apple and China’s Huawei depend on the products produced by South Korean companies. Integrated circuit units account for 17 percent of South Korea’s exports (the entire microelectronics sector accounts for nearly a quarter of its exports), compared to less than 4 percent for Japan
An analysis of the global microelectronics market demonstrates that, currently, the market particularly values dynamic random-access memory semiconductors (DRAMS) that hold tremendous significance for such cutting-edge technologies as artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things and robotics. South Korea holds impressive positions in this area as well: Samsung and SK Hynix control 72.8 percent of the DRAMS market and 46.8 percent of the global flash memory market
Reasons for Introducing Restrictive Measures
The East Asia Forum reports that Japan’s strategy of opposing Seoul was developed jointly by the country’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The Cabinet of Ministers subsequently supported these measures, thereby making the key decision to transfer the issue into the political realm
It appears that Japan’s decision to impose restrictive measures was prompted by the fact that the country has clearly fallen behind technologically on the global microelectronic market, which negatively affects both the country’s economic indicators and its national security
According to the expert June Park, the Government of Japan decided to institute the restrictive measures out of concern for national security, since, in exporting rare materials to South Korea, Tokyo cannot be certain they will be used properly
The Japan Times notes that Tokyo justifies the introduction of increasingly strict export requirements by claiming that confidence in South Korea has been undermined. In particular, some media outlets report that between 2015 and March 2019, no fewer than 156 materials, including hydrogen fluoride, were smuggled out of South Korea. There were also reports of hydrogen fluoride being exported to countries that are under international sanctions (Iran, Syria and even North Korea). Another reason for the restrictions is Tokyo’s concerns that South Korea violates intellectual property rights
South Korea denies all accusations. Its arguments are logical: Iran and Syria are friends of North Korea, therefore, Seoul has no reasons to help their regimes. President of South Korea Moon Jae-in called for the differences to be resolved by diplomatic means. However, the talks held on July 12, 2019, in Tokyo did not yield any results. Consequently, Moon Jae-in instructed the relevant agencies to develop reciprocal measures. At about the same time, there were reports of South Korea possibly filing a grievance with the World Trade Organization. As a result, hearings on the issue were launched in Geneva on July 24, 2019
In late July 2019, news broke that Tokyo was considering further restrictions since Japan believes the re-selling of strategic materials by Seoul to be a violation of the non-proliferation regimes regarding both weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons. In this case, the restrictions would extend to other types of commodities and materials. On August 2, the Cabinet of Japan approved the decision to take South Korea off its “white list” (where the Republic of Korea was the only Asian state), thereby depriving it of trade preferences in regard to the materials mentioned above. The full list exceeds 1100 items
Despite these events, several deliveries of these materials from Japan to South Korea were made in August. However, they did not result in a thaw in bilateral relations. Seoul reciprocated by putting Japan on a restrictive trade list and terminating the military intelligence-sharing pact with Tokyo
“Wu Wei” American Style
China holds leading positions in deposits of rare-earth metals. Moreover, approximately 90 percent of the world’s rare-earth magnets are manufactured in China. Japanese companies use China’s raw materials to manufacture fluorinated polyimides, hydrogen fluoride and photoresists that are subsequently supplied to South Korea, Taiwan and other countries to be used in manufacturing chips, displays, etc. The circle is complete when these commodities go back to China to be used in the manufacture of finished products (such as smartphones and tablets), creating a sort of a closed-loop. Thus, the manufacture of competitive hi-tech products today is impossible within a single economy, and Chinese companies depend on parts coming from other Asian countries
Tracing the entire technological chain, we can assume that the Japan–South Korea conflict is closely linked to the trade war between China and the United States. South Korea’s Samsung Electronics is hindered by the restrictions on deliveries of Huawei memory chips since the latter is under U.S. sanctions. In turn, interrupting the chain of semiconductors delivery from South Korea will slow down the development of artificial intelligence in China. And who benefits from this? This is a rhetorical question
It would seem that the United States should be interested in cordial relations between their allies in the region, allies that form a sort of counterbalance to China and are ideological antagonists to North Korea. The White House, however, intentionally or unintentionally, demonstrates adherence to the Taoist principle of inaction, or “wu wei” (无为 in simplified Chinese), which entails a conscious refusal to act and the assumption of a contemplative stance. From the outset of the confrontation in July 2019, the United States announced it would not interfere in the conflict. Despite individual experts calling upon the United States to act as an intermediary between the two Asian states, Washington did not change its position
We should also note here that the Japanese company Toshiba announced the construction of a facility for the production of NAND-type (from the English NOT-AND, that is, a binary logical element) flash memory devices in Iwate Prefecture in cooperation with U.S. chip manufacturer Western Digital. We can cautiously assume that the United States and Japan are progressing toward a “technological union” in order to defeat China in the race for domination of the semiconductor industry
Speaking of the impact that the conflict has on public opinion in both countries, we can quote a survey conducted by Japan’s Asahi Shimbun in mid-September 2019. Overall, slightly less than one third (29 per cent) of respondents admitted that they had a negative opinion of South Korea. This was far more pronounced among older people, which can be linked to their conservative views and the “proximity aberration” phenomenon (put simply, the older generations remember the events of the 20th century well)
As for South Korea, an anti-Japanese “grassroots” campaign has been launched in addition to the “top-down” process. In the second half of the summer of 2019, slogans『 가지않습니다 사지않습니다 』 (Korean for “Do not visit, do not buy”) calling for boycotting trips to Japan and Japanese goods spread on Korean social networks. And it looks like they were successful to a degree. For instance, the Yonhap News Agency reports that the number of South Koreans travelling to Japan in August fell by 60 per cent compared to the same period last year
In the run-up to the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo, the trade conflict has become a reason for manipulating public opinion in South Korea. Additionally, we cannot rule out the possibility that populists use the disagreements between Japan and South Korea to advance their domestic agenda on the eve of the elections to South Korea’s unicameral parliament scheduled for April 15, 2020
Forecast: Cloudy in the East
Losses from the Japan–South Korea trade war may exceed $80 billion. There has already been a drop in sales of South Korean semiconductors manufactured by Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix. Moreover, the conflict threatens to disrupt the entire global technological production chain in microelectronics. The expert Robert Farley described this conflict (and the U.S.–China trade war) as “weaponizing interdependence.” One of the analysts with The Economist Intelligence Unit called this situation “mutually assured destruction.”
The Yonhap News reports that the consequences of the trade conflict have had greater negative effect on the Japanese economy than on the South Korean economy. For instance, in July–August, South Korean exports to Japan have fallen by 3.5 per cent, while Japanese exports to South Korea have dropped 8.1 per cent
The South Korean economy has also suffered against the backdrop of these events. Here, Seoul has only two ways out of this predicament:
-Transitioning to domestic analogues, which LG Display and Samsung Electronics already did in September of this year. Additionally, the country earmarked 2.1 trillion South Korean won in the 2020 budget to overcome the dependence on the export of rare materials from Japan
-Searching for alternative sources of hydrogen fluoride and other rare materials for microelectronics. Media outlets have reported that Russia might be a potential supplier of high-purity hydrogen fluoride. The head of the Korea International Trade Association said that Moscow had offered to supply hydrogen fluoride to Seoul. However, it is not easy for South Korean companies to transition to Russian imports of this and other materials for microelectronics. The physical and chemical properties of the products must be tested for a rather lengthy period of time (upwards of six months)
Apparently, the status quo on the microelectronic market will continue in the short-term, and both parties will seek ways to minimize losses. And we can already see evidence of this. In September and October, the Government of Japan approved deliveries of hydrogen fluoride to Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix
At the same time, if Tokyo and Seoul fail to find common ground in the medium and long term, then the current global technological chain in microelectronics may be dismantled, which will, of course, negatively affect the growth rate of the global economy. However, so as not to end our study on a pessimistic note, let us note that, under the current circumstances, many hi-tech companies around the world, including those in Russia, now have the chance to become new links in the value chain and occupy its niche in microelectronics
From our partner RIAC
 In 1910, the Empire of Japan annexed the entire Korean peninsula. Korea essentially became a Japanese colony. The Japanese language and culture were forced onto the Korean people. Up to 200,000 ethnic Koreans served in the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II (including future president of South Korea and “father of the economic miracle” Park Chung-hee). Today, Japanese war crimes are a subject of talks between South Korea and Japan. In 2015, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan Fumio Kishida promised 1 billion yen to the victims of violence in compensation, and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe offered a public apology for Japan’s actions during the war.
 The dispute concerns the Liancourt Rocks, a group of small islets that the Koreans call Dokdo (“Solitary Islands”) and the Japanese call Takeshima (“Bamboo Islands”). Back in the early 20th century, Japan claimed sovereignty over these islands; however, following its defeat in World War II, it was forced to abandon its colonial acquisitions. On the other hand, the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco does not mention this territory, which gives Japan formal grounds to dispute the sovereignty of the islands where South Korea maintains military and civil infrastructure.
Future Trends of China’s Diplomacy
This year 2019 marked the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and China’s diplomacy has also gone through a journey of 70 years. The 70-year history of the PRC can be divided into the first 30 years after its founding and the second 40 years since opening and reform were initiated in 1978. The characteristic of china diplomacy is a responsible nation, rational behavior and the confidence of great power.
China had a clear break with the old diplomacy of humiliation; established a new kind of diplomatic relations with other countries on the basis of equality and mutual benefit; secured an equal position and dignity on the global stage; gained diplomatic independence by safeguarding and strengthening national independence, and protecting national security and territorial integrity; settled the border disputes left over from history with most neighbors by peaceful means, creating a stable neighborhood in general; established strong friendships with the vast majority of developing countries through mutual support; and set up a new diplomatic contingent for seeking the diplomacy of independence. The following are the future expectations of China diplomacy:
Firstly, Deng Xiaoping’s directive, “Don’t seek for leadership,” stays powerful in China’s new diplomacy, so China’s future diplomacy will keep on emphasizing on the management of the crisis, economic diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, cooperation, and accommodation while protecting the main national interest. Solving problems and managing crises will stay an important characteristic of China’s diplomacy, particularly in its ties with other major powers. Meanwhile, in cooperation with other major powers, China will appear to be more active in managing fundamental global issues at the strategic level.
Secondly, The Chinese government has repeatedly said that China does not have a plan of challenging the international system and has focused on the importance of being a “responsible member” of the universal society. As of late, China has developed new concepts for its foreign policy orientation, just as (1) “new security” emphasizing shared and cooperative security, (2) “peaceful development” focusing on non-violence commitment, (3) “win-win” cooperation denying a zero-sum comprehension of international affairs, and (4) building a “harmonious world” that promoting harmony with diversity, solving conflict through dialogue, and democratization of world governmental issues.
As these concepts demonstrate, China has no desire of being revolutionary in the international system, rather, it intends to be a responsible member of world affairs. Economic diplomacy will remain to be emphasized by china. While trade will keep on being a fundamental diplomatic focus, energy security and energy diplomacy will be given additional accentuation. Energy supply, energy shipment, and energy-saving cooperation will be fields where the diplomacy of china will move forward.
Lastly, Multilateral diplomacy will take on an even greater role in the future diplomacy of China. China will become more involved at the global level and in regional affairs at the United Nations. As the identity of China is more globally and regionally established, the current concept of multilateralism in the overall diplomatic strategy of china can be re-defined to realize national interests, address thorny issues, and provide governance in a complex world. More attempts will be created to improve regional integration between the SCO and East Asian. Finally, various needed diplomatic attempts may need to be further reinforced. China will keep on being cooperative, however, it will likewise be more active. All things considered; cultural diplomacy will be a new attribute of China’s diplomacy. Confucianism, an extremely cosmopolitan doctrine that promotes harmony and peace through human relations, will be an important component of cultural diplomacy, both to strengthen China’s soft power and to reduce the negative result of the China threat theory.
China has accumulated a wealth of experience over the past 70 years, understanding that China cannot develop without the world and that without China the world cannot prosper. China’s future and fate have been closely linked to the rest of the world. What is certain is that China will adhere to the path of peaceful development and that the people of China will join the people from all other countries in working to realize the lofty dream of a harmonious world.
Indian Mujahideen, IS and Hizbul Tahrir: Breeding ground for terrorism in South Asia
India Today dated October 8, 2019 has made the startling revelation `The Special Cell of the Delhi Police, probing an...
AMLO’s Failed State
Mexico’s challenges since transitioning from the hegemonic rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) 19 years ago have remained numerous...
New Target: Cut “Learning Poverty” by At Least Half by 2030
The World Bank introduced today an ambitious new Learning Target, which aims to cut by at least half the global...
African financial centres step up efforts on green and sustainable finance
When we talk about climate change and sustainable development, the continent that is often highlighted as facing the greatest socio-economic...
Modi’s India a flawed partner for post-Brexit Britain
With just two weeks to go until Britain is scheduled to exit the European Union, Boris Johnson and his ministers...
Post-UNGA: Kashmir is somewhere between abyss and fear
Hailed as a hero for calling out New Delhi’s draconian measures in occupied Kashmir, Imran Khan warned the world of a...
Achieving Broadband Access for All in Africa Comes With a $100 Billion Price Tag
Across Africa, where less than a third of the population has access to broadband connectivity, achieving universal, affordable, and good...
Urban Development3 days ago
Cities Around the World Want to Be Resilient and Sustainable. But What Does This Mean?
East Asia3 days ago
Semiconductor War between Japan and South Korea
Americas2 days ago
When Democracy Becomes the Problem: Why So Many Millions Still Support Donald Trump
Africa2 days ago
The Impact of Xenophobic Attack on Nigerians
South Asia3 days ago
Kashmir Issue at the UNGA and the Nuclear Discourse
Southeast Asia2 days ago
China-Indonesia relations are expected to grow during Jokowi’s second term
East Asia2 days ago
China & Nepal working towards a genuine good-neighbour tie
Intelligence2 days ago
Strategy of Cyber Defense Structure in Political Theories